Chapter 1

You Have Reason to Be Concerned

Will it ever be possible for man to live forever?

Some trees now live for many centuries.

IS LIFE precious to you? Do you desire life in good health for yourself and your loved ones? Most people will answer, Yes.

But today many things constantly remind us of the uncertainty of life​—for ourselves, our mates and our children. Accidents, crimes, riots, wars and famines cut down millions right in the prime of life. Disease takes an appalling toll despite medical advances. Pollution poses a most serious threat.

It is not strange, then, that many persons today ask: ‘Is this life all there is? Or can it be that our fondest hope is to be found in a life after death? What actually does happen when a person dies? Does some part of him live on? Is he still conscious, able to see, hear, talk​—to do things? Is there such a thing as torment after death? Really, is death a friend or an enemy?’ Surely it is to our benefit to know the answers to these questions.

DOES DEATH MOLD OUR LIVES?

You may not have thought about it, but the lives of all of us are molded greatly by the view we hold of death. It affects our enjoyment of life and the way we use our lives far more than most people realize. That is why we need to know the truth about death.

Do you realize, for example, that most of the world’s religions are basically death-oriented rather than life-oriented? Hundreds of millions of persons have been taught that death will introduce them into another world, ‘the world of the dead,’ where they face either bliss or torment. Prayers for the dead, costly ceremonies on their behalf and sacrifices to appease them form a vital part of many major religions with vast memberships.

One may say: ‘Perhaps so, but I don’t spend my time worrying about death or what comes after it. My problem is living and getting as much as I can out of life now while I can.’ Yet even that response shows death’s molding effect on people’s lives. After all, is it not death that determines how long it is before one can no longer get anything out of life?

So, even though we may try to blot the thought of death from our minds, the realization that our life-span is, at best, quite short keeps pressuring us. It may drive a person in a fierce effort to become rich at an early age​—‘while he can still enjoy things.’ The shortness of life makes many people impatient, rude, callous toward others. It moves them to use dishonest ways to reach their goals. They just feel there is not time to do it the right way. Yet, all the while they may claim that death has no part in molding their lives.

What is your own view of death? What part does it play in your thoughts for the future, or, for that matter, the way you are living your life right now?

THE NEED TO BE SURE

The problem is that there is such a wide variation among people’s views about life and death. Often the views are contradictory, exact opposites.

Many people believe that death is the complete end of everything or, at least, that man was made to die. Do you find that acceptable? Does it make sense to you that certain trees can outlive intelligent man by thousands of years? Do you feel that seventy or eighty years of life is long enough for you to do all that you want to do, to learn all that you want to learn, to see all that you want to see and to develop your talents and abilities to the extent you desire?

Then there is the tremendous number of persons who believe that life goes on after death because something​—soul or spirit—​survives the death of the body. Yet their views also differ greatly. And, of course, their beliefs contradict the idea of those who think that all life ends with death. Contradictory views cannot all be true. Which are right? Does it matter? Yes, very much. Consider why.

For one thing, if the dead can actually benefit from prayers and ceremonies on their behalf, would we not be merciless if we failed to provide these? But what if the dead are really dead, beyond the help of surviving humans? That would necessarily mean that hundreds of millions of persons are victims of a terrible fraud. It would mean that many great religious systems have enriched themselves by deceit, using falsehoods about the dead to exploit the living instead of doing something beneficial for them.

What comfort can we offer when, sooner or later, death invades our family circle, or that of a friend? Does logic support the view that “fate” governs our experiences and the length of our lives? What if the one dying was a small child? Did God ‘take the child to be with Him,’ as some would say?

Truly there are many, many things we need to know about death, and the more we love life the more we should want to be sure to get the right answers. But where​—especially since there is so much confusion and contradiction?

There are many religious books that discuss life and death, some of them quite ancient. But there is one very ancient book that presents a viewpoint quite different from that of all the others. In fact, the view it presents is surprisingly different from what the great majority of people think it contains. That book is the Bible.

It deals with real people, people who faced the same basic problems that we do today. They, too, pondered the whole purpose of living, asking: “What does a man come to have for all his hard work and for the striving of his heart with which he is working hard under the sun?” “Even supposing that he has lived a thousand years twice over and yet he has not seen what is good, is it not to just one place that everyone is going?” (Ecclesiastes 2:22; 6:6) They, too, raised the question: “If an able-bodied man dies can he live again?” (Job 14:14) Do you know the answers?

In the publication you now hold in your hands you will find discussed, not only the many popular attempts to answer the questions thus far raised, but also the vitally important way the Bible answers each of these. You can learn the unique hope it presents for those facing death or who have come within its grip. The understanding that this information can bring can contribute much to your present and future happiness and peace of mind.

Chapter 2

How Death Affects People’s Daily Lives

MOST people are very much concerned about what affects their lives and that of their families right now. But few are willing to speak or to think extendedly about death.

True, death is not a bright prospect, but it has a definite effect on one’s daily life. Who of us has not experienced the grief and deep sense of loss over the death of a dear friend or beloved relative? A death in a family can change the family’s entire pattern of life, destroy a stable income and cause loneliness or depression for the survivors.

Unpleasant though it may be, death is a daily occurrence with which you must reckon. You cannot prolong certain actions indefinitely. Tomorrow may be too late.

How has this affected you? Do you at times feel pressured by the shortness of life to try desperately to get all that you can out of it? Or, do you take the fatalistic view, concluding that, well, what will be will be?

THE FATALISTIC VIEW

Many people today believe that life and death are governed by fate. This is a basic concept of more than 477 million Hindus. In fact, fatalistic views are practically universal. Have you not heard people say, ‘It just had to happen,’ ‘His time was up,’ or, ‘He escaped because his number wasn’t up’? Such statements are frequently made in connection with accidents. Are they true? Consider an example:

During a demonstration flight at the Paris Air Show in 1973 the Soviet Union’s supersonic airliner TU-144 exploded, killing its crew. Large sections of the aircraft hurtled down upon the village of Goussainville, France. One woman there had just shut the bedroom door behind her when a part of the wreckage came smashing through the outside wall, completely demolishing the bedroom. She was unharmed.

