To judge from 1 Cor 7:1-40 Paul believed in the imminent appearing of the Lord and that the final resurrection would occur within his own lifetime. Otherwise he likely would not have made such unreasonable demands on believers.1 Paul seemed to think that believers alive in his day would live to see the final resurrection (1 Thess 4:13-18).2 But what of those who had died earlier? It is a question that still plagues pious believers and systematic theologians.
If one thinks that Paul and other early believers had some insight into answering this question, one might be led to believe that the soul of a believer who dies is immediately translated into the presence of the Lord (2 Cor 5:6-10; Phil 1:21-23; Luke 23:39-43; Rev 6:9-11, 7:13-17). But Paul’s comments in 1 Thess 4:13-18 suggest that such may not be the case. Paul’s final words in this passage (i.e., “and so we shall always be with the Lord”) raise the question of where dead believers were before they were resurrected if they were not at that moment with the Lord? Shouldn’t deceased Christians have gone to be with the Lord as soon as they died? If Paul was right in 2 Cor 5:6-9 dead believers should have been accompanying the Lord on his return. As Paul said to living believers in 1 Thess 3:13: may the Lord establish your hearts unblameable in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints. Paul’s statement in 1 Thess 3:13 seems to be in direct contradiction to 1 Thess 4:13-17. Apparently one can make either argument from the Bible: the souls of believers sleep till the resurrection or they go directly to be with the Lord.
This kind of dissonance in the New Testament has led some to project an intermediate state between a believer’s death and the resurrection, which some refer to as “soul sleeping.”3 In other words when believers die, their bodies decay but their souls sleep (1 Thess 4:14) until they are awakened at the resurrection by the Lord’s cry of command, the archangel’s call and the sounding of God’s trumpet (1 Thess 4:16).
The theory of soul sleeping may have evolved out of the similarity that biblical writers find between sleep and death. For example when Stephen was killed, he is quoted as saying: “Lord do not hold this sin against them.” And the author of Acts adds: “And when he had said this he fell asleep. And Saul was consenting to his death” (Acts 7:59-8:1; see also, Mark 5:39-40; John 11:11-15; Dan 12:2; 1 Cor 11:30; 15:6, 20; Jer 51:39, 57: Ps 13:3). Indeed, the states of sleep and death resemble one another so closely that at a certain point even today one cannot immediately tell one state from the other.4
The truth of the matter is, however, that no one, not even the biblical writers, knows for certain what happens when life leaves the body. What we think we know is based on our faith or lack of it. At least one author of a biblical book apparently agrees that knowledge of what happens when we die is known to no one. The author of Ecclesiastes writes: “All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all return to dust again. Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down to the earth” (Eccl 3:20-21 RSV; compare 9:10).5
How do you see it?
Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University
1That he recognized the demands to be unreasonable is suggested by 1 Cor 7:20-21, where he was willing to suspend his rule in all the churches of remaining as you are and allowed slaves to gain their freedom.
2As he put it to his readers: “The dead in Christ will rise first, then we who are alive…”(1 Thess 4:17).
3See the discussion in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mortalism
5In the epilogue Eccl 12:7 must be read in the light of Eccl 3:19-21 and 9:10.
19 comments:
Hi Charlie,
As your title suggests this is a topic limited to those who believed that Jesus was the first fruit of a coming resurrection of those faithful to him. We are dealing of course with "emotional truths," ones which cannot be proven by the believer or disproven by the doubter, but which continue on with a strong hope attached to the persuasive power of the Jesus story.
So, what gets in the road, I wonder, of that persuasive power?
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Charlie,
It seems to me that there are several possibilities. “To sleep” seems to me a metaphorical euphemism for “to die,” as one uses “passed away,” “passed,” “kicked the bucket” or one I encountered in a Zane Grey novel of the 1920’s, “gone west.” It is still used. “Die” (apothnēskō) and “dead/death” (nekros) are also used symbolically. To sleep” to me is metaphorical because of the obvious similarities in a fresh corpse and a sleeping person. It is a euphemism of course because it is less harsh than “died.” I’ve heard it used many times. Thinking about a soul “sleeping” in a decaying corpse seems odd and revolting, like using three day old road kill for a pillow. I bet Plato’s soul was clawing its way out immediately at death, glad to be away from the corruptible body. At least the premillennial dispensationalists tended to throw the soul of the believer into “Paradise” until the resurrection.
