Customer Reviews

Death and the Afterlife

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Dr. Morey is well known in Christian apologetic circles and counter-cult ministry, and this book is one of his best works. It is also a contemporary classic in the genre (eschatology). The book is divided into two parts, each with 5 chapters. Part I, Exposition, concentrates on the explanation and application of key principles of biblical interpretation as they relate to the subjects of death and the afterlife. The five chapter titles of Part I are: 1) The Hermeneutics of Death, 2) Body, Soul and Spirit, 3) Sheol, Hades and Gehenna, 4) Immortality, Resurrection, and Everlasting Life, and 5) Punishment: Conscious and Eternal. Chapters 1 - 3 discuss 6 key interpretive principles, the nature of humankind, and the Hebrew & Greek words used in the Bible to refer to human nature and certain places in the afterlife. Chapter 4 is short and acts as a sort of preface to the much longer Chapter 5 which, as the chapter title suggests, argues that hell is conscious and unending punishment for sin. Biblical terminology is analyzed along with the usage of terms in Rabbinic literature, the New Testament Apocrypha, and Patristic writings.

Part II, Defense, takes the conclusions of Part I and strengthens them with an apologetic approach that addresses anti-biblical contemporary belief systems regarding death and the afterlife. The 5 chapter titles of Part II are: 6) The Present Situation, 7) Materialism, 8) Annihilationism, 9) Universalism, and 10) Occultism. According to Dr. Morey, materialism is the reduction of everything to matter. Annihilationism is the theory that the wicked pass into non-existence either at death or at the resurrection. Universalism is the idea that all men will find themselves ultimately in an eternal state of bliss, and Occultism involves communication with the spirits of the dead.

There are two appendices. The first was written by Dr. Alfred Edersheim and is entitled "On Eternal Punishment, According to the Rabbis and the New Testament." The second appendix is a compilation of additional readings from Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (two early Church fathers). Overall, this book is an essential reference work in the study of anthropology and eschatology. It was one of the works that contributed to my personal belief that God alone is "eternal" (without beginning or end) and everything else is either temporal or "everlasting" as He wills. Although "eternal" and "everlasting" are sometimes used synonymously, the uniqueness of God must be preserved and the fact that God can sustain someone in existence forever must not be forgotten.

This book by Dr. Robert Morey is in my opinion the best argument in print on the biblical teaching of the life after death. I did use it extensively when writing a major technical paper at the teological faculty of the University of Aarhus, Denmark. The subject for the paper was an investigation of the arguments used by the socalled "annihilationists" (for example John Stott, Clark Pinnock, John Wenham, Michael Green, Fudge, the Seventh Say Adventists and Jehovas Witnesses). I read nearly every book I could find on this subject in danish, norwegian, swedish, german and english. Many of these books did provide good and strong arguments but no one did outrange this book by Dr. Robert Morey. Morey takes the arguments of the annihilationists one by one and demolishes them totally. By this book NOW - before it goes out of print! Klaus Dahl, Denmark

As a Bible college graduate and seminary student, I have read literally hundreds of theological books in my life from many different perspectives--including opinions in which I would greatly disagree. Regardless if you agree or disagree with Morey, this book has got to be the most complete and thorough exegetical thesis on the topic of death and the afterlife I have ever read. Where some authors give simple, watered-down insights for those who may not grasp the deeper meanings of things (and this is not said in an offensive way, just an honest way), Morey spends considerable time "teaching" on the rules of Hermenuetics before he even so much as mentions the topic of death in the opening chapters. He then takes time to exegete just about every Scripture in the Bible pertaining to death and the after life. He also goes into a very intense history lesson pertaining to death/afterlife as it related to the philosophical beliefs of the cultures that were contemporary with the Bible's authorship. He also goes into an examination of Jewish and church history, which is very interesting.

I am not sure if what I am about to say is negative or positive, but I must state that this book is not for beginners to sit down and read. It is clearly written as a seminary textbook. Sometimes people have simple questions about death and unless they understand deeper, more complex issues in theology, the book will probably be over their head. Again, this is not a critique--it is just reality. For a beginner to read this book would be like a first grader walking into an advanced calculus class trying to grasp what was being taught.