Others did not escape. The victims included an elderly woman’s three grandchildren, but not the grandmother.

Did those children and others die because their “number” or their “time” was up? Were others spared because fate was not due to claim them until later?

Those answering “Yes” to these questions believe that nothing anyone might do can prevent a person’s death if his ‘time is up.’ They feel that, despite any precaution taken, they simply cannot escape what fate dictates. This is a view similar to that of the ancient Greeks who considered man’s destiny to be controlled by three goddesses​—Clotho, Lachesis and Atropos. Clotho supposedly spun the thread of life, Lachesis determined its length and Atropos cut it off when the time was up.

Is such a fatalistic outlook reasonable? Ask yourself: Why do the number of accidental deaths decrease when safety regulations are obeyed and increase when they are disregarded? Why can the majority of traffic deaths be demonstrated to result from human carelessness, drunkenness, error or lawlessness? Why is it that in countries with high standards of hygiene and good diet people have a far greater average life-span than in countries lacking these things? Why do more smokers than nonsmokers die of lung cancer? How could all of this be due to blind fate over which there is no control? Instead, is it not the case that there are reasons for what happens to man?

With many accidental deaths, is it not a matter of a person’s just happening to come into a dangerous situation? To illustrate: A man leaves his home at a certain time each workday. One morning, as he passes a neighbor’s house, he hears screaming and shouting. He speeds up his walking and, just as he turns the corner, he is hit by a stray bullet. His death is due to his being at the corner at the wrong time; the circumstance was unforeseen.

Having observed what really happens in everyday life, the wise writer of the Bible book of Ecclesiastes said: “I returned to see under the sun that the swift do not have the race, nor the mighty ones the battle, nor do the wise also have the food, nor do the understanding ones also have the riches, nor do even those having knowledge have the favor; because time and unforeseen occurrence befall them all.”​—Ecclesiastes 9:11.

The person who appreciates this does not disregard safety regulations and take needless risks, thinking that he is immune to death as long as his “time” is not up. He realizes that a fatalistic view can be dangerous, both to himself and to others. This knowledge, wisely applied, can add years to your life.

On the other hand, a fatalistic outlook can lead to foolhardy actions, and it can also cause a person to be negligent about informing himself as to matters that may deeply affect him and his family.

LIVING ONLY FOR THE PRESENT

Besides the fatalistic outlook, the events of the twentieth century have influenced people’s actions.

Consider for a moment what has happened. Millions have perished as victims of war, crime, riots and famine. Life-sustaining air and water are being polluted at an alarming rate. Seemingly from every quarter man’s life is being threatened. And there is nothing to give real assurance that mankind will be able to solve its problems in the near future. Life seems so uncertain. What is the result?

Many of earth’s inhabitants are living only for the present, to get everything possible out of today. They feel impelled to do so, reasoning that the life they have now is all the life they can ever hope to have. Aptly the Bible describes their attitude: “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we are to die.”​—1 Corinthians 15:32.

In an endeavor to escape the harsh realities of life, they may turn to alcohol or drugs. Others try to find an outlet for their frustrations and concern over the shortness of life by personally indulging in sexual experiences of all kinds-fornication, adultery, homosexuality, lesbianism. Says the book Death and Its Mysteries:

“It seems that more normal people today are affected by this fear of collective death, at least unconsciously. This is at least a partial explanation of the disarray of our times, which is expressed in gratuitous crime, vandalism, eroticism and the accelerated pace of life. Even modern music and dances seem to express the despair of a humanity that no longer believes in its own future.”

What has been the effect of all such living for the present as if there may be no tomorrow?

Those given to heavy drinking and drunkenness may temporarily forget their troubles. But they sacrifice their dignity and, while intoxicated, at times injure themselves or others. And the next day they find that they have added an agonizing headache to the troubles that they already had.

Drug addicts, too, pay a high price for their efforts to escape reality. They often experience lasting physical and mental harm. And, to support their costly habit, they may find that they are degrading themselves by engaging in theft or prostitution.

What about promiscuous sex relations? Do they help to improve one’s lot in life? To the contrary, the fruitage is frequently a loathsome venereal disease, unwanted pregnancies, illegitimate children, abortions, a broken home, bitter jealousy, fighting and even murder.

Of course, many persons have not succumbed to living a debauched life. Still they have not escaped the pressure that comes from realizing, consciously or subconsciously, that their life will end. Knowing that time is limited, they may seek to get ahead in the world just as quickly as possible. With what result? Their desire for material possessions may prompt them to sacrifice personal honesty. As the Bible proverb truthfully states: “He that is hastening to gain riches will not remain innocent.” (Proverbs 28:20) But that is not all.

So much time and energy are used in getting ahead materially that there is little time to enjoy one’s family. True, the children may be getting all the material things that they want. But are they getting the guidance and correction they need in order for them to become responsible young men and women? Many parents, while realizing that time spent with their children is somewhat limited, really see no reason for special concern​—until it is too late. Yes, it is agonizing to learn that one’s own son has been arrested or that one’s own teen-age daughter is going to be an unwed mother.

From what is happening today, is it not obvious that, despite the shortness of life, many people need to learn a more satisfying way to live?

The apparent inevitability of death does not make everyone throw moral principles to the wind, nor does it produce a fatalistic apathy in all persons. To the contrary, hundreds of thousands today are enjoying a wholesome way of life because of not being adversely, affected by the prospect of death.

A BETTER WAY

Viewed aright, death can teach us something valuable. When death claims victims, we can benefit from thoughtful contemplation about the way we are living our own lives. Some three thousand years ago a careful observer of humanity highlighted this, saying: “A name is better than good oil, and the day of death than the day of one’s being born. Better is it to go to the house of mourning than to go to the banquet house, because that is the end of all mankind; and the one alive should take it to his heart. . . . The heart of the wise ones is in the house of mourning, but the heart of the stupid ones is in the house of rejoicing.”​—Ecclesiastes 7:1-4.