I tend to think that attempting to hoist the Jewish idea of a general resurrection onto a Greco-Roman pedestal of the soul was too much heavy lifting for Christianity and led to a major hernia in the “wall” of logic. The Jewish “soul” seemed a part of the body, like a carbuncle; the Roman “soul” seemed a different “animal,” one who could reach the stars if a ruler or a soldier killed in combat, or which might just migrate to another body upon death, or which might wear away with “distempered bodies,” as Josephus had Titus say in Wars. Somewhere in the midst of this came the authors of the New Testament, who probably had studied models like Plato and Homer when they were learning Greek. How could these models have affected their views of immortality of the soul?
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
For some unknown reason a long dormant memory returned to me this week from early adulthood (say late twenties) when I shared my conclusion that there was no "life" between death and the resurrection/judgment. I hadn't realized how upsetting that would be for many to hear. I think my unspoken motivation (not fully realized at the time) was to get folks to focus on living a quality this life. Funny how certain experiences lie completely dormant for years until they are unexpectedly triggered.
Today I am agnostic about such matters, but hope is almost an automatic reality.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Good Snowy Evening Charlie!
I love what Gene shared about encouraging folks to focus on living a quality life in the here and now- I wish more pastors would make that their focus as well. That is the focus of the Hebrew scriptures and of Judaism. Paul malignantly referred to the Torah as "The Law" and also referred to it numerous times as a "curse," "the curse of the Law." However, the correct Jewish translation of Torah is "Instructions/Teachings for Living." Notice the emphasis on living- not dying, not death, not afterlife, not heaven or hell. Paul viewed living in a physical body as evil and sinful and was in constant conflict about his spirituality and holiness. Why should I care that he hated dealing with his physical passions and longed to be free of this sinful flesh so he could be like Jesus in spirit form? As you astutely pointed out, his beliefs were all over the place about what happens when we leave this physical body. He wanted to skip to the good part- being in heaven with Jesus. To hell with this life of suffering on earth.
Is that something to be emulated or aspired to? To think that people still look at his rambling incoherent prattle about the the return of the Messiah (of which the Torah says absolutely nothing) as a roadmap for what happens to us in the afterlife is really incomprehensible to me. These are only speculations on his part, and he's trying to work it out in his own head with no clear insight or consistency or clarity of thought whatsoever. These are just random letters, and yet someone decided to magically turn them into holy scripture. Unbelievable.
Like most of us , Paul was afraid of the unknown. I heard a wise man once say "Make a friend of the unknown." In other words- why is the universal assumption that death is unpleasant, negative, scary, cold, fearful, and full of judgment? Are those beliefs really true? How can one absolutely know they are true? What if the opposite were true? After all, they are just beliefs and beliefs are not facts.
Paul was not a friend of the unknown... He never met nor knew Jesus in real life, only in his imagination. Which is why he turned his beliefs into actual facts and clung to them for dear life.
Many thanks as always!! Elizabeth
Hi Elizabeth,
My thinking is that Paul's ideas need to be understood in the context of the belief of the early Christians that Jesus Messiah was returning to end the world as they knew it in their own generation. All earthly motivation, including Torah, is being replaced by Spirit. I view that idea as a carry over from the Jewish apocalyptic John the Baptist and his followers: "Start producing fruits for a change of heart...Someone more powerful than I will succeed me. His pitchfork is in his hand, and he'll make a clean sweep of the threshing floor, and gather the wheat into his granary, but the chaff he'll burn in a fire that can't be put out." (Matt 3:8, 11-12; Luke 3:7,, 16-17).
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Gene I've been meaning to respond for a while because your comment prompted a couple of questions if you don't mind... Sorry to be late in getting back!
1) "All earthly motivation, including Torah, is being replaced by Spirit." Is it your estimation that John the Baptizer (Baptist) introduced this idea- or was it Philo of Alexandria? In other words, was that idea of Greek or Jewish origin? Or both??
2) Why do you think there was so much focus on apocalyptic people and events during this time? (John the Baptizer and Jesus) Or was it lurking in the background even amongst prophets such as Daniel and Ezekiel and Zephaniah?
