-- Vol. XXIX Summer, 1965 Xo. b THE SPRISCFIELJ,EP. is published quarterly bj the faculty of Con- cordia Theological Seminarv, Springfield, Illinois, of the Lutheran Church- hlissouri Synod. -- I~DITORIAL COhlhIImEE ERICH H. HEINTZEK, Editor- H~yaroxu F. SURBURG, Bwk Revimv Ed~tor EUGENE F. KLUG, Associate Editor ~ I S R H J. STEEGE, Associate Editor PRESIDENT J . A. 0. PREUS, ex oficio Contents Page EDITOIiIAL : Detroit Post Scripts 1 I'ROFESSOK D. HEliMANN SASSE: CONGRATULA- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TIONS F013 l i SEPTUAGENERIAN.. 2 Heino 0. Kadai, Professor, Deparhnent of Historical Theology PROBLEhIS IN ESCHATOLOGY: TIIE NATU1:E OF DEATH AXD THE INTER&IEDIATE STATE Howard \V. Tepker, Professor, Department of Systematic Theology THE CHUliCH AND POVERTY: FROM COSCERN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T O ACTION 3 0 Henry J. Eggold, Professor, Deparhncnt of l'racticnl Theology EOOK REVIE\i7S 3 6 EOOKS RECEIVED 5 1 Indexed i ~ i INDEX TO RFLICIOUS P ~ I O D I C A L LITERATURE, yublisl~ed by the A~nericvtr TJreolo.t$caI Library Associatin~c, Speer Libmr)., Pri?lceton Tkcoto~i- cnl Seriihran~, Pri~rceton, ATav Jersey. Clergy changes of address reported to Concordia Puhlishing Housc, St. Louis, Missouri, wiI1 also cover mailing change of The Sprirrgfielder. Other changes of address sliould be sent to the Business Manager of The Springfielder, Con- cordia Theological Seminary, Springfield, Illinois. Address communications to the Editor, Erich H. Heintzen, Concordia Theo- logical Seminary, Springfield, Illinois. Problems in Eschatology: The Nature of Death And the Intermediate State HOWARD vV. TEPKER This essay is part of a conference paper delivered by the writer be fore the Western Pastoral Conference of the Ontario District, Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, fall, 1964. INTRODUCTION RECENT YEARS have seen a remarkable revival of interest in eschatology. Perhaps one of the most convincing demonstra tions of this fact was given when the Assembly of the World Council of Churches at Evanston in 1954 selected as its general theme: "Christ-the Hope of the 'Vorld," a theme with an eschatological emphasis. This choice undoubtedly has influenced many theologians to give time and attention to this important subject. It should be said at the outset that this emphasis is perhaps overdue in Christendom, since all too frequently in the past it has been customary to treat eschatology as the last and often the least of the loci of systematic theology. It is fortunate, therefore, that in recent decades a significant change has taken place in the "theologi cal look, involving a new appreciation of eschatology." As the Swed ish scholar, Folke Holmstroem, states: "In the last third of a cen tury the eschatolo~ical aspect has pressed forward from the periphery to the center and now governs the whole field of systematic the ology."l In the theses on eschatology which were adopted by the Joint Inter-synodical Committee in Australia about a decade and a half ago, the importance of this doctrine was underscored with the state ment that "the faith of a Christian . . . is essentially eschatological; though he sojourns between the time or Christ's First and Second Advent, he is continually living in the Last Times." ~ If the present interest continues, the twentieth century could go down in history as one which, more than anv previous century, devoted itself to a concentrated study of this significant doctrine. But with the increased interest and emphasis currently being placed on eschatology, there have also come repeated suggestions from theologians that the traditional views of Classic Protestantism be restudied critically and reevaluated, wi th particular attention be ing given to such subjects as the theology of death, the intermediate state, the nature of the resurrection body, etc. In these suggestions there is the implication, and in many instances, the clear suggestion that Classic Protestantism does not always reflect the position set forth in Scripture. Paul Althaus, one or more vocal exponents of Problems ill Lc;:.;: this view, contends that if the church death that is Biblical, it must distin\.:u< idealistic philosophy but also from tlll' t , and 18th century orthodox Luthera ll issue particularly with the doctrines ~ , the great architect of Lutheran ortlle .. Gerhard, in realitv, led his church ~ .\ '. held by Luther and adopted that of C , . of the church today is therefore "back: But what are the specific issllL' current theological study and discu', , merous issues emerging on the COil t l j our discussion to two of the basic .'L . " gested especially by theologians of 'r Orthodox school of thought: 1. What is the nature of deari:: and body, according to which the 0 .; Or, is death "the unconditional end , ,t it correct according to Scripture to S31 and soul, is involved in death ?"l 2. Is there an intermediate St:l t c . rection, and if so, what is the condit: of time? Does man cease to exis t: ] i conscious state? Or, is the soul COll, L . presence of Christ? In seeking an answer to these qu c< simply to search the Scriptures cli !j,o.:.