The Bible is not here recommending sadness in preference to rejoicing. Rather, the reference is to the particular time when a household is in mourning over the death of one of its members. It is no time to forget the bereaved and to proceed with one’s own feasting and reveling. For, just as death has ended all the plans and activities of the deceased, it can do the same for ours. A person does well to ask himself: What am I doing with my life? Am I building up a fine name or reputation? How much do I contribute to the happiness and well-being of others?

Not at birth, but during the full course of our life, does our “name” take on real meaning, identifying us as to what kind of persons we are. The person whose heart is, as it were, in a “house of mourning” is one who gives heartfelt consideration to the way he is living his life, regardless of how short it may be. He treats it as something precious. He does not reflect the shallow, reckless spirit characteristic of a place of revelry. Rather, he exerts himself to lead a meaningful, purposeful life and thereby contributes to the happiness and welfare of fellowmen.

How can anyone determine whether he is now enjoying the best way of life possible for him, whether he is truly living a purposeful life? Certainly a standard of judgment is needed. In increasing numbers sincere persons throughout the earth are coming to the conclusion that the Bible is that reliable standard. Their examination of the Bible has enabled them to find real purpose in life now and it has given them a grand hope for the future, a hope that involves life under righteous conditions on this very earth. They have come to realize that, not death, but life is God’s purpose for mankind.

[Picture on page 11]

Does fate control your life, as the ancient Greeks believed?

Chapter 3

Man Was Made to Live

GOD made man to live. This is what the Bible indicates by its description of the provisions that God made for our first human parents, Adam and Eve. It informs us that Jehovah God placed them in a beautiful garden home, a paradise, occupying a section of the region called “Eden.” That paradise contained everything needed for them to continue living. Concerning this, Genesis, the first book of the Bible, says: “Jehovah God made to grow out of the ground every tree desirable to one’s sight and good for food and also the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.”​—Genesis 2:9.

Note that there was, not a ‘tree of death,’ but a “tree of life” in this lovely paradise. That “tree of life” stood as an unchangeable guarantee of continued life to those entitled to partake of it. There was no reason for Adam and Eve to have a morbid fear of the possibility of dying. As long as they continued to be obedient to their Creator in not eating of the forbidden “tree of the knowledge of good and bad” their life would not end.​—Genesis 2:16, 17.

But is what the Bible says about man’s being made to enjoy an endless life-span in agreement with what we can see of life? Do not the facts show that humans have been dying for thousands of years? Yes, but did you know that right in your own makeup is evidence suggesting that you should have a far longer life-span than is customary in our day?

Consider, for example, the human brain. Is it designed for a lifetime of just seventy or eighty years? Interestingly, biochemist Isaac Asimov, in commenting on the brain’s capacity, noted that its filing system is “perfectly capable of handling any load of learning and memory which the human being is likely to put upon it​—and a billion times more than that quantity, too.”

Is it logical for man’s brain to have a storage capacity for information a thousand million times as great as he is able to use during what is today an average life-span? Rather, does this not indicate that man was made to live a lifetime that would require a brain with an infinite capacity for memory?

This is by no means all.

MAN ALONE HAS A CONCEPT OF ETERNITY

A remarkable point to note here is that the Bible sets only before man​—not before any of earth’s other creatures—​the prospect of limitless life. In fact, it says that even the concept of past or future time indefinite or eternity is unique to man. Noted the inspired writer of the Bible book of Ecclesiastes: “I have seen the occupation that God has given to the sons of mankind in which to be occupied. Everything he has made pretty in its time. Even time indefinite he has put in their heart.”​—Ecclesiastes 3:10, 11.

Now, if what the Bible says about man is true, we should be able to see evidence to this effect. Do we? Does man stand in sharp contrast with the animals? Does man alone think seriously about the future, concern himself with it and work toward it? Does he react to death in a way different from the animals, showing that he alone has appreciation for what life has meant to him in the past and could mean to him in the future?

There is no denying that all living things cling to life. Instinctively animals that are eaten by other animals seek to escape their predators by flight or concealment. Many creatures will struggle against what appear to be impossible odds to protect their young from death. Rabbits have been known to kick so violently as to send raccoons sprawling. In the western part of the United States a female antelope was observed successfully defending her kid from a timber wolf, her sharp hoofs injuring his hindquarters and knocking out his teeth. As he was seeking to get away, she jumped on top of him and trampled him to death.

Such instinctive reaction to the threat of death plays a vital role in the preservation of creature life. But does this mean that animals have an appreciation for the past and future as does man?

As we know, a man can reflect on the past and can plan for the future. In the privacy of his own home, he can think back to his boyhood days​—his pranks, disappointments, failures, successes and joys. He can plan future moves​—building a new house, purchasing furniture, determining the kind of education he would like for his children to get, and so forth. But can a dog, for example, meditate about its puppyhood, the children that played with it then, its becoming full grown and then mating? In his book Animals Are Quite Different, Hans Bauer shows what research has revealed:

“The dog will always need an actual sense-impression to enable it to conjure up former incidents. He may be taken, let us say, on a certain occasion to an unfamiliar town in which he undergoes some experience or other. After his return home the impressions then received will have been forgotten. But if he goes back to the same spot he will remember them. It is in fact one of the special peculiarities and advantages of the human as compared with the animal psychological structure that the content of human memory is not associated with the needs of every day but embedded in the stream of consciousness as a whole.”

Thus, unlike man, animals cannot at will reconstruct events of the past.

But can they plan ahead for the future? Do not hamsters, certain ants, squirrels and other animals store up or hide food supplies for later use? Is not this a planning ahead for the future so as not to suffer want in winter? “No,” says the above-mentioned author, and he gives these facts in support:

“They do not know what they are doing or why they do it. They simply proceed in accordance with instinct, the proof being that even animals removed from their parents at a very early age and kept in cages begin ‘collecting’ in the autumn. Such animals have never known winter conditions and will not be deprived of nourishment in the coming months. Nevertheless, they ‘hoard’ simply for the sake of ‘hoarding.’”

