Hebrews 9:27 King James Version > 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: ## Background: Hebrews 9:27 is used literally to refute the concept of reincarnation and salvation after death. As in https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/93163/60459 and https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/17258/60459 *Warning: This question is not at all about reincarnation or salvation after death, but rather about how the verse itself is understood.* ## Question Given that there are counter examples to the notion that men only die once, in what ways do Christian denominations reconcile the discrepancy between Hebrews 9:27 and its Biblical counter-examples? ## The Counter examples: - **Example 0.A: Enoch** Enoch never died, so he did not die once. - **Example 0.B: Elijah** Elijah never died, so he did not die once. - **Example 1: Lazarus** Lazarus clearly died once: John 11:14 King James Version > 14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead. Jesus brought him back to life: John 11:44 King James Version > 44 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. **And clearly Lazarus died a second time eventually.** <a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gotquestions.org%2Fwhat-happened-to-Lazarus.html" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Got Question <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a> addresses Lazarus ultimate fate: >The Bible gives us no further information about Lazarus. Any additional details stem from church history and may or may not be accurate. One tradition holds that, after Jesus’ ascension back into heaven, Lazarus and his sisters moved to Cyprus where Lazarus became the bishop of Kition and died of natural causes in AD 63. Another theory claims that Lazarus and his sisters moved to Gaul to preach the gospel, and Lazarus became the bishop of Marseilles, where he was beheaded under the tyranny of Emperor Domitian. Whatever happened to Lazarus is unknown. **But we can be certain that his physical body died a second time**. And we know that, according to 1 Corinthians 15:51–53 and 1 Thessalonians 4:14–17, Lazarus will be raised again from the dead to join all God’s saints in eternity. - **Example 2: The saints that rose from the dead** Matthew 27:52-53 King James Version > 52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. **Clearly these saints died once, were brought back to life and eventually died again** - **Example 3: The young dead man at Nain** Luke 7:14-15 King James Version > 14 And he came and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise. 15 And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother. **Clearly the man died once, and then eventually died a second time**

My question is NOT about how [soul sleep](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mortalism) advocates interpret Luke 16:19-31 -- that's an exegetical question that has already been asked [elsewhere](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/59681/50422) . Rather, my question is about understanding, from the soul sleep perspective, why God would, in His providence, let a parable like [the rich man and Lazarus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_man_and_Lazarus) be part of the canon, knowing in advance that it would mislead so many people to the wrong conclusion (that the dead are conscious). God, being omniscient and all powerful, surely knew that millions of Christians would take elements of the parable at face value and would wrongly conclude that the spirit of a person remains conscious after death. Why would God let an inspired parable mislead so many people like that? _______ Related questions: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83011/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83846/50422 Similar question, but about a different controversial topic: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83092/50422 _____ #### Am I asking a [loaded question](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question) ? From Wikipedia: *"A loaded question is a form of [complex question](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question) that contains a controversial assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt)."* My question certainly has an assumption, namely, that Luke 16:19-31 has led possibly millions of Christians to conclude that the dead are conscious. Is this assumption controversial? I don't think so. Whenever I've asked people for the biblical basis for the dead being conscious, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is easily in the top 3 most cited passages (see for example [here](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/25699/38524) , [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/89009/50422) and [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/89016/50422)) . Similarly, the [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_man_and_Lazarus#Afterlife_doctrine) on the parable says: > **Most Christians believe in the immortality of the soul** and particular judgment and see the story as consistent with it, or **even refer to it to establish these doctrines like St. Irenaeus did**. Therefore, the assumption is warranted, and thus the question is not loaded. _______ UPDATE: user 'Hold To The Rod' has recently made a very solid case [here](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/74082/38524) for viewing the setting of the parable as realistic, including supporting quotes from a copious number of ante-Nicene Fathers who openly advocated a conscious intermediate state. In the same line, I also suggest the curious reader to take a look at the questions https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89518/50422 & https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89140/50422 . This reinforces the premise of my question: if Soul Sleep is true, then the early Church was **MASSIVELY** misled.

Commentating on John 11:11 -14, >he said to them: "Lazarus our friend sleepeth; but I go that I may awake him out of sleep." His disciples therefore said: "Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well." But Jesus spoke of his death; and they thought that he spoke of the repose of sleep. Then therefore Jesus said to them plainly: Lazarus is dead. St. Augustine wrote (quoted in St. Thomas Aquinas's *Catena Aurea* on John 11 ): >It was really true that He was sleeping. To our Lord, he was sleeping; to men who could not raise him again, he was dead. Our Lord awoke him with as much ease from his grave, as you awake a sleeper from his bed. So, which is it? Was Lazarus's soul united to his body (and in a coma) or not (thus truly dead)?

In the classic Bible story, Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead after Lazarus was dead for 4 days. Where (if they do at all) does the Catholic Church teach his soul was? If there isn’t a specific doctrine, is there a commonly held belief in the church?

