This Chapter must begin with a discussion of terms. Indeed, for many it should begin with a huge question mark!
Objective observation regarding life does not extend beyond the grave; reason, faith, and the scriptures speak of survival and of resurrection. The field of investigation and speculation, then, is left open. Various approaches have been made to the problem of the nature of the soul's existence between death and the resurrection.
One approach is that represented by Owen. He rejects life of any kind between death and resurrection due to his view of the nature of man. He rejects as false a scientific naturalism which would find in man no spirit nature or life other than the natural and material existence. He rejects as equally false what he calls the traditional religious view of man: he is made up of physical body and soul and the soul can live after the death of the body. He argues that this idea was adapted from Greek thought; it has no place in the main stream of Christian belief, which grew out of Hebrew religion and not Greek philosophy. He grants a few instances in the New Testament which appear to present this view, but he holds that they have slipped in and do not belong in the main stream of Christian thought.
Examination of the New Testament, however, fails to reveal any such idea. When Paul looked upon death as desirable, it was due to such a disparaging view of the evil nature of the body. The setting was one in which the Apostle contrasted the almost indescribably difficult life of suffering in his missionary work with the glorious prospect of the immediate presence and fellowship of Christ which would be his at death.
Owen holds that the Hebrew view of man was that of an animated body. The soul or spirit is only this body as animated, as active. When the body dies the soul dies, too. Soul and body live together; they perish together. Owen believes that God's purpose for man will be seen in the resurrection, when the total man, body-soul, will be raised from death. He recognizes that this view will hold difficulty for those who wish to know about this interim between the death of the body-soul and the resurrection of the body-soul "at the last day." However, since the Bible tells us very little about what happens after death, in the final consummation, or of God's ultimate purpose for man, theologians should admit that they know nothing. His argument for a resurrection but his denial of an interval between the death of the body-soul and "the last day" is not clear.
In appraisal of Owen's position it should be observed that his argument is not convincing due to the fact that he omits large parts of the total picture. What he calls exposition of the Scriptures is the weakest part of the work; it is not exposition in the accepted use of term. The position which he sets out is Biblical, it is not "orthodox" in the sense of Protestant orthodoxy," and it is one which attacks scientific naturalism not so much as it does basic supernaturalism. His view will not stand the test of exegesis.
When Owen's entire argument has been examined, there is still another question: has all truth come from the Hebrews? Has none come from other cultures? Further, what of the matter of Christian doctrine in relation to Hebrew theology? At many places Christians theology goes far beyond Hebrew theology. Does it not do the same where eschatology is concerned? Surely God's continuing revelation has some word to speak here.
Still another approach to the nature of man's experience between death and resurrection is that represented by Chafer. This is the view that the believer is at the point of death given an intermediate body so that he will not be bodiless between giving up the natural body in death and receiving the spiritual body at the resurrection. The basis for this belief is reluctance to accept the idea of the spirit's having life apart from the body; the scriptural background which Chafer cites is 2 Corinthians 5:1-4. This intermediate body is "from heaven." Its being from heaven does not require that it be used forever. It will be exchanged for the eternal body at the time of the resurrection.
This view is foreign to the New Testament unless this is the correct interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:1-4. Chafer's interpretation is not the almost universally accepted one, as will be seen in the exegesis of the passage later in this chapter.
Yet another view of man's experience between death and the resurrection is that based upon statements from Martin Luther. This view is that the interval is like the experience of sleep: one goes to sleep, and after a few hours of sleep he awakes without consciousness of time lapse and without consciousness of what has happened to him in the interim of sleep. So Luther held that the righteous dead will sleep until the Lord comes to knock on the grave and bid them wake up. The first righteous man who ever died will arise on the last day and think he has slept scarcely an hour. There seems to be an inconsistency between this and Luther's view, expressed elsewhere, that after death souls hear, see, and perceive but those yet alive cannot know how they do so." Calvin did not accept the view of sleep without consciousness; he called it frenzy and those who held to it fanatics. It is his view that the souls of the righteous dead live and enjoy quiet rest but that the whole of their felicity is to be experienced only in the resurrection.
Thank you
See You, Other Time
zoni
