The Soul at Death

[n2thelight]

As to where the dead are, we need not guess; for, Scripture is clear―that at the moment that we die―we go back to God the Father, and our flesh body goes back into the dust whence it came:

Ecclesiastes 12:7
7 Then [at death] shall the dust [flesh] return to the earth as it was: and the spirit [the part of us that lives on] shall return unto God who gave it. KJV

Paul knew that upon death we go back to the Lord. But, as you see, our flesh body does not travel with us; it remains here to rot in the grave. But we are not in that grave with our rotting flesh―God forbid―rather, we are in Heaven with the Lord (Heaven is wherever God is; it is His abode):

2 Corinthians 5:6-8​

6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
7(For we walk by faith, not by sight
8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. KJV
​

In the above, Paul is giving an either/or. In other words, you are in only one of two places; you are either here in the flesh (living on the Earth in your flesh body), or you are with God (in your spiritual body) after your flesh deceases. There is no third place. You are either here or there, and that goes for the wicked and for the good―we ALL go back to God the Father after we die down here.

Revelation 20:4

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

In the above,these people have died,yet one can clearly see that they are not in the ground somewhere.These are those spoken about by Paul in the below verse

1 Thessalonians 4:14 (Whole Chapter)
For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

​

If we believe, as a Christian, that Christ set the example for us; so that we will follow as He did, in dying, and rising again, then "to sleep" is to be dead from the flesh body. The Greek is a simple language, for it's structure allows one to be more precise. The subject in the frame of this verse is; "that ye not be ignorant as to where the dead are." If you're a Christian, you know and believe that Jesus Christ died, was buried, and on the third day arose and came out of the tomb. If you do not believe this, Paul classifies you as ignorant, and heathen [non-believer].

It was on the fortieth day that he ascended back to the Father. When Jesus ascended into heaven, all the souls went with him into heaven also, that had passed on, up to that point in time. The souls of some went to wait for that time of judgment, while others to the glory of God. Those that sleep [are dead] are not out there in a hole in the ground, but all Christians must believe that they arose to be with the Father, just like Christ did also. The dead are with God; all of them


Mark 12:26 "And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, `I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?' "

Jesus is saying here, "now lets talk about the dead for a moment." Jesus is reminding these Sadducees that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were all dead, yet God has said, I am the God of these men, and if God were the God of these men at Moses time, than each of these three men would still have to be alive. To be a God over anybody they would have to be alive to have a God over them. The meaning to this is that nobody is dead yet, not even Satan and his evil spirits, and fallen angels. Sure Satan was condemned to death in the first earth age, however that sentence will not be carried out until after the Millennium age, and the great white throne judgment. Jesus is telling these men that they don't know what they are even talking about.

Mark 12:27 "He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err."

Any one that teaches that there loved one is out there in a hole in the ground, waiting for a rapture is just as these Sadducees, greatly in err. That is what the heathen believe and it is called "soul sleep". The other piece of traditional trash that is taught today, is that some day they will join back to their dead and decayed flesh body. Wake up pal, when the flesh body is dead it is gone forever, and it will have no more of value than a hand full of dirt.

 

[Webb]

Amen!

 

[Drew]

The other piece of traditional trash that is taught today, is that some day they will join back to their dead and decayed flesh body. Wake up pal, when the flesh body is dead it is gone forever, and it will have no more of value than a hand full of dirt.

I am not entirely sure what you are saying here.

I will point out, though, that the Scriptures are quite clear - the final state of the believer is in a body, with arms, legs, a mouth, etc.

I trust you are not saying that we stay as "souls" forever in Heaven. This is a popular view, but it is demonstrably not Biblical.

 

[Vic C.]

Just to keep this on the level:

As to where the dead are, we need not guess; for, Scripture is clear―that at the moment that we die―we go back to God the Father, and our flesh body goes back into the dust whence it came:

Ecclesiastes 12:7
7 Then [at death] shall the dust [flesh] return to the earth as it was: and the spirit [the part of us that lives on] shall return unto God who gave it. KJV

I read scripture as it is. This verse and it's passage and context makes no distinction between believer and non-believer.