But, to give Morey the benefit of the doubt, how can one make a subject like this any simpler without taking away the advanced knowledge? For instance, if a first grader were to ask a rocket scientist, "What is Rocket Science?", where would the scientist begin? The questions about afterlife and death demands more than a simple answer. As stated in my opening paragraph, there are other authors who give simpler, watered down insights for those who may not grasp the deeper meanings of death and the afterlife. It may be that one should read them first to build a foundation of eschatological understanding. While other books may state what they perceive as "truth," many do not contain the reasons why the "truth" is what it is. Once one gets a theological foundation built, then this book should be read. Morey not only gives you his belief about death/afterlife, he also gives you a reason why he believes what he believes.

Regardless of how difficult a read the book is due to the depth of the subject matter, I would suggest reading this book. If you feel issues are over your head, sit down and digest it a few pages at a time (as I had to do at times!) even if it takes you a year. I think once you understand Morey's point of view, you will appreciate it more. And, you will walk away with a seminary education in the process!

Dr. Morey exposes false views and presents the clear Biblical teaching on Death and the Afterlife. Exceeding that which is writen in the Bible causes much confusion. Anyone wanting to know all that can be known, without exceeding what the Bible teaches, should read this book. Also, a clear description of all opposing points of view is given. Christians will be amazed at the error that is taught, or not taught, on this subject.

What does the Bible say about death and eternity? Who'll be resurrected, and to what end? Will everyone be saved, or might some people simply pass into non-existence upon death? This book explores these subjects in depth, comparing biblical teachings to other views from the occult to the universalist.

This is a very thorough and in-depth book on the subject of death and the after-life. Dr. Morey sets the book out in a very logical manner and is a very good book to add to any library.

While a lot of your thoughts have validity they don't address the whole problem presented in the bible hence why I believe Morey's and others view hold much weight and too need to be considered. You mentioned Eccl 9:5 the dead are conscious of nothing at all but Eccl 12 7 says Then the dust returns to the earth just as it happened to be and the spirit itself returns to the [true] God who gave it. So yes the body dies but the Spirit returns to God. Do you throw that out because of Ecc 9:5? Eccl 9:5 could be argued that ones who have died no longer posses any knowledge of events here on earth nor will any of their work here on earth have any reward. Right off the JW website I cut and pasted Eccl 3:20-21 from the New World translation " All are going to one place. They have all come to be from the dust, and they are all returning to the dust. 21 Who is there knowing the spirit of the sons of mankind, whether it is ascending upward; and the spirit of the beast, whether it is descending downward to the earth?" This clearly shows the mystery that at least Solomon held on this subject but in Eccl 12:7 its shows that the Spirit of man goes back to God. If we look at Eccl 3:11 NWT 11 Everything he has made pretty in its time. Even time indefinite he has put in their heart, that mankind may never find out the work that the [true] God has made from the start to the finish." Obviously man is not the same as beast he didn't put eternity into the hearts of the animals did he? I believe its very risky business to come to complete conclusions from the book of Ecclesiastes alone for example Eccl 10:19 Men prepare a meal for enjoyment, and wine makes life merry, and money is the answer to everything. Obviously money isn't the answer to all things! There are a lot of extremes in Ecclesiastes.
You mentioned your reservations about Phil 1:"21 For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. 22But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose. 23But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better" I don't think you have to do much research to understand what he was saying here. To die is Gain?? Why gain? Having a desire to depart and be with Christ? Look also at 2 Cor 5 1-8 Paul CLEARLY states that being out of the body is to be present with the Lord. I believe He knew that he would be with Christ immediately. Your position that he knew this would be after the resurrection thousands of years later doesn't seem to explain the almost excitement Paul has at the anticipation of the immediacy of his expression. This line of thinking also dovetails in with the thief on the cross account. The thief would have taken very little comfort in the fact that Christ was telling him that today you will be in paradise with me actually meant thousands of years later! Your whole JW position on this one subject does have some good points and it makes understanding just what happens at death somewhat contradicting at times. But your position is only one sided.
You appeared to try to throw the whole book under the bus regarding the mistake in the beginning of the book. It's unfortunate that the book starts out with the wrong quote being attributed to Solomon but that doesn't void its contents. But you organizations endless failed prophecies/dates like 1914,1925, 1975. Your Governing Bodies unwillingness to admit that they have in fact stated in their literature that they are a prophet of God Wt,1/15/59,pg40,41 or Wt,4/1/72,pg197. Your position on allowing products made from blood to be consumed. Example gamma globulin shots or hemophiliac preparations made from over 200 plus quarts of stored blood for one preparation and at the same time children dying in car accidents by refusal to accept blood. P.S. blood isn't a feeding it's a liquid tissue transplant. Your position that there is 2 classes of Christians are examples of your own willingness to commit to ideas which are unbiblical as well. Actually you may not given this much thought but your mere acceptance that the supposed "anointed " are going immediately in the presence of God when they die to rule with Christ actually is a belief in life after death. Unfortunately somehow along the way you allowed someone to tell you that your not part of the covenant. John 10:16 says 1flock not 2. Rev 7 which is a major stretch of the imagination to somehow tie into 1935 and ole Judge Rutherford's royal confusion actually shows the great crowd is in heaven. Look how many times it says before the thrown. Friend the other sheep were the gentiles! I would study Ephesians 2:11-22 and Ephesians 3:1-10. Then ask yourself if you haven't fallen victim to what is stated at2 Corinthians 4:4

