This website has previously considered many of the scriptural references turned to as proof that the soul lives on after death.  Having discussed hell and whether or not Christians go to heaven upon their death, only brief consideration has been given to the condition of the dead.

The Sleep of Death
Both the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures (New Testament and Old) define death as sleep.  A search of the King James Version finds this metaphor used on 66 different occasions.[1]  Some have suggested that death is a dreamlike state with the individual conscious but not as when alive, while for others the metaphor references the body distinct from the conscious soul. 

We can be confident that sleep does not refer only to the body based upon the metaphor's use.  Jesus spoke of Lazarus as one who while dead was 'asleep" (John 11:11-13), referring not merely to his body but to his person.  Any reference to Lazarus could not have been to his body alone without being inaccurate.  If there were life after death his body would have been asleep but Lazarus personally would have been conscious.  The words of Job reflect a similar view of death: “Now I shall sleep in the dust” (Job 7:21).  His words did not express that his body would be at rest apart from his soul.  To Job the whole person went 'into the dust.'

Viewing death as sleep well agrees what king Solomon wrote on the dead: “For the living know that they shall die; but the dead do not know anything; nor do they have any more a reward, for their memory is forgotten. Also their love, their hatred, and their envy has now perished; nor do they any longer have a part forever in all that is done under the sun… All that your hand finds to do, do it with your strength. For there is no work, or planning, or knowledge, or wisdom, in Sheol, there where you go” (Ecc. 9:5-6, 10). 

When considering Ecclesiastes 9 in our discussion on the soul we noted that contrary to what many suggest the text cannot be understood as referencing only the physical body, "under the sun."  Solomon maintains that we should get as much out of the present life as possible because of the nothingness of death.  If one were to maintain that his argument only addressed physical death without regard for the afterlife this idea would have been void.  One would have both physical life and an immaterial afterlife to enjoy.  It was the lack of an afterlife as an immaterial soul that made his argument valid. 

Beyond what takes place "under the sun," Solomon spoke of the dwelling place of the dead, sheol/hades (Ecc. 9:10).  These words, referring both to the grave and the dwelling place of departed souls in pagan religions, would have only brought confusion to many readers, ourselves included, if they were in reference only to the body apart from an immaterial soul.  Understood plainly they indicate that in death there is no consciousness. It is as dreamless sleep, it is blackness, it is nothing.    

Bringing objection some look for contradictory notions in the text.  From verse 5 it is noted that the dead "do not have any more a reward," arguing that there must be no future hope.  Suggested is the presentation of a humanistic perspective that is not inspired truth.  In actuality the text addressed those dead while dead, not considering any future hope of a resurrection.  This does not indicate that the author did not believe in such a hope, only that it was not relevant to the context.  In death there is no reward for we cannot experience anything, but in life there will be.   

A similar situation presents itself in verse 6, for the dead do not "have a part forever in all that is done under the sun."  Here suggested is that that if these ones "forever" have nothing to do "under the sun" they could not be resurrected.  Yet in the resurrection these ones are no longer counted among the dead.  They will be alive, able to have activity "under the sun," activity they could not have while dead.

Solomon is not speaking in apostasy or from only a human perspective, but the text is inspired (2Ti. 3:16).  The Bible repeats the ideas here presented, confirming the truth of Solomon's words: “His spirit goes out, he returns to the earth; in that day his thoughts perish” (Psa. 146:4).  The body does not cease to function while the person lives on as an immaterial soul, but "his thoughts perish."  He no longer has thoughts with or without his body.     

Does the spirit departing the body indicate an afterlife as a spirit?  Not at all, for the spirit is something God has 'given' us, 'returning to him' upon our death (Ecc. 12:7), not what we are outside of our body.  This refers to "the breath of life" (Gen. 2:7),  the activating influence upon our body that provides life.  N.T. Wright explains: “Death means that the body returns to the dust, and the breath to God who gave it; meaning not that an immortal part of the person goes to live with God, but that the God who breathed life’s breath into human nostrils in the first place will simply withdraw it into his own possession.”[2]   

Solomon further explained the matter as well:  “For that which happens to the sons of men, and that which happens to beasts, even one event is to them. As this one dies, so that one dies; yea, one breath is to all; so that there is to the man no advantage over the beast; for all is vanity.  All go to one place; all are of the dust, and all return to the dust.  Who knows the spirit of the sons of man, whether it goes upward; and the spirit of the beast, whether it goes downward to the earth?” (Ecc. 3:19-21).   

Our death is no different than the death of an animal, the end result being the same for both.  All is “all vanity” in death, for “all go to one place” and “all return to dust.”  It does not matter what we might do now, this outcome will be the same for everyone unless the end comes first.  This does not mean we have no hope beyond death, for we do in the resurrection.  But until then the result is the same. 

Considering the Opposing Proof Texts
Though having considered many opposing arguments in our preceding articles it is worthwhile to reconsider one significant point.  With many opposing proof texts mention of a soul or spirit is notably rare, the texts speaking instead of the whole person.  It is not uncommon to find descriptions of physical body parts or material clothing, all things we would not anticipate from something immaterial.  While detailed descriptions were not provided this was apparently the case in the transfiguration, where "men" were seen. 

With the transfiguration account many note the presence of Moses and Elijah, arguing for their life after death (Mat. 17:1-9).  Yet never does the text mention anything of their departed souls, speaking only of complete men (Luke 9:30).  Would anything have prohibited God from raising these men to life for a time to be physically present with Jesus?  If the text is to be  understood literally and not as a vision would this explanation not naturally follow?  On the other hand we may understand this as only a vision, Moses and Elijah being symbols representing the law and the prophets, respectively.  Christ would be in the center as their fulfillment. 

An account with the apostle Paul speaks of when he was "caught up to the third heaven" (2Cor. 12:1-4).  Doing this he was either 'in the body or out of the body, he did not know' (vs. 2).  Suggested is that if he were "out of the body" he was a departed soul, having gone to the in "the third heaven" while his body remained on the earth. 

The expression "out of the body" occurs only once outside of our text, in reference to sin at 1 Corinthians 6:18.  All sins other than fornication are "out of the body," meaning that they are in the mind and not defiling the flesh.  Fornication on the other hand defiles the flesh, so it is done 'in the body.'  When Paul used this expression in 2 Corinthians 12 he apparently had a similar meaning in mind.  Speaking of "visions and revelations," Paul expressed that he did not know if this was a vision, so in his mind and "outside of the body" or if he was "in the body," personally taken there.  Thus Adam Clarke explains: “That the apostle was in an ecstasy or trance, something like that of Peter, Acts 10:9, etc., there is reason to believe; but we know that being carried literally into heaven was possible to the Almighty. But as he could not decide himself, it would be ridiculous in us to attempt it.”[3]  While many commentators argue that Paul is contrasting a physical visit to the third heaven or a visit as a soul, even Gill confesses this other option: “Whether this was not all in a visionary way, as John was ‘in the Spirit’ on the Lord's day, and Ezekiel was taken by a lock of his head, and lifted up by the Spirit between earth and heaven, and brought ‘in the visions of God to Jerusalem’, cannot be said.”[4]

These texts as with the others elsewhere considered on this website do not support the idea of an afterlife.  Admittedly some might be interpreted to do so, but when it is even an option it is not at all necessary and often not best.  Considering all that scripture teaches we can determine that there is not support for the idea of life after death, contrary to the claims of many.  Death is sleep and that the sleep is a state of complete unawareness wherein our 'thought's perish' (Psa. 146:4). Yet this is not the end, for this sleep will flash by in what will seem to be the blink of an eye and then God’s servants, along with many others, will be resurrected.