This is proof-texting to support a particular position, not that I agree or disagree. All I'm saying is, the text of this verse isn't good support for this belief. The text simply says that God gave man a spirit and when that man dies, God calls that spirit back to Him.

 

[Drew]

I read scripture as it is. This verse and it's passage and context makes no distinction between believer and non-believer..

Your statement prompts me to raise a fundamental question and propose an answer (an answer that, no doubt, many will not like).

The question is this: Do we take all assertions in the Bible as statements of foundational objective truth?

In the context of the Ecclesiastes text, this question becomes this: Is Solomon expressing his own, possibly mistaken, opinion about what happens after death, or is He "speaking for God" and therefore expressing an absolute truth?

I do not think we can provide a general answer to the more general question. Reason: We have many clear examples of statements in the Bible that we know are the opinion of the author, and that this opinion is mistaken.

One example consists of statements made by Job to the effect that "once you're dead, that's it". And we know that's wrong. Uncomfortable and challenging though this may be, we simply cannot take every assertion "as is" - we need to evaluate the assertion in a much wider context.

I do not offer an opinion on the Ecclesiasted 12:7 text, I merely point out that we cannot apply the "simple" hermeneutical principle that what is stated about the afterlife must be correct "just because its in the Bible".

 

[n2thelight]

As to where the dead are, we need not guess; for, Scripture is clear―that at the moment that we die―we go back to God the Father, and our flesh body goes back into the dust whence it came:

Ecclesiastes 12:7
7 Then [at death] shall the dust [flesh] return to the earth as it was: and the spirit [the part of us that lives on] shall return unto God who gave it. KJV

Vic C

I read scripture as it is. This verse and it's passage and context makes no distinction between believer and non-believer.

This is proof-texting to support a particular position, not that I agree or disagree. All I'm saying is, the text of this verse isn't good support for this belief. The text simply says that God gave man a spirit and when that man dies, God calls that spirit back to Him.

That's why I provided other scripture's,however when one understands that we don't have a soul,rather,we are a soul,it's simple to me anyway,what the passage is saying...

Genesis 3:19
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Too quote one of my favorite songs"All we are is dust in the wind"

Drew

I do not think we can provide a general answer to the more general question. Reason: We have many clear examples of statements in the Bible that we know are the opinion of the author, and that this opinion is mistaken.

One example consists of statements made by Job to the effect that "once you're dead, that's it". And we know that's wrong. Uncomfortable and challenging though this may be, we simply cannot take every assertion "as is" - we need to evaluate the assertion in a much wider context.

There are many factors that must taken into account when one is studying prophecy, parables, and the various stories of the Bible. These include; figures of speech, idioms, traditions of the time of the writing, the difference of when something is meant literally or it is to be taken spiritually, translational accuracy, dispensations.
. . .
When these arise in a particular In-depth Bible Study, they will be explained more thoroughly. The main thing to understand is that God has placed all of our answers before us in the personal letter He wrote to us called: The Bible. And with the assistance of a teacher, we can see deeper into the vast and inexhaustible wealth of knowledge and wisdom of God's deeper truths. Eventually we learn to read, understand, and study on our own; it is then that we can teach someone else God's truth. And on it goes.... God would not have written it to us if He intended that we not understand it! There is no wasted action with our Heavenly Father.

All wisdom comes from God, and with study and prayer for understanding to our Heavenly Father, we are able to understand the wondrous mysteries that He has given us in the Written Word; and we are able to receive it with all the understanding of a child that it requires.

Drew

I am not entirely sure what you are saying here.

I will point out, though, that the Scriptures are quite clear - the final state of the believer is in a body, with arms, legs, a mouth, etc.

I trust you are not saying that we stay as "souls" forever in Heaven. This is a popular view, but it is demonstrably not Biblical.

All I am saying is that we shall never be in flesh bodies again....

 

[Drew]

All I am saying is that we shall never be in flesh bodies again....