I wanted to give Robert Morey's, Death and the Afterlife, a token one star simply for the astounding amount of research conducted, but his conclusions and the abounding arrogance he displayed while setting them forth prompted my withdrawal of the star - his book just doesn't deserve it.

Concerning the Foreword by Walter Martin, didn't anyone proof read this book before its publication? How could so blatant a misrepresentation be missed right from the start? (Attributing to Solomon that which Job asked about - "If a man die ...").

How can one person do such extensive research, and yet come up with so many wrong conclusions? I think it is because Morey probably does not sincerely believe in the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture. By divine inspiration I mean God's direct involvement with every word found in the original manuscripts of what we call The Bible. Without setting aside the personalities of the various writers of the books and epistles, God was personally responsible for the selection and setting forth of every word in Scripture, especially the more technical terms, such as parousia, endemeo, and ekdemeo. On page 23 Morey states, "First, this means that we cannot base our understanding of death and an afterlife solely upon passages found in the Old Testament. Since the Old Testament prophets awaited the coming of the New Testament to supply them with the last pieces of the puzzle before the whole picture could be seen, we must recognize that the vision of the Old Testament prophets was intrinsically blurred and, as a result, was vague on most of the details." Morey thereby demonstrates his unbelief in The Bible's divine verbal inspiration, that the word of God is divinely breathed. Or, perhaps Morey would claim that God Himself was vague and blurred in His vision?

Again, on page 80 Morey claims, "... Old Testament saints simply did not have all the information which was needed to approach death with peace and joy." Morey apparently has forgotten that the "author" of the Old Testament had all the information needed. Whenever God intended to communicate a matter, He never failed. The only failure was on man's part in misunderstanding God's word, either deliberately or unintentionally. Throughout The Bible God chose His words carefully, and they mean what he meant to convey.

Furthermore, Morey states that each of the sixty-six books of The Bible has its own separate theme, which helps explain the confusion surrounding his teachings about death and the afterlife. Any book must have a central idea, or focus, i.e., a theme. To miss its theme is to miss the point or purpose of the book. The Bible has a theme, the thread that runs so true throughout its pages, and that theme is the kingdom of God. There are not sixty-six separate themes, but only one. Morey definitely doesn't get it.

If one cannot believe and accept basic truths found at the very beginning of The Bible, he will have greater difficulty later on, and his perceptions will become more warped the further down its road he travels. For example, in Genesis 2:7 God described what he had created. He formed man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life, and man became a living soul. Reverse the process, i.e., withdraw the breath of life and man becomes a dead soul. Further description is given by God that the dust returns to the ground, and He Himself testifies that the breath of life returns to God Who gave it.