Summing up the contrast between man and animals, he remarks:

“The world of animals is therefore exclusively that of the present moment in the most literal sense of the word. For they can easily be diverted from even the most fascinating objects by others of more immediate appeal at the time and never afterwards return to the former.”

Truly, then, man alone has a concept of “time indefinite,” the ability to meditate on the past and to look toward the future, planning for it.

It is because animals live only in the present that for them death is clearly not the tragedy it is for humans. Animals seem to react to death as a natural course of events.

Take the case witnessed in Serengeti National Park involving a lioness and her three cubs. While the lioness was away, the cubs lay hidden in a thicket. Then two male lions from another territory appeared. Finding the hidden cubs, they killed all three. They ate one, carried the other off and left the third behind. What did the lioness do when she returned and saw her remaining dead cub? She displayed no grief, no emotion, but merely sniffed at the carcass of her remaining dead cub​—and then devoured it.

It is also noteworthy that animals on which lions prey do not react with terror at seeing a lion some distance away. Once a lion has gotten its meal, herds of animals soon resume their usual routine. In fact, prey animals may come within one hundred and twenty feet of a visible lion.

MAN REACTS TO DEATH AS SOMETHING UNNATURAL

How differently humans react to death! For the majority, the death of a wife, husband or child is the most upsetting experience of a lifetime. Man’s entire emotional makeup is jarred for a long time after the death of a person whom he dearly loves.

Even those persons who claim that ‘death is natural to humans’ find it hard to accept the idea that their own death will mean the end of everything. Observes The Journal of Legal Medicine: “Psychiatrists are generally agreed that there is an unconscious denial of death, even when it seems to be imminent.” A young avowed atheist, for example, stated before his execution that, from a rational point of view, his death would mean ‘nothing more than the definitive termination of a life that had been brief but very intense.’ But then he noted that it was difficult, indeed impossible, for him to ‘admit that everything would be reduced to nothingness.’

So strong is man’s desire to share in future activity that a number of people have arranged to have their bodies frozen at death. The initial cost for this may run as high as $8,500, with an additional $1,000 being paid each year to keep the body frozen. Bodies have been frozen in the hope that scientists will eventually be able to bring them back to life. Of course, at the present time scientists are nowhere even near accomplishing such a thing. Yet the very thought that this might be possible has been enough to move some persons to have their bodies preserved at great cost.

Because humans find it hard to accept death as ending everything, men everywhere have a desire to perpetuate the memory of the dead and to dispose of them ceremoniously. Notes the book Funeral Customs the World Over:

“There is no group, however primitive at the one extreme or civilized at the other, which left freely to itself and within its means does not dispose of the bodies of its members with ceremony. So true is this universal fact of ceremonial funeralization that it seems reasonable to conclude that it flows out of human nature. It is ‘natural,’ normal, reasonable. It satisfies deep universal urges. To carry it out seems ‘right,’ and not to carry it out, particularly for those who are closely connected by family, feeling, shared living, common experience or other ties, seems ‘wrong,’ an unnatural omission, a matter to be apologized for or ashamed of.”

What does this work conclude from the universal custom of funerals? It continues:

“So true is this that to the various definitions of man there might be added another. He is a being that buries his dead with ceremony.”

Yet, despite all of this, eventually, as generations come and go, the deceased are totally forgotten. Even those who made a notable name in history centuries ago have, as actual persons, faded from the everyday memory of the living. Their influence on others is gone. For example, such powerful rulers of ancient times as Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar do not affect our daily lives now even though they affected the lives of millions of their contemporaries. The hard fact that the dead are in time forgotten was acknowledged by the discerning writer of the Bible book of Ecclesiastes: “There is no remembrance of people of former times, nor will there be of those also who will come to be later. There will prove to be no remembrance even of them among those who will come to be still later on.” (Ecclesiastes 1:11) The very fact that man tries everything within his power to be remembered despite his knowing that he will eventually be forgotten shows that his desire to live, if but in memory, is inherent.

MAN’S DEATH DOES NOT SEEM TO MAKE SENSE

In view of man’s general reaction to death, his amazing potential as to memory and learning ability, and his inward realization of eternity, is it not clear that he was made to live? Only when we accept the Bible’s explanation that man’s present dying state was never a part of God’s original purpose can we make sense out of things that would otherwise be very puzzling. Take as an example the life-spans of certain plants and animals that far surpass that of man.

A tree may live for hundreds of years; some, such as sequoias and bristlecone pines, for thousands of years. It is not unusual for a giant tortoise to get to be more than 150 years old. Why should this be? Why should mindless trees and unreasoning tortoises outlive intelligent man?

Then, too, is not man’s death a terrible waste? While a fraction of a man’s knowledge and experience may have been passed on to others, for the most part these things are lost to posterity. To illustrate, a man may be an outstanding scientist, a fine architect or an accomplished musician, painter or sculptor. He may have trained others. But at his death no one has the sum total of his talents and experience. He may even have been in the process of developing something new after having solved many problems. Those who could have benefited from the knowledge and experience he gained may now have to learn through trial and error​—and then have their own work cut short by death. Since the field of knowledge is very great, why should man have to labor under the handicap of being deprived of experienced people as they fall victim to death?

Additionally, to say that man was to live just a few years on earth and then to die cannot be reconciled with belief in a loving Creator. Why not? Because this would mean that the Creator cares more about certain unintelligent plants and dumb animals than he does about humans, who can express love and appreciation. It would also mean that he has little compassion for humans, who, of all earthly forms of life, are hurt most deeply by death.

Truly, if this life were all there is, and if God had indeed purposed it this way, how could we really love him? Yes, how could we be drawn to One who made it impossible for us to come to the full realization of our potential? Would it not be an unkindness to be given tremendous potential for gaining knowledge and then to be stifled in one’s use of it?

However, if humans were made to continue to live, then they need an answer to the question, Why is it that man dies? And a satisfying answer is needed to help them to understand why God has allowed death to go on claiming human victims for thousands of years. This may well remove a serious obstacle standing in the way of one’s coming into a fine relationship with the Creator and finding real meaning and enjoyment in life now.