If by this you mean that the "stuff" of which our resurrection bodies will be made will be different from the "stuff" our present bodies are made of, I would certainly agree.

But our resurrection bodies will be "physical objects" - they will have hands, arms, heads, etc. Of this there should be no doubt - we are promised the same kind of resurrection body as Jesus was given.

And that body certainly had all the "usual" features - hands, arms, legs, head, etc.

 

[Drew]

Returning to the matter of the meaning of the Luke 16 parable:

One line of argument to the effect that the parable does not deal with the afterlife appeals to a structural pattern in the gospels whereby Jesus does things and then comments on those actions through parables. To the extent that this pattern is to some degree normative, and given Lazarus’ poverty and low social status, it is plausible that this particular parable entails Jesus’ cryptic explanation of His habit of engaging with “outcasts and sinnersâ€. On this view, Jesus eats with sinners, touches those who are ritually unclean (e.g. lepers), etc., and then uses the Luke 16 parable to explain, using a well-known story about life after death as a metaphorical vehicle to make the point that His actions constitute the in-breaking of the Kingdom of God through His own ministry.

 

[n2thelight]

If by this you mean that the "stuff" of which our resurrection bodies will be made will be different from the "stuff" our present bodies are made of, I would certainly agree.

But our resurrection bodies will be "physical objects" - they will have hands, arms, heads, etc. Of this there should be no doubt - we are promised the same kind of resurrection body as Jesus was given.

And that body certainly had all the "usual" features - hands, arms, legs, head, etc.

Agreed.....

 

[n2thelight]

Returning to the matter of the meaning of the Luke 16 parable:

One line of argument to the effect that the parable does not deal with the afterlife appeals to a structural pattern in the gospels whereby Jesus does things and then comments on those actions through parables. To the extent that this pattern is to some degree normative, and given Lazarus’ poverty and low social status, it is plausible that this particular parable entails Jesus’ cryptic explanation of His habit of engaging with “outcasts and sinnersâ€. On this view, Jesus eats with sinners, touches those who are ritually unclean (e.g. lepers), etc., and then uses the Luke 16 parable to explain, using a well-known story about life after death as a metaphorical vehicle to make the point that His actions constitute the in-breaking of the Kingdom of God through His own ministry.

I can understand what you are saying,however I feel the story is real and shows how heaven is,my reason comes from verse 26


Luke 16:26 "And beside all this,between us and you,there is a great gulf fixed,so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.' "

 

[Drew]

Again, in relation to the OP treatment of the parable of Lazarus from Luke 16:

Another line of argument suggesting that the parable of Lazarus is not really dealing with the nature of the afterlife is its appearance in a context where Jesus otherwise addresses money:

(V1) Jesus told his disciples: “There was a rich man whose manager was accused of wasting his possessions….

(V11) So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches?

(V13b-14) You cannot serve both God and money. The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.

In this context, it is quite plausible that Jesus uses a well-known story about the after-life as a metaphor to make a point that is really about abdication of stewardship. And when one considers that the parable at the beginning of chapter 16 (the parable of the shrewd manager) is likely a cryptic way of suggesting that Israel has not been a faithful steward in respect to her God-given vocation, the suggested reading of the Lazarus parable is re-enforced.

I would claim that such a reading complements, and does not contradict, other arguments (earlier post) to the effect that the Lazars parable is Jesus’ “Kingdom of God” analysis of His embrace of outcasts and sinners. More specifically, there is every reason to believe that Israel’s vocation to be a “blessing to the world” (e.g. Genesis 26) is inextricably bound up in the promised future in-breaking of the “this-worldly” Kingdom of God (e.g. Isaiah 40-55): Israel has been entrusted (note connection to the shrewd manager) with some role in bringing that kingdom to the world. And Jesus is cryptically suggesting, via the Lazarus parable, that she, like the rich man who is in torment because he abdicated his responsibility to share his wealth with the poor, has not fulfilled her role to bring the Kingdom of God into reality.

 

[Webb]

B I G stretch on that one Drew. Further Jesus said "there WAS a CERTAIN rich man" suggesting to me at least its not a parable.