By presenting his view on death and the afterlife, namely that the dead are really alive, either in bliss or in torments, Morey cheapens the wonderful miracle of resurrection. Let us consider:

1.If the righteous "dead" are "alive" or in a state of disembodied conscious bliss with God in heaven, then resurrection would be a real let down, a real "bummer." How much value or appreciation would you therefore assign to resurrection?
2.But, what if the dead are really dead? Not unconscious, not in a state of soul sleep, but dead. The only antidote, or way out, being resurrection, would you assign a greater, a lesser, or an equal value to resurrection compared to 1.?
3.How much more awesomely is God's miraculous and powerful gift displayed considering 2. versus 1.?

Questions to consider:
1.Is death a friend or an enemy?
2.Is death a reward or a punishment?
3.Should it be a friend or an enemy who ushers someone into God's presence at death? (I prefer my friend, Jesus Christ).

Morey constantly uses the phrase, "the resurrection of the body," which is nowhere to be found in The Bible. The Bible only knows "the resurrection of the dead." The question then naturally arises about why he distorted the testimony of God's word.

Morey brings in extensive substantiation of the Hebrew thinking of that time regarding death and the afterlife. He also cites many of the great philosophers and scholars and describes their teachings about the state of death. He does a truly good job of bringing in reams of evidence from the very best minds and their representative thinking. However, regarding all that awesome mountain of evidence, the words of the late Otis Q. Sellers, Bible student and teacher, are apropos:

"These words from the lips of our Lord (Mat 10:28) are remarkable, inasmuch as they were spoken at a time when Greek philosophy taught that the true man was an eternal soul that could not die, could not be killed, and was indestructible. These ideas were almost universally held, and were so prestigious that the Greeks classified all men as barbarians who did not hold them. This philosophy had permeated into the thinking of many in Israel, but our Lord negated this whole system of thought when He flew into the face of all Greeks who taught this and all in Israel who assented to it when He said: 'Fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.' A soul that can be destroyed is certainly not eternal or immortal," as Morey repeatedly claims.

One of the aspects of Morey's writing that wearied me immensely is his adeptness at offering tons of evidence, drawing his own conclusions, and then proclaiming that his is the only conclusion that is legitimate every which way, hermeneutically, exegetically, grammatically, historically, etc. Regarding his interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:1-9, I provided him a sixteen page paper I had written describing a very viable alternative conclusion to this portion of Scripture that had more weight of evidence grammatically and historically, etc. than his conclusion. He wouldn't even consider my viewpoint. It often is unwise to pontificate that one's own conclusion is the only one possible, and I am quite leery of any author who would make such claims so extensively throughout his book.

I think the single most disappointing part of this book is how Morey paints the picture of so much in opposition and hatred to his counter-viewpoint, and states that this proves "it must be the true biblical position." However, if you believe contrary to his position, he paints the picture of your being associated with sinners. And giving support or comfort to the sinners' position "cannot be of God." Therefore, you are ipso facto guilty, and you are of your father, the devil. Do you really want to allow yourself to be influenced by someone like this who accuses those disagreeing with him of being guilty of damnable heresy?

Amazon.com has discounted the book's price significantly. Still, save your money, because there are so many other books on this site that are worth the investment.

This is a very thorough and in-depth book on the subject of death and the after-life. Dr. Morey sets the book out in a very logical manner and is a very good book to add to any library.

Being familiar with some of Mr. Morey's arguments in regard to the Trinity, I wasn't too surprised to see errors and misunderstandings on his part in this book. While his book is much more thorough than some on this subject, Morey still misstates arguments that are contrary to his opinion. The errors start early as we find in the second sentence of the Foreword, written by Walter Martin, another apologist I am not very impressed with, a gross error apparently overlooked by both the reviewers below and Morey himself.