The Bible records several accounts of resurrections. A gotquestions' article titled *[How many people were raised from the dead in the Bible?](https://www.gotquestions.org/raised-from-the-dead.html)* lists several examples: - The widow of Zarephath’s son (1 Kings 17:17–24) - The Shunammite woman’s son (2 Kings 4:18–37) - The man raised out of Elisha’s grave (2 Kings 13:20–21) - The widow of Nain’s son (Luke 7:11–17) - Jairus’ daughter (Luke 8:40–56) - Lazarus of Bethany (John 11) - Various saints in Jerusalem (Matthew 27:50–53) - Tabitha (Acts 9:36–43) - Eutychus (Acts 20:7–12) - Jesus (Mark 16:1–8) **If people remain conscious after bodily death**, it stands to reason that the resurrected individuals from these stories had to be conscious while they were dead. Therefore, they had to get to experience the afterlife, even if it was only for a few hours or a few days. For example, Lazarus of Bethany (John 11) was dead for 4 days. That means 4 days of conscious experiences on the "other side". Or think about the resurrection of the various saints in Jerusalem (Matthew 27:50-53). These folks were probably in Abraham's bosom for a very long time, possibly hundreds of years. That is, hundreds of years of extraordinary conscious experiences in the afterlife. With this in mind, a natural question to ask is: Where are their testimonies? How come we can't find even a single Biblical account of the afterlife experiences of any of these resurrected individuals? **If the dead are conscious,** then why is the Bible silent about the afterlife experiences of those who were resurrected and had the chance to tell us about it, but for some mysterious reason didn't?

I’m doing a talk in a few weeks on the story of ‘the Rich Man and Lazarus’ (Luke 16:19-31), and I find that it fits quite nicely with the account of the raising of Lazarus from the dead in John 11. In particular:

• The name ‘Lazarus’ is used in both accounts without any disambiguation. Usually when more than one person has the same name, we get a surname or other point of identification. Eg. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Judas - not Iscariot etc. Here it’s just ‘Lazarus’. Nor is he just a bit player with one or two mentions. Lazarus is named 4 times in Luke 16, and 11 times in John 11-12.
• The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus offers no clue to why Lazarus goes to “Abraham’s bosom” other than that in his lifetime he ‘received bad things’. Are we to understand that everyone who has a tough life goes to heaven? If however we grant him being the Lazarus of John 11, then the answer is clear. Lazarus is identified by his sisters in John 11:3 by “He whom you love is sick”. So he went to heaven because he loved Jesus and Jesus loved him.
• The rich man asks for Lazarus to be sent back to his brothers, and while Abraham is pessimistic about the prospects he doesn’t actually deny the request. And then we find in John 11 that a man called Lazarus is indeed ‘sent back’. And in John 12:10-11, Abraham’s assessment is confirmed – Lazarus’ resurrection results in the chief priests seeking to put him to death again because it’s causing people to believe in Jesus.

One thing that is difficult to reconcile is how Lazarus could be a beggar when a) he was buried in a tomb (John 11:38), and b) his sister Mary produced perfume worth a year’s wages to anoint Jesus (John 11:2; 12:5). However there are three other accounts of this anointing (Matt 26:6-14; Mark 14:3-10; Luke 7:36-50), and in the Luke account the anointer is described as a ‘sinful woman’ (Luke 7:39) – presumably a prostitute. This puts the family in a quite different light. Far from being a well-to-do middle-class family, we see something much grittier. Lazarus is a poor beggar, while his sister Mary makes big money as a prostitute - and apparently doesn’t share with her brother. Yet Jesus met this family and loved them (John 11:5).

This all follows quite naturally, but I find that most commentary on these stories dismisses the possibility that it could be the same Lazarus. So perhaps I’ve missed something important in this, or maybe there are implications that are too uncomfortable for us to accept. Such as:

• It upsets our idea of the Mary who sat at Jesus’ feet (Luke 10:38-41). The usual understanding of her is a pious virtuous woman, listening attentively because it’s the ‘right thing to do’. This interpretation reveals her as a desperate sinner hearing words of grace from her Saviour. Of course she should be excused from meal preparation this time - she has crucial business to do.
• It upsets our idea of who Jesus should love. John 11:5 has “Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.” It’s a bit disturbing to think of them as a dysfunctional family. We’d much rather see Jesus loving respectable folk. But loving the unlovely is quite in character for Jesus, and complaining about it is quite in character for everyone else. Eg. Matt 11:19; Luke 5:29-30; Luke 15:1-2.

I realise this view is unpopular, but there must be a reason for it. Have I missed something important, or is this simply prejudice?

EDIT: I know there are strong opinions on this topic, but if you’re going to give an answer, ***please provide something based on Scripture rather than unsubstantiated assertions and assumptions***.

We see the spontaneous reaction of Jesus when he joins the sisters of his dead friend Lazarus in an emotional union , in Jn 11:32-35: > When Mary came where Jesus was and saw him, she knelt at his feet and said to him, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, he was greatly disturbed in spirit and deeply moved. He said, “Where have you laid him?” They said to him, “Lord, come and see.” Jesus began to weep. In flashback, we see Jesus delaying his visit to Bethany in spite of having been told that Lazarus was ill : > After having heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was. - (Jn 11:6). We also see Martha complaining to Jesus for his absence: > Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.(Jn 11: 21) Now, reading all the things together, one wonders as to why Jesus who had foreseen the death of Lazarus and then came over to bring him back to life, joined his sisters and friends in lamenting for him. Is it that he had stayed away at the time of Lazarus's death with a purpose, as he says to his disciples in Jn 11: 14-15 : Then Jesus told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead. For your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.” My question therefore is: Was the weeping of Jesus in Jn 11:35 an integral part of the divine scheme of things involving the death and resurrection of Lazarus? To be more specific, was Jesus abiding by the Will of the Father by staying away from Lazarus for four days ? What do the teachings of Catholic Church say on the weeping of Jesus prior to the resurrection of Lazarus ?

Doesn't this parable indicate that people have some kind of soul or spirit that is conscious even after death?