 

[Drew]

B I G stretch on that one Drew. Further Jesus said "there WAS a CERTAIN rich man" suggesting to me at least its not a parable.

You are not addressing the force of the argument.

And I suggest that any kind of parable has to make certain assertions about elements of the parable.

Your argument here is like saying we should take the story of the three bears literally because a statement like "there were three bears...." appears in the story.

 

[Elijah674]

I think that I will just BELIEVE God in Gen. 3, that satan was the LIAR!

---------PARABLES OR NON/PARABLES?-- LUKE 16--------
(in part & with my emphasis & redone)

First we need to ask ourselves, do we 'believe' Christ's Word? Really?? Case in point: 'IF YE LOVE ME KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS'. (all ten of them!!)

So when these Words of Christ are given, ask yourself which class are you in??
John states that.. 'He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.' So do we 'Believe Him', REALLY?

We call the Bible the Word of God and rightly so, mostly because of John 1:14! But do we believe the Word of God?

Perhaps some might best question their 'supposed knowledge' by the Word of God by itself? Instead of leaning upon the Jer. 5:17 'arm of flesh' that have mans reams & reams of educated PhD'ism stuff, that none seem to agree on except perhaps the two great errors that the Word of God cautions against? That of the 'd'evils first lie.. 'Ye shall not surely die' and also a day set aside by man, (see Mark 7:7) for a 'professed' sacred use! Sunday keeping which is attempted to replace the 'Day that God set aside for Holy use'. (see Gen. 2:1-3)

OK: Lets just test our individual 'belief'?

-Parables- (hold on a mite now, ok? We will get to the Luke 16 'parable' of the 'rich man & Lazarus momentarily!)

Christ's Words:
'All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and [without a parable spake He [not unto them.] That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; ... Then Jesus sent the [multitude away], and went into the house: and His disciples came unto Him, saying, [Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.]'

OK. We.. 'some' can see so far that one group had an explanation from Christ, while the other lost so far multitude, did not. Do you believe Christ's [WORD] so far??

Now: In Mark 4:10-11 we see.. 'And when He was alone, they that were about Him with the twelve asked of Him asked the parable. And He said unto them, [unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: (a short pause please? with all of these denominations teaching otherwise, can this statement of Christ's Word be documented?) but unto [them] that are [without] all these things are done in parables.' Now then, are you still believers?? (Rom. 8:14???)

Again: Mark 4:33-34. 'And with many [such] parables spake He the Word unto them, (who is them, Pharisees & Multitude??) as they were able to hear it.
(pay apt attention please!) But [[without]] a parable [[spake He not unto them]]: (do you believe Him??) and when they [were alone, He EXPOUNDED ALL THINGS TO HIS DISCIPLES].' Again, do you believe the Word of God??

Again: Luke 8:10 says.. 'And He said, [Unto you] it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: (break time again! THINK!!) but to others in parables; (notice?!) that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.' This parable might be a good study for some here, huh? + all of the Rev. 17:1-5 professed MINISTERS & Jer. 17:5 Arm of Flesh seekers!! **See verses 11-15 of Luke 8.

Why did the Lord use Parables?? These Parables my friends will bring real questions to a sincere seeker!

'And His disciples came, and said unto Him, Why [speaketh thou in parables?] He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto [you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but unto them, it is not given.] ... For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; least at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, AND SHOULD UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART, AND SHOULD BE CONVERTED, AND I SHOULD HEAL THEM.' Matt. 13:10-15 in part.

Surely we of Heb. 6 can readily see what Christ has told [us] so far, right? We started out with Matt. 13:34 with Christ defining whom Parables were for, & that 'without' a parable He spake not unto them. THESE MULTITUDE included all unbelievers! (And the disciples were not these!)

In Luke 16 the only question that needs to be addressed, is to whom was Christ addressing? The Disciples or the Multitude?
Remember that it is impossible for God to lie! Do you 'believe Him' that is the question for [anyone] to answer to find out which group that you are in, a disciple, or just one of the 'Multitude'?? We often hear of Luke 16's rich man and Lazarus being an 'actual' stated Truth instead of a Parable!

