Why Subtracting from Scripture by Addition to Defend Millerite Doctrine?
Why does Lex argue in defense of the Millerite movement's "Soul Sleep" doctrine, which demonstrates the very backwards Millerite method adding to the word to twist scriptures to accord with the Millerite doctrine? He begins with a legitimate observation: Paul does not use the exact formula, “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” Fine. But having removed a popular paraphrase, he then proceeds to add something Paul himself never says: an intervening period of dead unconscious oblivion indefinitely beyond millennia between being absent from the body and being at home with the Lord. Paul's statement is straightforward: At home in the body → absent from the Lord. Absent from the body → at home with the Lord. But the Millerite doctrine requires: At home in the body → absent from the Lord. Absent from the body → dead unconscious oblivion for an unspecified period. Resurrection → at home with the Lord.
That middle proposition is not Paul's. It is the doctrine's required insertion. Lex repeatedly says that the context of resurrection explains the passage. No--it establishes that believers will receive immortal resurrection bodies. That is not the same question. A future bodily resurrection does not, by itself, establish that the deceased from this world are dead unconscious until then, as multiple scriptures point to saints like Moses, Elijah and Samuel making appearances in exceptional instances besides references in Revelations to saints asking how much longer will it be before their martyrdom is avenged. That conclusion must be supplied from elsewhere and then imposed upon 2 Corinthians 5.
Indeed, Paul's own context creates difficulty for the Millerite explanation. He explicitly distinguishes being “unclothed” from being “further clothed.” If Paul merely meant, “I want to die, remain unconscious for millennia, and later receive a resurrection body,” then his expressed preference in verses 6–8 has been transformed into something much more elaborate than he actually says.
And notice the sleight of hand. Lex says Paul “wanted to shed his body so that he could be in the presence of the Lord.” But Paul does not say he wanted to shed his body, then enter an unconscious interval, and only subsequently be with the Lord. Lex has inserted that sequence because his prior doctrine requires it. The "soul-sleep" doctrine therefore requires a third condition that Paul never states: In the body → absent from the Lord → absent from the body → unconscious oblivion → resurrection → at home with the Lord.
That middle proposition is the doctrine's insertion, not Paul's, and this creates the central problem: if departing the body confers no earlier conscious presence with Christ, then "soul sleep" doctrine removes the very advantage Paul assigns to departure. Paul is expressing his preference from his present temporal perspective. He is eager to depart and be at home with the Lord. Under "soul sleep," however, departure supposedly gives him no earlier conscious fellowship with Christ whatsoever. He would instead exchange remaining conscious earthly existence for millennia of dead unconscious oblivion, only to awaken at the same resurrection he would otherwise await. That strips his stated preference of the very advantage his statement conveys of leaving the body sooner rather than later.
“Subjective instantaneity” does not solve this. Saying that millennia of unconsciousness would seem instantaneous upon resurrection does not make that objective deprivation disappear. Nor does Paul introduce such a psychological theory from his temporal perspective. It is an interpretive device added to reconcile Millerite "soul sleep" with Paul's stated preference.