I summarise, and then comment on, this short work by Hiram R. Diaz III, published by Scripturalist Publications.

According to the doctrine of soul sleep, the soul, after the death of the body, exists in a state of unconsciousness until both body and soul arise at the Day of Judgment.

The image of death as ‘sleep’ is prevalent in both the Old Testament and the New Testament Scriptures.

Many Christian thinkers – both ancient and modern – have taught that this image, understood metaphorically, indicates that the soul has some degree of conscious existence between death and the final resurrection.

Others have argued that the soul, separated from bodily organs and functions, has no means of conscious existence.

The idea of ‘sleep’ can connote a number of different things, and does not necessarily imply a total cessation of mental functioning.

We may distinguish between ‘externally directed consciousness’ (which the sleeper lacks) and ‘internally directed consciousness’ (which the sleeper does not lack).

A number of OT scriptures speak of death as ‘sleep’, and of a person ‘sleeping with his fathers’ (Gen 47:30; 1 Kings 1:21, etc.).

In the NT, Jesus speaks of Jairus’ dead daughter as “not dead but sleeping”, and of Lazarus having “fallen asleep”.  Mt 27:52 tells of the raising of the saints who had ‘fallen asleep’; and Acts records Stephen as being stoned as falling ‘asleep’.

The image of death as ‘sleep’ is used by Paul in  1 Cor 7:39; 11:30. etc., and 1 Thess, and also by Peter in his 2nd epistle.

‘Sleep’, then, is in Scripture often employed as a metaphor (‘euphemism’) for death.

Literal sleep is not, either in the Scriptures or in modern psychological thinking, a state of absolute unconsciousness.  This is seen in the phenomenon of dreams (Gen 30:25-43; 31:22-29, etc.), and especially of lucid dreams.  Indeed, there are many instances of God speaking to persons through dreams (Num 12:6) , and of these dreams being remembered afterwards (Judges 7:13-15).  Indeed, revelatory dreams form an important category of prophecy.

In Scripture, then, the sleeper has ‘internally directed consciousness’.  Conversely, he lacks ‘externally directed consciousness’ (1 Kings 3:16-28).  He is, therefore, vulnerable to attack.  When the psalmist complains that God is ‘sleeping’, he is thereby suspecting God of not being aware of his plight.  In reality, of course, God does not sleep, and this assures the biblical writers (and us) that God is indeed aware of our condition.

To sleep is to switch off from external concerns, and sleeplessness is therefore either a symptom either of anxiety about those concerns, or an indicator of action (‘I will not sleep until…’).

We recall the failure of the disciples to stay awake in the Garden of Gethesmane.  If they were awake, they could watch and pray; if asleep, they could not.

At the Transfiguration, it was when fully awake that Peter and the others were able to perceive Moses and Elijah.

Other Scriptural references may be given to indicate that literal sleep entails a ‘switching off’ from the external world, while maintaining ongoing ‘internally directed consciousness’.  Various parables of our Lord imply the same thing.

Put simply:  literally sleep entails a lack of awareness of the outside world, but does not imply the lack of an internal mental life and activity.

If literal sleep does not entail absolute uncnsciousness, it follows that the metaphor (‘euphemism’) of death-as-sleep does not necessitate absolute unconsciousness either.

‘Sleep’ is used in Scripture not only as a metaphor for death: it can also serve as a metaphor for inactivity, immobility , lack of motivation, insensibility or spiritual blindness.  [‘Sleeping on the job’, we might say].  Conversely, wakefulness suggests a state of arousal or vigilance.

In conclusion: the doctrine of ‘soul sleep’ is not supported by Scriptural teaching.  In that teaching, one who ‘sleeps’ has a continuing internal activity of the mind, even though he is is unaware of the external world:-

‘Literal sleep is not a state of absolute unconsciousness, but one of limited consciousness in which the sleeper lacks externally directed consciousness but retains internally directed consciousness. Any understanding of the sleep euphemism for death that claims to be based on “the literal interpretation of the imagery of death,” therefore, must reject absolute unconsciousness as the relevant point of comparison between these two phenomena.’

Comments

The main thesis of this short work is that whereas when sleeping the individual has no conscious interraction with the external world, the internal life of the mind is still active.  If this is the case, then the idea that the ‘soul sleep’ of death involves no conscious activity at all is disproven.

I think that the main flaw in this argument is that the author fails to take proper account of the supposed metaphorical nature of the ‘death-as-sleep’ idea.  To say that x is a metaphor for y does not mean that the two are alike in every respect.  For example, when Jesus declared: “I am the light of the world” he did not mean that his body was made of photons, rather than of flesh and blood.

Of course, the notion of ‘death-as-sleep’ may go beyond being a mere metaphor (or euphemism).  But to consider that would be going beyond the scope of Diaz’ booklet, and therefore of these comments.

In summary, I do not think that this booklet offers evidence or effective argument either way on the disputed doctrine of soul sleep.