Verse 14 is almost always left out of your today's sermons? Notice what it says in closing!

'And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, [heard all these things: ] and [they derided Him].' And this was the setting for this Luke 16 Parable! Christ was addressing the blind multitude! And again in the next Words, we see who Christ was addressing, His disciples! (chapter 17:1. And remember that the chapters numbers and the verse numbers etc., were added by man)

---Elijah

 

[Drew]

Hi Elijah:

I appreciate your participation, but I cannot understand your posts. Can you possibly express your position in some kind of terse, general statement?

 

[Drew]

More on the Luke 16 account of Lazarus and the rich man:

Another element of the case against seeing Luke 16 appeals to a pattern of Jesus’ being cryptically critical of Israel. One clear example of this is the parable about the vineyard renters who kill the owners’ servant and finally the owner’s son. This is clearly a critique of Israel – she has killed the prophets sent to her and she is about to kill Jesus. Other parables, too, are critical of Israel but are expressed in the form of parables to prevent Jesus from being seen as directly criticizing Jewish leadership – something that would get Him crucified before the appointed time.

Now the fact that some parables have this character does not necessarily mean the story of Lazarus is another example. But there are compelling hints that it does. Jesus emphasizes that the rich man is Jewish (through the reference to the brothers being under the Law of Moses). Of course, this is not overly compelling evidence that a critique of Israel is involved since the beggar is not explicitly identified as non-Jewish (if it were obvious that the beggar was a Gentile, this would constitute powerful evidence that the rich man represents the nation of Israel, and that the message is that Israel has failed in her vocation to be a light to the Gentiles).

However, the rich man’s purple robes evoke images of royalty. And in the Old Testament, Israel is repeatedly set in the position of being the rightful “king†over all nations, even though she is, at times, set in a position of subservience to the other nations. Besides, many of the things Jesus says and does suggests that He is re-constituting Israel, with the implication that national Israel should not be too comfortable in believing that she is God’s special people to the exclusion of Gentiles. In light of this, the parable could be a warning to the nation to not presume that they, alone, have the favour of God.

So it is at least a strong possibility that the Luke 16 story is another one of several carefully coded criticisms Jesus levels at the Jewish nation, with the rich man as Israel having failed to be a light to the Gentiles (as Lazarus). Note that Israel’s abandonment of her vocation to the Gentiles might not be the only critique of Israel bundled up in the parable. As argued here, the parable could also entail a critique of the leadership of Israel to not care for the poor (whether Jew or Gentile).

In any event, I have a very hard time believing that the parable is a literal description of the afterlife. Such a meaning would be entirely inconsistent with Jesus’ tendency express Himself in coded, cryptic, and riddling terminology. Readers may not like this characterization with its implications that Jesus is somehow evasive. Well, the textual evidence gives us no choice - Jesus routinely expresses Himself this way (the examples are too numerous to list).

 

[Drew]

More about Luke 16:

The account of the rich man and Lazarus can be analyzed as a parable which manifests all three of the following characteristics, with each such characteristic common to a range of different parables (or teachings) of Jesus:

1. The parable consists in a comment that explains prior actions;

2. The parable consists in a specifically cryptic critique of the nation of Israel;

3. The parable consists in a reformulation of a well-known “story”, but with an alternate (and subversive) ending.

Arguments supporting seeing the Luke 16 account in terms of two of these characteristics are provided above.

More specifically, if we suppose that the parable entails a critique of the nation of Israel in respect to her failure to honour her covenant responsibility to be a blessing to the Gentiles, we can see these three characteristics manifested, respectively, as follows:

1. Jesus eats with and otherwise empathizes “outcasts and sinners” (the actions) and then explains those actions by telling a story about a rich man and his failure to engage in the same kinds of actions in relation to a poor man;

2. The rich man represents the nation of Israel whose consignment to Hades entails a clear, but coded, critique of Israel’s actions;

3. “Abraham’s bosom” story was conventionally understood as the place the righteous dead awaited final judgement. To the extent that the first century Jew expected that the “righteous” was a category for Jews alone, the alternate ending, of course, is the subversive claim that at least some Jews will not be found to be “righteous” while some Gentiles will.