The Foreword reads, "King Solomon asked the question, "If a man die, shall he live again?" This statement, in the context of the book of Ecclesiastes, mirrors the cynical pessimism of the skeptical philosopher." This statement immediately clued me into how this book will attempt to deal with scriptures that flat out contradict the opinion of the book. Often we find immortalist attacking the book of Ecclesiastes and it's author because it shows that the dead are unconscious, having no knowledge nor devising any scheme while they are in sheol. (Ecc 9:10) Unfortunately for Martin and Morey, the 'cynical, pessimistic philosopher named Solomon' didn't say those words. Instead, a righteous man by the name of Job said those words at Job 14:14,15. Wrong book, wrong writer.

There are misconceptions, inaccuracies and straw men built throughout his book, but I will cover what I can in 1000 words the errors found merely in chapter 1.

Morey, apparently painfully aware of the hundreds of scriptures (literally) in the OT that show the soul is mortal and common with both man and beast, begins by trying to undermine the readers faith in what the OT says of the soul and condition of the dead.. He writes, "we cannot base our understanding of death and the afterlife solely upon passages found in the [OT]." He is arguing about the progressive character of God's revelation to man. Thus, what Moses, Solomon and others wrote about the soul, nature of man and death are incorrect. While most persons agree with the idea of progressive revelation, me included, we don't believe that newer revelation overrides older teachings. Otherwise, the older teachings would in fact be false. Jesus didn't come to destroy the older teachings and promises in God's Word, he came to make sure they would be fulfilled. Morey, rather than viewing the Bible as one united book, divides the book into the accurate [NT] and the confused and uniformed [OT], pointing to the fact that 40 different men wrote it over a long period to support his claim

Morey also argues that "annihilationists" must base their doctrine of "soul sleep" nearly entirely on the OT. Of course, this is incorrect. The NT carries this theme along at John 11 with Lazarus and also 1 Thess 4:13-17. See also 1 Cor 15 and Peter's writings. The NT, doesn't change the meaning of the OT view of death, it merely adds to it, showing that the resurrection is the true hope for mankind. And what of the OT and it's accuracy? Is Morey telling us that the angel at Daniel 12:2,13 was in ignorance due to progressive revelation?

Morey also states in regard to whether the wicked are destroyed or tormented forever, "It never seems to occur to [annihilationists] that if the biblical authors wanted to express clearly the idea of extinction...of the wicked, there were words available to them...which they could have been used. But the biblical authors did not use those words." This is a curious position to take. Morey condemns us for saying the wicked will be destroyed, not tormented and says the bible would have used words to that effect if that is what they meant. But tell us this, how many times does the word "destroy" and "destruction" appear in the scriptures verses "torment?" And you say "the biblical authors did not use those words?"

I'm quickly running out of room and I have so much more to say about Morey's book. But for now, keep this in mind. Anytime someone begins to look for ways to discredit what the Bible says in certain areas, a caution flag should immediately arise. Rather than use Morey's approach of showing what the pagans understood about man and then using that to interpret biblical terms, why not simply see how the Bible uses these terms. I suppose if Morey was alive 1000 years from now he would conclude that Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists also believed in an immortal soul because the religions around them did! He would be grossly incorrect about that as well. The best way to know what JW's believed is to read their writings. The same with the Bible. Morey should have studied more what the Bible says about the soul rather than what the pagan's thought of it.

The doctrine of the immortality of the soul runs contrary to the hope of Christians. It makes null the important doctrine of the resurrection. If we simply float off to a "paradise" waiting until our bodies our resurrected and we can be re-united with them, then why did Paul say we are the most to be pitied of all men if there is no resurrection? Why did he say our faith was in vain if there was no resurrection? Is it so bad in Morey's interim "paradise" that if we cannot be re-united with our bodies in the resurrection we might as well have the attitude of "eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we shall die?" (Read 1 Cor 15) No, Paul's hope was to be resurrected in the future. And before you start throwing out Phil 1:23, etc., do some research on them. They don't say what Morey reads into them. Christians aren't told to look forward to an interim paradise from which they can joyfully wait until they are re-united with their bodies. For Jesus and Paul, the resurrection out of the grave was the only hope for mankind. (John 5:28, 1 Thess 4:13-17, 1 Cor 15, Rev 20)