2

According to believers in an eternal conscious torment (ECT) or separation (ECS) of the wicked, this is the punishment that Revelation 20 refers to as the "second death". But, if the damned will suffer the second death, it means that they will be dead (duh), and eternally so. Only the saints will have eternal life. Yet, advocates of ECT/ECS affirm that the damned will be conscious of all this, eternally as well. Therefore, from these two facts it follows that the damned will be both dead and conscious at the same time, and, thus, that consciousness and life are not synonyms, they don't mean the same thing.

Questions

According to advocates of ECT/ECS:

  • What is the biblical basis for their definition of death?
  • What is the biblical basis for their definition of life?
  • What is the biblical basis for their definition of consciousness?
  • What is the biblical basis for the belief that consciousness is present in both modes of existence (dead & alive)? How is it possible for the dead to be conscious?

Note: answering the above questions can be confusing given that two types of death exist (first death & second death), and thus possibly two different definitions of life (opposite of first death & opposite of second death). I'm mostly concerned with the second death (as stated in the introductory paragraph), but discussions on the first death would also be appreciated.

Related: How can the wicked live for eternity in hell when they are completely separated from the only source of eternal life?

1 Answers1

0

Life & Death

The Bible describes mortal life as a coming together of spirit & body (Genesis 2:7), and it describes mortal death as a separation of spirit & body (Eccl. 12:7).

The Bible describes eternal life in terms of a relationship with God (John chapter 17, see esp. vss. 3, 19-26), and it describes eternal destruction in terms of separation from God (2 Thess. 1:9).

--

Consciousness

The Bible does not provide a clinical definition of consciousness; rather, it describes the actions of conscious agents. They think, they feel, they make decisions, etc. If we wanted to be extremely precise, instead of contrasting death & consciousness, we could contrast death & thinking, feeling, deciding, etc. For purposes of simplicity, I will refer to these traits as "conscious".

The Bible repeatedly demonstrates a distinction between death and being unconscious.

A few examples:

  • The Prodigal Son is described as dead (Luke 15:24,32). The son never physically dies in the story--but his father describes him as having been dead. His father isn't killing the fatted calf for a dia de los muertos celebration & dressing the boy up for a viewing at the morgue--he knows his son is alive. His son was separated (from his family, from his faith) and he has now rejoined. The son's anguish during the story clearly demonstrates that he's conscious.
  • In 2 Cor. 12:1-4 Paul describes one or more visions in which he acknowledges uncertainty about whether the person experiencing the vision (possibly himself) was in or out of the body. Ergo, one can be conscious without a body.
  • In Colossians 2:13 Paul describes conscious, active people as having been dead because of sin. They were simultaneously dead & conscious.
  • In Luke 16 Jesus offers the parable of the rich man & Lazarus, which describes Hades as a conscious intermediate state for the dead. See my arguments for the realistic setting of the parable in this post.
  • In 1 Peter 3:18-20, 4:6 we are told that Jesus (while dead) preached to the dead spirits in prison. That this was the apostolic understanding of the passage is well-supported by the words of their early disciples (see here).

Other examples along similar lines could be cited.

--

Conclusion

The Bible describes physical & spiritual death in terms of joining & separating.

The Bible also describes (and/or acknowledges the possibility of) conscious activity by individuals who are separated from their physical body and by individuals who are separated from God.

Hold To The Rod
  • 12,999
  • 1
  • 12
  • 48
  • "uncertainty about whether the person experiencing the vision (possibly himself) was in or out of the body. Ergo, one can be conscious without a body." How does, "consciousness is possible without embodiment" follow from, "I don't know whether I was in my body or without it"? Paul's confusion doesn't necessitate that consciousness can exist without a body. "that Jesus (while dead) preached to the dead spirits in prison" The passage doesn't actually say that. What it says is Jesus preached to the spirits in prison in His spirit, which He received when He was "made alive in it[spirit]". – Rajesh Feb 20 '22 at 05:06
  • @Rajesh if Paul (as an apostle & an extremely well-informed student of the Tanakh) believed one could not be conscious without a body, he wouldn't have expressed the uncertainty found in verses 2 & 3. I also referenced 1 Peter 4:6, and linked to how the Petrine passages were understood by the earliest commentators. – Hold To The Rod Feb 20 '22 at 05:10
  • "Colossians 2:13 Paul describes conscious, active people as having been dead" You're conflating two different types of death. The death that Paul is talking about is spiritual death(disconnection from the source of life[God], inevitably leading to death). I'm pretty sure that the OP is talking about physical death(where the body is destroyed and the life-breath leaves it[body] to go to God). Obviously, spiritual death doesn't correlate to consciousness, so Colossians 2:13 doesn't really help your point; but what about physical death? That's the question. – Rajesh Feb 20 '22 at 05:13
  • @Rajesh Obviously, spiritual death doesn't correlate to consciousness - can I quote you on that? =) – Hold To The Rod Feb 20 '22 at 05:16
  • @Rajesh: I'm pretty sure that the OP is talking about physical death - Actually, I'm mainly concerned with the second death. If the second death is physical, then I would agree with you. Otherwise, I don't. –  Feb 20 '22 at 05:16
  • @Rajesh: Well, if the Second Death is not physical death, but permanent spiritual death, obviously it wouldn't correlate to consciousness. - right, but is the Second Death not physical death? –  Feb 20 '22 at 05:23
  • @Rajesh - I thought it was obvious from the introductory paragraph and the fact that question is scoped to ECT/ECS advocates that I'm talking about the Second Death. Quote: this is the punishment that Revelation 20 refers to as the "second death". –  Feb 20 '22 at 05:29
  • @Rajesh - No, I'm asking ECT/ECS advocates to define the second death, and how it is possible to be conscious in that state. Answers can solve the dilemma either by showing that the second death is physical AND how it is possible to be conscious while physically dead, OR by showing that the second death is spiritual AND how it is possible to be conscious while spiritually dead. –  Feb 20 '22 at 05:45
  • @HoldToTheRod Hey, I have a question about your interpretation of Ecclesiastes 9:5. Your interpretation of "the dead know nothing" is "the dead know nothing [about the earth and what occurs on it{under the sun}]", correct? Doesn't that mean that the dead forget about their families and friends... and about everything they did in life(that's what "under the sun" includes)? "Nothing" means, well, not anything at all. Sure, they know about what happens to them in the afterlife(i.e. Abraham's bosom or torment in Hades), but they don't know about their life or what they did on earth, correct? – Rajesh Feb 20 '22 at 05:48
  • @HoldToTheRod Ah yes, I've seen Scott's answer. One problem. Grammatically, no more knowledge being gained of what is occurring in life is not a possible interpretation of Ecclesiastes 9:5. Scott actually presents us with 3 grammatically valid options(i.e. (A) But the ones being dead are not about themselves knowing anything. (B) But the ones being dead are not of [the living] knowing anything. (C) But the ones being dead, they are not knowing anything). He's right; those are the valid options. But you know what isn't? The knowledge being gained option. Eccl 9:5 cannot be saying that. – Rajesh Feb 20 '22 at 17:54
  • He concludes, "The focus is not necessarily knowledge ceasing to exist for those being dead, but rather that there is no more partaking in the things of life— no more knowledge being gained of what is occurring in life.*" And yet, that wasn't one of the grammatically valid options he provided! He did a thorough analysis of the Hebrew grammar that I cannot contend with; the options(A, B, and C) he provided are*, as he says, the only grammatically valid options, and yet his conclusion doesn't even agree with any of them! "Knowledge being gained" is just grammatically impossible. – Rajesh Feb 20 '22 at 18:00