3) What value does the apocalypse hold today? Meaning talking about it and believing in it. In your opinion, does anything worthwhile come from reading apocalyptic literature or studying the Bible's teachings about it? Do you see any good that comes from believing in the coming apocalypse? (I'm sure you know why I'm asking!)
Many thanks! Elizabeth
Hi Elizabeth,
I don't know the answer to your question about JBap and Philo, and I don't know much about apocalyptic as it was never even close to being part of my world view. I take the imagery to be simply a specific and literal way to express hope. My hope does not reside in literal mythology. However, literalism can sometimes result in great art and inspiration. For example, Revelation's vision of the new Jerusalem descending from heaven to earth is expressed in one of the most beautiful and powerful of our hymns, "The Holy City." We can all appreciate the hope, even if we find the specifics to be unprovable myth.
I think that the mythological specifics of hope can probably be found in all cultures, but I've never closely studied the matter. Apocalyptic is usually associated with judgment scenes. Isaiah 11 is one of those beautiful visions of hope in Jewish literature that for awhile resists the judgment theme and stands at the apex of human literature until (as you will see) it turns into tribalism:
"A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. The spirit of the Lord shall rest on him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord. His delight shall be in the fear of the Lord. He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide by what his ears hear; but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked. Righteousness shall be the belt around his waist, and faithfulness the belt around his loins. The wolf shall live with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid, the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them...On that day the Lord will extend his hand yet a second time to recover the remnant that is left of his people...He will gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth....Judah and Ephraim shall swoop down on the backs of the Philistines...they shall put forth their hand against Edom and Moab and the Ammonites...and the Lord will utterly destroy the tongue of the sea of Egypt...
I don't see much difference between apocalyptic and tribalism, neither of which seem to me to be a healthy approach to the world.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Gene, I wonder if you could perhaps elaborate a bit more on the similarity of apocalyptic and tribalism. I've never considered that before, but the passage you quoted was very convincing. That's an interesting take on the subject. One more question- what is tribalism in your mind? Is it basically the same as nativism? Thank you for your unique perspective, Elizabeth
Charlie and Gene,
Here is the most intriguing apocalyptic image I have read thus far, because of the culture, the setting in which it was written and the immense wealth and prestige of the writer: “And when the time comes, that the world will be destroyed to be made new, [all the elements of the earth] will destroy themselves by their own power, stars will clash with stars, and all that now shines in orderly arrangement will burn in a single fire, as the whole matter of the universe catches flame. We too, we happy souls who have achieved immortality, when it seems good to the god to remake the world, we too, when the world falls, will be a tiny fragment of the immense destruction, and will turn again into our old components.” Marcia, how happy is your son who knows these things!” No, this is not from a religious writing, but from the pen of Seneca in 39-40 ce., in “Consolation to Marcia,” 26.6, translated by Emily Wilson in her engaging biography of Seneca, “The Greatest Empire.” Marcia’s son Metilius had died. Seneca imagines that this is the father of Marcia, Cordus (a historian forced to kill himself by Sejanus during Tiberius), speaking. Seneca has moved past the usual consolation writing to encompass the entire universe, redirecting Marcia from her sorrow to the perspective of the vastness of the universe. In this, I suppose in true Platonic form, the soul will probably be roaming until replaced in their “old components.” I’ve been studying Seneca of late. This was written ca. 38 ce., around the time Seneca had been sentenced to death by Caligula but spared because he was in bad health (he was apparently puny) and Caligula was told he’d probably die soon. He didn’t, living long enough to be exiled by Claudius, to tutor the young Nero and finally forced to kill himself in 68 ce.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
I mentioned two different dates... Dates are often imprecise when looking back 2000 years. Dr. Wilson mentions “39-40” for the writing on p. 69, but in her timeline used “c.38. I went “diving” for more. This particular section is the last chapter in his consolation and this is at the very end. Preceding this are some other perhaps more familiar apocalyptic images from the time. It sounds to me that Seneca has Cordus speaking from the grave. This is directly before the quote above: “I used to take pleasure in compiling the history of what took place in one century among a few people in the most out-of-the-way corner of the world: here I enjoy the spectacle of all the centuries, the whole chain of events from age to age as long as years have been. I may view kingdoms when they rise and when they fall, and behold the ruin of cities and the new channels made by the sea. If it will be any consolation to you in your bereavement to know that it is the common lot of all, be assured that nothing will continue to stand in the place in which it now stands, but that time will lay everything low and bear it away with itself: it will sport, not only with men—for how small a part are they of the dominion of Fortune?—but with districts, provinces, quarters of the world: it will efface entire mountains, and in other places will pile new rocks on high: it will dry up seas, change the course of rivers, destroy the intercourse of nation with nation, and break up the communion and fellowship of the human race: in other regions it will swallow up cities by opening vast chasms in the earth, will shake them with earthquakes, will breathe forth pestilence from the nether world, cover all habitable ground with inundations and destroy every creature in the flooded world, or burn up all mortals by a huge conflagration.”