But how can we be sure about the reason for death?

[Picture on page 24]

DOES MAN’S SHORT LIFE-SPAN MAKE SENSE?

Despite their amazing potential for learning, humans live just 70 or 80 years

Even swans are known to live over 80 years

Though unintelligent, tortoises live more than 150 years

Some trees live thousands of years

Chapter 4

How Did Old Age and Death Come About?

THOUGH popularly accepted as normal, old age and death still puzzle man. This is evident from the fact that for centuries legends have been handed down attempting to explain why humans grow old and die.

One version of an ancient Greek myth tells of the woman Pandora who opened a box or vase that she had been told to keep closed. This act, it is said, released “Old Age,” “Sickness,” “Insanity” and other “Spites” that have continued to plague mankind.

In Australia, various aboriginal tribes believe that humans originally were to live forever. But they were to keep away from a certain hollow tree. When wild bees made this tree their home, the women very much desired their honey. Disregarding the warning of the men, one woman used her tomahawk on the tree. At that, the legend says, a large bat flew out. The bat was “Death.” Released from the tree, it proceeded to claim all that it touched with its wings.

It is significant that legends of other, widely scattered peoples similarly attribute death to disobedience, often with a woman initially involved.

WHY THE SIMILARITIES?

When reading such myths, some persons may be inclined to place the Bible’s explanation of the cause for old age and death in the same category. They may even point out that in some respects the myths seem to parallel the Bible account. But why do these similarities exist? Is it possible that these legends have a factual basis that has simply been distorted?

The Bible itself sheds light on the answers to these questions. It points to ancient Babel in Chaldea as the place from which humans who rebelled against God by defying his command were scattered. (Genesis 11:2-9) Biblical tables of genealogy show that this took place at a time when some men were alive who, as faithful servants of God, knew the truth about life and the reason for death. (Genesis 6:7, 8; 8:20, 21; 9:28; 10:1-9; 11:10-18; 1 Chronicles 1:19) The majority, however, since they themselves were showing disregard for the truth as to God’s purpose for man, could hardly be expected to preserve with accuracy the truth about how death came about. As they spread out, and with the passage of time, the facts became distorted and embellished; myths developed. There is great variety in their mythical explanations of the cause of aging and death, yet a common underlying basis is discernible.

This is no mere supposition. Available evidence clearly shows that religious myths, including those about death, spring from a common source. In his book The Worship of the Dead, Colonel J. Garnier observes:

“Not merely Egyptians, Chaldeans, Phœnicians, Greeks and Romans, but also the Hindus, the Buddhists of China and of Tibet, the Goths, Anglo-Saxons, Druids, Mexicans and Peruvians, the Aborigines of Australia, and even the savages of the South Sea Islands, must have all derived their religious ideas from a common source and a common centre. Everywhere we find the most startling coincidences in rites, ceremonies, customs, traditions, and in the names and relations of their respective gods and goddesses.”

And what place is this common source? Does the evidence point to Chaldea, as the Bible implies? Professor George Rawlinson notes:

“The striking resemblance of the Chaldæan system to that of the Classical [primarily Greek and Roman] Mythology seems worthy of particular attention. This resemblance is too general, and too close in some respects, to allow of the supposition that mere accident has produced the coincidence. In the Pantheons of Greece and Rome, and in that of Chaldæa, the same general grouping [of gods and goddesses] is to be recognized; the same genealogical succession is not unfrequently to be traced; and in some cases even the familiar names and titles of classical divinities admit of the most curious illustration and explanation from Chaldæan sources.”

What does he therefore conclude? He says:

“We can scarcely doubt but that, in some way or other, there was a communication of beliefs​—a passage in very early times, from the shores of the Persian Gulf [where ancient Babel was] to the lands washed by the Mediterranean, of mythological notions and ideas.”

Thus what the Bible indicates as to the development of religious concepts is found to be consistent with other historical evidence. If the Bible really does preserve with accuracy the truth that religious myths later distorted, the Bible account should appeal to our faculties of reason. The account should make sense. Does it?

LIFE DEPENDENT ON OBEDIENCE

In discussing the reasons for aging and death, the first book of the Bible, Genesis, does not deal with some “once-upon-a-time” setting in a “dreamland,” but presents a factual account. It deals with an actual place, Eden, its general geographical location being identified by certain rivers. Two of these, the Euphrates and the Tigris (Hiddekel), are known to this day. (Genesis 2:10-14; New English Bible) The time can be fixed by Bible chronology as the year 4026 B.C.E. or shortly thereafter. Furthermore, the Bible’s reference to a first human pair is scientifically sound. Notes the publication The Races of Mankind:

“The Bible story of Adam and Eve, father and mother of the whole human race, told centuries ago the same truth that science has shown today: that all the peoples of the earth are a single family and have a common origin.”

After relating the manner in which the first human came to life, the Biblical account shows that the Creator, Jehovah God, started humanity off in a parklike home. He placed before man the prospect of unending life, while at the same time making its enjoyment conditional. God said to the man: “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.”​—Genesis 2:16, 17.

That was a simple command. Yet is this not what we should expect? The man Adam was alone at the time. Life was simple, uncomplicated. There were no problems in making a living. There were no pressures from a greedy commercial system. Complex laws were not needed to control sinful inclinations within the first man. As a perfect man, Adam had no sinful tendencies.

Simple as this command was, it involved moral issues of serious consequence. Disobedience to God’s command on the part of the first humans would have meant rebellion against Him as Ruler. How so?

It was God’s prohibition that made partaking of the fruit of the “tree of the knowledge of good and bad” wrong. There were no poisonous properties in it. The fruit was wholesome, literally “good for food.” (Genesis 3:6) Hence, God’s prohibition regarding the tree simply emphasized man’s proper dependence on his Creator as Ruler. By obedience the first man and woman could show that they respected God’s right to make known to them what was “good,” or divinely approved, and what was “bad,” or divinely condemned. Disobedience on their part therefore would mean rebellion against God’s sovereignty.