What is the point of all this? I suggest that the fact that the Luke 16 account, interpreted as suggested, manifests all three of these characteristics constitutes compelling evidence that the suggested interpretation is close to being correct. This is really an argument from “consistency” - if we see a range of parables manifesting certain properties, when we encounter a new parable, we should, all other things being equal, “prefer” interpretations that manifest those same features. The implicit assumption being that Jesus was consistent in the way He used parables.

In this respect, note that the “literal” reading of the Luke 16 account does not meet any of these characteristics found in so many other parables:

1. If the account is really about life after death, what action of Jesus could this be any kind of comment on?

2. If the intent of the account is to describe the nature of the afterlife, there is no specificity to Israel whatsoever – the implications are the same for all humanity. And there is therefore no sense of any critique of Israel, either;

3. If the account is really about life after death, how does this constitute any kind of reformulation of the existing “Abraham’s bosom” story, capped with a subversive, alternative ending?

Let me be clear: I am not suggesting that the above is a “slam-dunk” argument against the “literal” reading of the Luke 16 account. Instead, it is one piece of what I see as a mosaic of arguments which collectively support a reading where Jesus is criticizing Israel for her failure to honour her covenant obligations.

 

[Webb]

So, I suppose that when Jesus spoke ( for example ) Mk.16:15,16 He was speaking a parable??

 

[Elijah674]

So, I suppose that when Jesus spoke ( for example ) Mk.16:15,16 He was speaking a parable??

Hi young'in!;) Was that question for Christ's Word that I posted up?? If so, why did you leave off verse 14? 'Afterward He appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them..' and then came your verse 15-16 'And He said unto them..'

--Elijah

 

[jasoncran]

As to where the dead are, we need not guess; for, Scripture is clear―that at the moment that we die―we go back to God the Father, and our flesh body goes back into the dust whence it came:

Ecclesiastes 12:7
7 Then [at death] shall the dust [flesh] return to the earth as it was: and the spirit [the part of us that lives on] shall return unto God who gave it. KJV



That's why I provided other scripture's,however when one understands that we don't have a soul,rather,we are a soul,it's simple to me anyway,what the passage is saying...

Genesis 3:19
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Too quote one of my favorite songs"All we are is dust in the wind"



There are many factors that must taken into account when one is studying prophecy, parables, and the various stories of the Bible. These include; figures of speech, idioms, traditions of the time of the writing, the difference of when something is meant literally or it is to be taken spiritually, translational accuracy, dispensations.
. . .
When these arise in a particular In-depth Bible Study, they will be explained more thoroughly. The main thing to understand is that God has placed all of our answers before us in the personal letter He wrote to us called: The Bible. And with the assistance of a teacher, we can see deeper into the vast and inexhaustible wealth of knowledge and wisdom of God's deeper truths. Eventually we learn to read, understand, and study on our own; it is then that we can teach someone else God's truth. And on it goes.... God would not have written it to us if He intended that we not understand it! There is no wasted action with our Heavenly Father.

All wisdom comes from God, and with study and prayer for understanding to our Heavenly Father, we are able to understand the wondrous mysteries that He has given us in the Written Word; and we are able to receive it with all the understanding of a child that it requires.



All I am saying is that we shall never be in flesh bodies again....

wrong. i john saw the new heaven and the new earth and new jersusalem descended onto the earth. hmm this is after the final destruction and judgment of man and and angels. and in context with this verse.

matthew 5:5 the meek shall inherit the earth. who died so that we could obtain the earth? JESUS CHRIST!..if we all die and no saint is left on the earth but sinners how can that be?

in the book of proverbs or elsewhere in the ot its said that the wicked shall be cut off from the earth and drew is correct job and the "preacher" are at times giving their opinions,this is for a purpose.