This seems to me to be similar in parts to Mark 13, with earthquakes, nation against nation, the “break up of the communion and fellowship” of humans. the fall of “kingdoms,” and suffering. (I’m not claiming dependence, just that the theme was more than Jewish or Christian.) I reckon the apocalyptic, as the themes one finds today in series like “Left Behind” and The Harry Potter books and the ranting of evangelical and fundamentalist preachers, was not odd, even to the incredibly rich in Rome.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Hi Elizabeth,
To me apocalyptic and tribalism are both divisive forces whereby a certain group, ancient or contemporary, identifies with the separatist inclinations of its leader and his or her personal God, as contrasted with a group which forms around the uniting forces of "the rain falls on the just and unjust," "love your enemy," "first see the log in your own eye," "see the good in your accuser on the way to court," "offer healing to a fallen adversary (for example; the Samaritan)."
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, pa
Hi Dennis,
What an absolutely great investigative discovery. I would be inclined to call the quote cosmology, and not apocalyptic, except for the phrase "we happy souls who have achieved immortality." For clarity, do we have an explanation of how immortality is achieved? I wonder if "achieved" is an accurate translation.
Gene stecher
Chambersburg, pa.
Dennis,
I wonder if these end time images in Seneca could be advanced as evidence for the theory that mark was written in a cultural center of the Roman empire, possibly but not necessarily Rome; it's been quite awhile since I did any research in the area of gospel origins.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, pa
Gene, my thought is that if one calls Mark 13 apocalyptic, one would call this apocalyptic. Here is why:
1. Nothing will stand, all will be laid low. Mark 13.2
2. Rocks will be placed on high, seas will dry, rivers will change course. (The upheaval takes place in the heavens in Mk. 13.24-25).
3. Communion & fellowship of man will be broken. Mark 13.8, 12-13
4. Cities will be swallowed. Mark 3.2, speaking of Jerusalem.
5. Earthquakes. Mark 13.8
6. Pestilence. Mark 13.17-19
7. Death for all. Mark 13.20-23 (the “elect” are saved.)
8. The universe will burn up. (In Mark 13.24-25, celestial lights will be extinguished.)
9. Life will begin anew with the souls of the blessed will be reunited with their “elements.” ( Mk. 13.26-27 angels will (... gather the elect from “the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.”)
Apocalyptic, as I understand it, is a disclosure of future events, generally cataclysmic in nature. Those found in Christian and Jewish literature tend to have also the notion of a new world coming from it, as my old buddy said, "A world of shalom."
The only hypothesis I would advance would be that apocalyptism was not merely a function of Jewish or Christian literature, or of a persecuted group, but more common than one thinks. I agree with Weeden, that Mark probably was written in the environs of Caesara Philippi.
Incidentally, I made another mistake. Dating Seneca's death was in 65.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Hi Gene, sorry to keep pestering you!! A few more questions if you don't mind... (I hope that Charlie is ok, he hasn't commented in a while)
Charlie, if you are reading this, if you feel inclined please feel free to chime in. Hope all is well with you and yours.
But Gene, I do wonder how you see the person of Jesus. Do you see him as apocalyptic or tribal in any way? Or do you see him as a uniting force?