Jehovah God stated the penalty for such rebellion to be death. Was that too severe a penalty? Well, do not many nations of the world consider it within their right to designate certain crimes as capital offenses? Yet these nations cannot give nor indefinitely sustain the life of anyone. But man’s Creator can. And it was because of his will that Adam and Eve came into existence. (Revelation 4:11) So was it not right for the Giver and Sustainer of life to designate disobedience to him as worthy of death? Surely! Then, too, he alone fully recognized the seriousness of the damaging effects that would result from disobedience to his law.

By obeying the prohibitive command, that first human pair, Adam and Eve, could have demonstrated their appreciation and gratitude to God for all that he had done for them. Rightly motivated obedience would have prevented them from becoming selfish and ignoring their Benefactor, God.

The command was of a nature that we would expect from a God of love and justice. It was not unreasonable. He did not deprive them of life’s necessities. There were many other trees from which they could satisfy their need for food. Hence, neither Adam nor Eve had any reason to feel a need for the fruit of the “tree of the knowledge of good and bad.”

The account shows that one day, however, while not in the company of her husband, Eve fell victim to a deception and partook of the forbidden fruit.a Later she succeeded in persuading her husband to join her in breaking God’s law.​—Genesis 3:1-6.

Now, it might be argued that God could have taken a permissive attitude toward this rebellion of the first humans. It might be suggested that he could have shut his eyes to their wrongdoing, leaving it unpunished. But would that have been the best course? Is it not true that failure to uphold law among humans today has led to disrespect for just laws and to increasing crime and violence? For God to have left the wrongdoing of Adam and Eve unpunished would have meant emboldening them and their descendants to carry on further lawlessness. This would have made God share responsibility for such acts.

Then, too, permissiveness would have called into question the reliability of God’s word. It would have made it appear that he does not mean what he says and that his laws can therefore be violated with impunity.

Thus it becomes clear that it was the only right and just thing for God to uphold his law and to let the first humans suffer the rightful consequences of their willful, deliberate disobedience. Not to be overlooked is that there is no evidence of any repentance on their part. They gave no evidence of a change of heart.

THE BASIC REASON​—SIN

By their rebellion against God, Adam and Eve cut themselves off from a good relationship with him. They did not possess an indestructible, immortal life. The Bible says that by means of his power God ‘keeps the sun, moon and stars standing forever, to time indefinite.’ (Psalm 148:3-6) So, too, with the first human pair. They were dependent upon God for continued life.

By refusing to submit to God’s law, Adam and Eve deprived themselves of his sustaining power. Moreover, alienated from God, they were without his divine direction and guidance. In time, then, the sin that had alienated Adam and Eve from God brought about their death.

However, following their transgression against God they still had in themselves tremendous potential for life. This is evident from the historical record, which shows that Adam lived for 930 years. (Genesis 5:5) Yet, fulfilled upon Adam was the warning: “In the day you eat from [the tree of the knowledge of good and bad] you will positively die,” for God sentenced Adam to death on that day.​—Genesis 2:17.

Through his disobedience, Adam, as the progenitor of the human family, brought death, not only to himself, but also to his unborn offspring. That is why the Bible says: “Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.”​—Romans 5:12.

Having forfeited perfection, Adam could not pass it on to his offspring. From the start his children were born with weaknesses. The outworkings of sin in his body made it impossible for him to father offspring without limitations and weaknesses. This harmonizes with the Bible’s statement at Job 14:4: “Who can produce someone clean out of someone unclean? There is not one.” Hence, the aging and death of humans today can be traced initially to the sin inherited from Adam. As his offspring, they are receiving the wages that sin pays​—death.​—Romans 6:23.

What does that really mean? Does death mark the end of all one’s life processes, or is there some part of man that lives on? Does conscious existence continue after the death of the body?

[Footnotes]

[Map on page 28]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

THE MYTHOLOGY OF MANY LANDS HAD ITS ORIGIN AT BABEL

GREECE

BABEL

AFRICA

INDIA

[Picture on page 32]

The Bible says that God gave the first humans the prospect of unending life

Chapter 5

What Is This Thing Called “Soul”?

WHAT are you? Are you, in effect, two persons in one​—a human body with a brain, heart, eyes, ears, tongue, and so forth, but also having within you an invisible spiritual person completely separate from your fleshly organism and that is called the “soul”? If so, what happens when you die? Does just your body die, while the soul continues living? How can you know for sure?

Nearly all religions teach that, in the case of humans, death is not the end of all existence. This is the case, not just in so-called Christian lands of North and South America, Europe and Australia, but also in non-Christian countries of Asia and Africa. Notes the book Funeral Customs the World Over: “People of most cultures believe that at death something which leaves the body has ongoing life.”

Belief in the immortality of the soul is very prominent among non-Christian religions. For example, the most esteemed of sacred Hindu writings, The Bhagavad Gita, specifically refers to the soul as deathless. It presents this as justification for killing in war, saying:

“These bodies come to an end,

It is declared, of the eternal embodied (soul),

Which is indestructible and unfathomable.

Therefore fight, son of Bharata!

Who believes him a slayer,

And who thinks him slain,

Both these understand not:

He slays not, is not slain.

He is not born, nor does he ever die;

Nor, having come to be, will he over more come not to be.

Unborn, eternal, everlasting, this ancient one

Is not slain when the body is slain.”

​—The Bhagavad Gita, II, 18-20.

But what is the soul here spoken of? Though strong believers in the immortality of the human soul, Hindus describe its nature in vague terms. Says the publication Hinduism, by Swami Vivekananda:

“The Hindu believes that every soul is a circle whose circumference is nowhere, though its centre is located in the body; and that death only means the change of this centre from one body to another. Nor is the soul bound by the conditions of matter. In its very essence, it is free, unbounded, holy, pure, and perfect. But somehow or other it finds itself bound down by matter, and thinks of itself as matter.”

