Some Christian denominations teach that a person is spiritually immortal, while others assert that when he dies he completely ceases to exist but will be ‘resurrected on the last day'. Nearly every variation between these extremes is taught by one or other group that professes to be Christian. My purpose is to examine some of the evidence from the Scriptures, particularly the New Testament, regarding the meaning of death and the question of what happens immediately after the physical death of a person. The beliefs of the non-Christian religions are beyond the scope of this discussion, but there is no suggestion that they should be dismissed, for they can offer solutions to some of the riddles not addressed within the Christian framework.

 

The Concept of Death

In the Scriptures, 'death' clearly has multiple meanings. First there is the notion of physical death where the tangible body ceases to function or respond to stimuli. The decay process sets in, eventually returning it to basic raw materials that are recycled by nature on a continuous basis. The occurrence of this kind of death is beyond rational dispute. However, the word 'death' is also used in the non-physical sense as seen in the following examples:

• In the parable of the invited guests (Luke 9:60), Christ's response to those who gave excuses why they were not ready to come was, 'Let the dead bury their own dead.' Obviously those responsible for conducting the burial could only be dead in a non-physical way.
  


• Saint Paul taught the early Christian community that they must be 'dead to sin and alive in Christ' (Rom 6:2), using the word 'dead' in the sense of detachment and separation.
  


• In the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:24) , the father celebrated that his returning son 'was dead and has come back to life; was lost and is found.' Again, 'death' must mean alienation or separation, for the prodigal son was never physically dead.

 

Resurrection

The argument that when a person dies he ceases to exist, has no biblical foundation. This follows from the promise of the 'resurrection on the last day'. If the person completely ceased to exist, then it could be argued that the resurrection would necessarily have to be a re-creation. That is not what the Scriptures teach.

• When the daughter of Jairus died, Jesus referred to her state as sleep (Mark 5:39) . The sleeping person does not cease to exist, and the condition of sleep is often very rich in experiences in the form of dreams. What appears to be true of sleep is that the person's consciousness is largely cut off from the external realities.
  


• An interesting question arises regarding the death of Christ. Did he also cease to exist during the interval between his death and resurrection? The evidence is strongly to the contrary, for in one discourse with the Pharisees he states, 'Destroy this temple and in three days I will build it up again' (John 2:19-21). The writer of the gospel makes it clear that Jesus was referring to the temple of his own body. If Christ ceased to exist upon his death, he could not rebuild anything.
  


• When Christ was discussing the resurrection in the gospel according to Luke, he quoted from the Old Testament, "I am the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob". He continued with the explanation that God is not the God of the dead but of the living "...for to Him all men are alive." (Luke 20:38) . This again would be little more than a meaningless play on words if in fact they had ceased to exist.

Some theorise that at the resurrection the original materials of the body would simply be re-united. However this is implausible. Despite the continuity of the person's basic identity from birth to (physical) death, the cells of the body are continuously reproducing, being broken down and eliminated, so that by the time the average body finally dies it is made up of very different materials. The question then arises: Which materials would be reunited to form the resurrected body, and would that be of any importance?

 

Altogether, the evidence suggests that if there is to be a resurrection rather than a re-creation, there must be some form of continuity of identity and it could not be a physical one. Reason also supports the need for continuity if eternal reward or punishment is to have any meaning: It would seem rather absurd to re-create someone solely for the purpose of punishing him for the evil he did before he ceased to exist!

 

Immortality

The teaching that a person has an 'immortal soul' is consistent with the usage of the word ‘soul' in the New Testament. It refers to that indestructible 'continuity' which endures through to the resurrection. Christ recognised the distinction between body and soul when he said, ‘Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul' (Matt 10:28) . Once again, if the entire person ceased to exist when the body is killed such a statement would be irrational, and the clear implications are that there is a continuity of personal existence after physical death. Saint Paul also distinguishes between 'spirit, soul and body', suggesting that the fate of the body is not necessarily the immediate destiny of the person.

 

Life and Death

To examine the concept of death meaningfully, it is necessary to consider the use of the word 'life', as the terms are complementary. Physical life is clearly a matter of degree, for the body may be partially paralysed or the senses impaired. The same argument could be applied within the mental, emotional and spiritual contexts. From this perspective, death must also be a matter of kind and degree, and this is consistent with the parable of the Good Samaritan where the robbers are said to have left the victim 'half dead' (Luke 10:30) .

 

What all forms of death appear to have in common is a degree of paralysis, powerlessness and insensitivity. The quote that 'the dead know nothing' (Eccl 9:5) is particularly plausible in terms of kind and degree. For example, the emotionally dead know nothing emotional. In the spiritual sense, death can be seen as separation from God who is ultimately the source of all truth and life. The Biblical statement that 'the wages of sin is death' (Rom 6:23), harmonises with this reasoning, for sin causes alienation that can lead to separation from the one we offend.