Also- I was very struck by this sentence of yours: "To me apocalyptic and tribalism are both divisive forces whereby a certain group, ancient or contemporary, identifies with the separatist inclinations of its leader and his or her personal God"... To me, this has a lot in common with cults and cult leaders. Can you see that similarity? Have you ever heard of a book by Hal Lindsey called the Late Great Planet Earth?
Thirdly, this is not a question but something I read that made me think of you. I am currently reading a book about Abraham Lincoln and we're up to the year 1864. I was reading about a Confederate attack that took place in Chambersburg, PA... And I kept thinking "Chambersburg- why does that sound so familiar to me??" Then it dawned on me that that is where you live- it took me a while to make that connection. So you see, putting the name of your town in your signature line comes in handy... I thought to myself "Hey I know someone who lives there!" Apparently, the Confederates ransacked the town and really destroyed a lot of public property. They were particularly interested in harming the commercial property of a Thad Stevens and "laid to ashes" all his worldly goods. I'm glad you weren't around back then- not a fun time.
Many thanks as always, Elizabeth
Hi Elizabeth,
Chambersburg lies right in the heart of the most important and determining of the civil war conflicts. 24 miles to the East is Gettysburg, the highwater mark of the civil war and famous for the battle that turned the tide for the North, Pickett's Charge. Chambersburg itself was burned during the war. 30 miles to the South the Pa border touches on Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia, the site of uncountable battles, Vicksburg being a famous name. If you haven't seen the movie Gettysburg, please get the DVD. It's worth traveling in this area if you're a history buff. My personal connection to Gettysburg is that I attended a year at Gettysburg Seminary (Lutheran), 1973.
I see Jesus in the way I wrote about his possible attitudes in the book that you reviewed. I think that he had "goal oriented passion," (attitude two in the book), but I don't think that he was apocalyptic; the early church, I think, ascribed apocalyptic to him (see, e.g., Mark 9:1, chap 13, 14:61-62), possibly through the influence of converts from the followers of John the Baptist.
I never read the Late Great Planet Earth, though I've heard the title. I simply have little interest, mostly considering apocalyptic thought a waste of time.
I think that cults are a type of apocalyptic tribalism.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Good afternoon Elizabeth,
I read everything that is posted on the blog and, respond if I am asked a question or if I have something to say about what was posted. Even if the subject of the posts spirals away from the subject of my post I still respond if I am asked a question or if I have something to say. I am learning from what you guys write, and am delighted to have met and discussed things with you all through the blog.
Cordially,
Charlie
We are delighted to have met you as well Charlie! You always provide us with interesting subject matter that stimulates our thinking and reasoning and debate... And lots of questions ;-) At least on my part anyway!! Elizabeth
Hi Gene,
"but I don't think that he was apocalyptic; the early church, I think, ascribed apocalyptic to him (see, e.g., Mark 9:1, chap 13, 14:61-62), possibly through the influence of converts from the followers of John the Baptist." Thank you for clarifying... that does make sense to me. After I thought about it, your book does not describe Jesus as apocalyptic or tribal in any way. So you're right- it does seem the followers of John were the culprits of that mentality.
The reason I asked about Late Great Planet Earth is because a family member read it and it was one of the driving forces behind their "salvation story." They claim that it was part of what caused them to become "saved" in the 70s. People who read books like that do seem to have in interest in joining cults, at least some anyway. As I look back, I can see how things like that book led to certain events taking place in our family.
My husband and son and I made a trip to Philadelphia in 2018 and we drove to Gettysburg. That was an amazing trip. Our only regret is that we only had one day to spend there which was not enough... We definitely plan to go back and spend more time in that area. At least two or three days, there was so much we didn't get to see. Yes, I read last night that Confederate troops burned the city of Chambersburg. It said they "rode straight to an ironworks property of Stevens and laid in ashes a large charcoal furnace, forge, rolling mill, coal house, shops, valued at $50,000." General Early said that Thad Stevens was an enemy of the south in favor of confiscating their property and arming their enslaved people.
I can't remember whether or not we've seen the movie Gettysburg, but if we haven't- I assure you we will! And yes- we are big history buffs in this family. When we get back to Gettysburg, we'll make sure to see Chambersburg as well. I wonder if we drove through it on the way to Gettysburg? Perhaps we did and I realize that was where you lived.
Thank you so much, Elizabeth
Post a Comment