What, then, is the general belief among members of Christendom’s churches? Professor Cullmann (Theological faculty of the University of Basel and of the Sorbonne in Paris) states:

“If we were to ask an ordinary Christian today (whether well-read Protestant or Catholic, or not) what he conceived to be the New Testament teaching concerning the fate of man after death, with few exceptions we should get the answer: ‘The immortality of the soul.’”

When asked about the nature of the “soul,” members of Christendom’s churches, too, answer in vague, obscure terms. They have no clearer concept of an immortal soul than do adherents of non-Christian religions. This gives rise to the question, Does the Bible teach that the soul is an immortal part of man?

IS THE SOUL IMMORTAL?

In the Bible the word “soul” appears in many translations as a rendering for the Hebrew word neʹphesh and the Greek word psy·kheʹ. (See, for example, Ezekiel 18:4 and Matthew 10:28 in the Authorized Version, New English Bible, Revised Standard Version and Douay Version.) These same Hebrew and Greek terms have also been translated as “being,” “creature” and “person.” Regardless of whether your Bible consistently renders the original-language words as “soul” (as does the New World Translation), an examination of texts where the words neʹphesh and psy·kheʹ appear will help you to see what these terms meant to God’s people of ancient times. Thus you can determine for yourself the true nature of the soul.

Describing the creation of the first man, Adam, the opening book of the Bible says: “Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul [neʹphesh].” (Genesis 2:7) We may note that the Bible does not say that ‘man received a soul,’ but that “man came to be a living soul.”

Did first-century Christian teaching differ from this concept of “soul”? No. In what is commonly called the “New Testament,” the statement about Adam’s creation is quoted as fact: “It is even so written: ‘The first man Adam became a living soul.”’ (1 Corinthians 15:45) In the original language of this text the word for “soul,” psy·kheʹ, appears. Accordingly, in this scripture the Greek word psy·kheʹ, like the Hebrew word neʹphesh, designates, not some invisible spirit residing in man, but man himself. Rightly, then, certain Bible translators have chosen to use such words as “being,” “creature” and “person” in their renderings of Genesis 2:7 and 1 Corinthians 15:45.​—New English Bible, Young’s Literal Translation, Revised Standard Version; compare The Bible in Living English, which uses “person” at Genesis 2:7 but “soul” at 1 Corinthians 15:45.

It is also noteworthy that the terms neʹphesh and psy·kheʹ are applied to animals. Concerning the creation of sea and land creatures, the Bible says: “God went on to say: ‘Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls [“creatures,” New English Bible] and let flying creatures fly over the earth’ . . . God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about . . . ‘Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.’”​—Genesis 1:20-24.

Such references to animals as being souls are not limited to the opening book of the Bible. From the first book of the Holy Scriptures to the very last book, animals continue to be designated as souls. It is written: “Take away from the men of war who went out on the expedition one soul [neʹphesh] out of five hundred, of humankind and of the herd and of the asses and of the flock.” (Numbers 31:28) “The righteous one is caring for the soul [neʹphesh] of his domestic animal.” (Proverbs 12:10) “Every living soul [psy·kheʹ] died, yes, the things in the sea.”​—Revelation 16:3.

The application of the word “soul” to animals is very appropriate. It is in agreement with what is thought to be the basic meaning of the Hebrew term neʹphesh. This word is understood to be derived from a root meaning “to breathe.” Hence, in a literal sense, a soul is a “breather,” and animals are indeed breathers. They are living, breathing creatures.

As to their application to humans, the words neʹphesh and psy·kheʹ are repeatedly used in such a way as to mean the entire person. We read in the Bible that the human soul is born. (Genesis 46:18) It can eat or fast. (Leviticus 7:20; Psalm 35:13) It can weep and faint. (Jeremiah 13:17; Jonah 2:7) A soul can swear, crave things and give way to fear. (Leviticus 5:4; Deuteronomy 12:20; Acts 2:43) A person might kidnap a soul. (Deuteronomy 24:7) The soul can be pursued and put in irons. (Psalm 7:5; 105:18) Are these not the kind of things done by or to fleshly people? Do not such passages of Scripture clearly establish that the human soul is the entire man?

Numerous twentieth-century Bible scholars, Catholic, Protestant and Jewish, have been brought to this conclusion. Note their comments:

“The famous verse in Genesis [2:7] does not say, as is often supposed, that man consists of body and soul; it says that Yahweh shaped man, earth from the ground, and then proceeded to animate the inert figure with living breath blown into his nostrils, so that man became a living being, which is all that neʹphesh [soul] here means.”​—H. Wheeler Robinson of Regent’s Park College, London, in Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft (Journal for the Old Testament Science), Vol. 41 (1923).

“Man must not be thought of as having a soul: he is a soul.”​—E. F. Kevan, Principal of the London Bible College, in The New Bible Commentary (1965), 2d ed., p. 78.

“The soul in the O[Id] T[estament] means not a part of man, but the whole man​—man as a living being. Similarly, in the N[ew] T[estament] it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject.”​—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. 13, p. 467.

“The Bible does not say we have a soul. ‘Nefesh’ is the person himself, his need for food, the very blood in his veins, his being.”​—Dr. H. M. Orlinsky of Hebrew Union College, quoted in New York Times, October 12, 1962.

Does it seem strange to you that scholars of various religious persuasions are now saying that the soul is man himself? Is this what you have been taught? Or, have you been taught that the soul is an immortal part of man? If so, what effect has this teaching had on you? Has it moved you to spend money for religious purposes that you would otherwise have used for necessities of life? Could it be that your church has been dishonest in its teaching? Who is right​—the church or its scholars?

If the scholars are right in saying that the human soul is the entire person, including his fleshly body, we should expect the Bible to refer to the soul as being mortal. Does it? Yes. The Bible speaks of ‘holding back,’ ‘rescuing’ and ‘saving’ a neʹphesh or soul from death. (Psalm 78:50; 116:8; James 5:20) We also read: “Let us not strike his soul fatally.” (Genesis 37:21) “The manslayer must flee there who fatally strikes a soul unintentionally.” (Numbers 35:11) “Their soul will die in youth.” (Job 36:14) “The soul that is sinning​—it itself will die.”​—Ezekiel 18:4, 20.