 

After Physical Death

Much debate has taken place over what happens to a person when he dies physically, and interpretations of the Scriptures vary. If we accept that the person does not simply cease to exist, then at one extreme we find the belief that the person is 'at rest', experiencing nothing, or he could be in some other state. If the biblical analogy between sleep and death is accepted, then the position of 'experiencing nothing' would be hard to defend. However, the teaching that the dead go to some loosely defined ‘heaven' or ‘hell' has some biblical support. In the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:20), both die and the latter is taken to 'the bosom of Abraham', clearly a place of comfort while the rich man is taken to a place of torment. However, it is noteworthy that the parable does not say Lazarus was taken into the presence of God, for the communication that takes place in the story is only between the rich man and Abraham. The context is also set prior to the death and resurrection of Christ and certainly well before His second coming on ‘the last day', for the rich man wants to warn his brothers who are still living. Thus it was clearly not referring to the final resurrection but to the intervening period.

 

One may be accused of taking the words of the parable too literally in preference to a more symbolic interpretation, but I find it significant that Christ chose such a parable. Either it was unintentionally misleading as to what happens immediately after physical death, which is unlikely with Christ, or he was clarifying something that had not been properly understood.

 

Another debate focuses on the words of Christ to the 'good thief' as they were dying on the cross: 'I say to you this day you will be with me in paradise' (Luke 23:43) . Should it be read as 'I say to you, this day you will be with me in paradise' [very soon] or 'I say to you this day, you will be with me in paradise' [at some future time]. Note the different interpretations according to the placement of the coma. The main argument offered in support of the latter interpretation is that evidently Christ did not go to paradise that day, for he said to Mary Magdalene just after his resurrection, 'Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to the Father.' Nevertheless this argument is flawed as it assumes that paradise is necessarily in the full presence of God. The expression ‘this day' would also be logically redundant and would appear to be the only place in the Gospels where that style of expression was used. The former interpretation, on the other hand, is much more direct and consistent with other evidence.

 

Christ's Promise

According to the New Testament, Christ is the renewed link to the only real source of truth and life. He said, 'I am the way, the truth and the life' (John 14:6), ‘I am the bread of life' (John 6:35), 'I have come that they may have life and have it in abundance.' Christ assured his followers that 'Who lives and believes in me will never die' (John 11:25), and Saint Paul encouraged the early Christians to live in Jesus Christ. Those who died physically but had followed this teaching should therefore still have life in another sense. Although it is sometimes argued that before the second coming of Christ, the word never cannot be taken literally, for obviously everyone does die, if one accepts that Christ did not mislead his disciples, 'never' should mean never. The apparent inconsistency disappears immediately when physical death is not taken to imply that the person has completely ceased to exist in any form.

 

The anecdotal evidence of 'near death experiences' tends to support the notion of the continuity of personal existence, and those who have had these experiences almost invariably lose their fear of (physical) death and live better lives as a result. Some even remark that this earthly existence is a mere shadow of the reality they had experienced. Naturally, it is impossible to prove that these people were actually dead, as science recognises death only in final physically irreversible terms, and similar experiences can also be induced with drugs and other means without the usual signs of physical death.

 

Out-of-body experiences are, however, much harder to explain away, particularly when the person reports having seen provable events during his ‘out of body' state that would have been impossible to see had he been 'within' his body at the time. This further supports the duality of human nature and may contribute to a deeper insight into life and death than was common in Old Testament times.

 

The Last Day

What, then, is the significance of the physical resurrection on the 'last day'? We have no clear indication of what it is like to be dead, but If sleep is a suitable analogy then we might be happy but not at our fullest potential. In such a state we cannot control material things or build as a community. For those who were faithful to God's word, perhaps the time between physical death and the promised resurrection may be like a worker deprived of his tools but endowed with comforts, which is consistent with the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus . The Scriptures foretell that on the ‘last day' there will be great changes. Some of these are conveyed only in very general terms, as they would probably have been harder to describe to the people of the time than a picture of life in the twenty-first century. The indications are that we would ‘rise again' and presumably our ability to interact with people and things would be restored, and we would be judged according to the way we had lived. Beyond that, little has been revealed.

 

Philosophy and Science

While all the major religions teach continuity of life after death in some form, the majority of philosophers and many scientists are more sceptical. By scientific criteria, the existence of life after death remains unproven, and those who are inclined to place all their confidence in evidence-based reasoning often dismiss the possibility. To them, religion is prone to superstition and tends to stubbornly retain dogmas that appear at odds with confirmed observation. Historically, this view is partly justified, and explains much of the decline of religion and the growing supremacy of science in the modern world. However, despite its remarkable contributions to society, science also has a number of serious limitations. Among these -

• It is necessarily reliant on observation, which by its nature can only take place in the past or present. The future is not observable and all scientific predictions are mere projections based on what is already known.
  
  
• It is also curtailed by our current ability to observe, namely the limitations of the human senses and existing technology.

The scientific approach has demonstrated its superiority in explaining much of what ‘is' and ‘has been', but appears largely powerless to reveal what ‘can be', ‘will be' , or indeed, ‘should be'. These continue to lie more in the province of speculation and religion. Thus, science and religion remain complementary, and trespass in each other's domain at the risk of some embarrassment.

 

Nevertheless, hard evidence regarding the continuity of personal life is scarce and the notion of life after death remains mostly a question of faith and hope. Some dismiss the concept as merely wishful thinking, but the existence of the wish is not evidence against the possibility. With anything related to the future, it pays to keep an open mind. As history has repeatedly demonstrated, we can be confident that possibilities exist far beyond our imagination.