But is it possible that at least in a few Scriptural references the original-language words rendered “soul” designate something that leaves the body at death and is immortal? What about such texts as the following? “As her soul was going out (because she died) she called his name Benoni.” (Genesis 35:18) “My God, please, cause the soul of this child to come back within him.” (1 Kings 17:21) “Stop raising a clamor, for his soul is in him.” (Acts 20:10) Do not these passages indicate that the soul is something that exists independently of the body?

The text at Job 33:22, written in poetic style, provides a key to understanding these passages. There “soul” and “life” are placed in parallel, so that the two words could be interchanged without changing the sense of the passage. We read: “His soul draws near to the pit, and his life to those inflicting death.” From this parallel we can see that the word “soul” can mean life as a person and, therefore, the departure of the soul can be understood to refer to the end of life as a person.

To illustrate: A man might say that his dog ‘lost its life’ when it was hit by a truck. Does he mean that this animal’s life left the body and continued existing? No, he is simply using a figure of speech indicating that the animal died. The same is true when we speak of a man as ‘losing his life.’ We do not mean that his life exists independently of the body. Similarly, ‘to lose one’s soul’ means to ‘lose one’s life as a soul’ and carries no meaning of continued existence after death. Recognizing this, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible states:

“The ‘departure’ of the nephesh [soul] must be viewed as a figure of speech, for it does not continue to exist independently of the body, but dies with it (Num. 31:19; Judg. 16:30; Ezek. 13:19). No biblical text authorizes the statement that the ‘soul’ is separated from the body at the moment of death.”

THE SOURCE OF THE BELIEF

The Scriptural evidence is unmistakably clear that man does not have an immortal soul but is himself a soul. How, then, did this belief about an immortal soul find its way into the teachings of Christendom’s churches? Today it is frankly acknowledged that this has come about through the influence of pagan Grecian philosophy. Writes Professor Douglas T. Holden in his book Death Shall Have No Dominion:

“Christian theology has become so fused with Greek philosophy that it has reared individuals who are a mixture of nine parts Greek thought to one part Christian thought.”

The Catholic magazine Commonweal, in its issue of January 15, 1971, confessed that the idea of an immortal soul was a concept that “the late Jews and early Christians inherited from Athens.”

Who is to blame for this mixture of pagan Greek and Christian thought? Is it not the religious clergy? Surely the church members did not on their own come up with this teaching, one that Bible scholars now openly admit to be unscriptural.

But from where did the ancient Greeks get their basic religious foundation? As has already been pointed out, there is strong evidence that the religious concepts of the Greeks and other peoples were influenced by the Babylonians. And as to Babylonian beliefs about the soul note what The International Standard Bible Encyclopædia says:

“After death the souls of men were supposed to continue in existence. . . . The Babylonians . . . placed often with the dead articles which might be used in his future existence. . . . In the future world there seem to have been distinctions made among the dead. Those who fell in battle seem to have had special favor. They received fresh water to drink, while those who had no posterity to put offerings at their graves suffered sore and many deprivations.”

So the Greeks could easily have gotten their basic ideas about the immortality of the soul from Babylon, which ideas were then enlarged upon by the Greek philosophers.

Something similar appears to have taken place in connection with the non-Christian religions still in existence today. For example, a comparison of the ancient civilization of the Indus Valley, where Hinduism is the dominant religion, with that of Mesopotamia reveals notable similarities. These include structures like the religious ziggurat platforms of Mesopotamia and pictographic signs bearing a strong resemblance to early Mesopotamian forms. On the basis of his study, the noted Assyriologist Samuel N. Kramer suggested that the Indus Valley was settled by a people who fled from Mesopotamia when the Sumerians took control of the area. It is not difficult to understand, then, where Hinduism got its belief in an undying soul.

The evidence thus points to Babylon as the most ancient source from which belief in the immortality of the human soul radiated to the ends of the earth. And there at Babylon, according to the Bible, a rebellion against God occurred. In itself that would be reason enough to view the doctrine of an immortal soul with reservations. But do not forget that, as we have already seen, this teaching is also in direct conflict with the Bible.

Furthermore, is not the idea that the soul is immortal contrary to what you personally have observed? For example, what happens when a person is knocked unconscious, faints, or is placed under an anesthetic at a hospital? If his “soul” is really something separate from the body and is able to function intelligently apart from the body, so that even death itself does not affect its existence and its functions, why is it that during such period of unconsciousness the person is completely unaware of all activity around him? Why is it that he must be told afterward what happened during that time? If his “soul” can see, hear, feel and think after death, as religions generally teach, why does something far less drastic than death, such as a period of unconsciousness, stop all these functions?

Also, a dead body, whether it be that of a human or of an animal, eventually returns to the elements of the ground. Nothing about death even hints at there being an immortal soul that lives on.

EFFECT OF THE DOCTRINE ABOUT THE SOUL’S IMMORTALITY

What a person believes about the soul is of no little consequence.

The teaching of the immortality of the human soul has been used to override the conscience of people in times of war. Religious leaders have made it appear that taking life is not so bad, as those slain do not really die after all. And those who die in battle against the enemy are promised bliss. Typical are remarks such as those reported on in the New York Times of September 11, 1950: “Sorrowing parents whose sons have been drafted or recalled for combat duty were told yesterday in St. Patrick’s Cathedral that death in battle was part of God’s plan for populating ‘the kingdom of Heaven.’” The idea here expressed differs little from the ancient Babylonian teaching that the war dead gained special favors.

Misrepresentations of what the Bible says about the soul have thus contributed toward the placing of a cheapened value on human life and have made people feel dependent on the great religious systems that have falsely claimed to care for their souls.

Knowing these things, what will you do? It is obvious that the true God, who is himself “the God of truth” and who hates lies, will not look with favor on persons who cling to organizations that teach falsehood. (Psalm 31:5; Proverbs 6:16-19; Revelation 21:8) And, really, would you want to be even associated with a religion that had not been honest with you?

[Picture on page 40]

THEY ARE ALL SOULS