· Bible passages which will clearly rl". l trine as God Himself has presented " r has been the procedure followed bl '. : time of the Reformation. Consen,it' ated with the presuppositions tha t t errant revelation to mankind, that !: allowed to interpret the Scripturl" . which, to us, seem difficult and (b,:; those that are clear; finally, there ;'r :.. therefore, all passages must be int· .. of faith. However, it must be carefulh to understand the discussion bel]] ~ theologians, we cannot take for gr il u,.. the same presuppositions that 'Ye 1L\ c is most important, therefore, in (b e L · · lems facing Christendom today that .. , to concern ourselves with the th e" j most modern scholars such as OSC'.ll' l . Barth, Emil Brunner, etc. interpret ~'.' must ask: "\Vhat are their theolo~i .. ~ Problems in E x h l o g y 9 this view, contends that if the church is to arrive at a the010 of death that is Biblical, it must distinguish its position not only& idealistic philosophy but also from the traditional views of the 17th and 18th century orthodox Lutheran theologians. Althaus takes issue particularly with the doctrines as expressed by John Gerhard, the great architect of Lutheran orthodoxy. At times it is said that Gerhard, in reality, led his church away from the correct position held by Luther and adopted that of C a l ~ i n . ~ The cry in many areas of the church today is therefore "back to Luther." But what are the speciiic issues that have arisen out of the current theological study and discussion? Although there are nu- merous issues emerging on the contemporary scene, we s h d limit our discussion to txvo of the basic questions which are being sug- gested especially by theologians of the Neo-Reformation or Neo- Orthodox school of thought: 1. What is the nature of death? Is it the separation of soul and body, according to which the body dies but the soul lives on? Or, is death "the unconditional end of the body-soul existence?" Is it correct according to Scripture to say that "the whole person, body and soul, is involved in deathY4 2. Is there an intermediate state between death and the resur- rection, and if so, what is the condition of man during this period of time? Does man cease to exist? Does the soul sleep in an un- conscious state? Or, is the soul consciously experiencing bliss in the presence of Christ? In seeking an answer to these questions, Lutherans are inclined simply to search the Scriptures diligently until we h d pertinent Bible passages which will clearly reveal to us the teaching and doc- trine as God Himself has resented it to us in His holy Word. That has been the procedure ? ollowed by classic Protestantism since the time of the Reformation. Conservative Lutherans have always oper- ated with the presuppositions that the Holy Scripture is God's in- errant revelation to mankind, that the Scriptures must always be allowed to interpret the Scriptures, that where there are passages which, to us, seem difficult and dark, they must be interpreted by those that are clear; finally, there are no contradictions in the Bible; therefore, all passages must be interpreted according to the analog of faith. However, it must be carefully noted at the outset that if we are to understand the discussion being carried on among contempora theologians, we cannot take for granted that they are operating aiz the same presuppositions that we have been accustomed to use. I t is most important, therefore, in discussing the eschatological prob lems facing Christendom today that we take a few moments in which to concern ourselves with the theological framework within which most modem scholars such as Oscar Cullmann, Paul Althaus, Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, etc. interpret Scripture. In other words, we must ask: 'What are their theological presuppositions?" 1. To become even more specific, we must inquire concerning their attitude toward Scripture. This is most important because a theologian's view of Scripture will, to some extent, determine his methodology and his conclusions. "His evaluation of and subsequent posture toward Scripture is the watershed which ultimately divides right from wrong doctrine." Now, what is the opinion of most present-day Biblical scholars with regard to the Scripture? By far the majority of those who have Neo-Orthodox leanings begin with a so-called historicalcritical assessment of Scripture. What does that imply? In answer I shall quote John Dillenberger who wrote in a recently-published book, Protestant Christianity, as follows: The acceptance of Biblical criticism meant the abandonment of the belief that the Bible is an infallible record of divine revelation to men. There might be much in the Bible that is inspired, much that is divine, but there is also much that is human and even in error. The Bible is not a book delivered to men from on high and preserved from all error, so that men might trust it absolutely. It is instead a very human book, in- cluding widely differing understanding of God and of His will for men, and including not only valuable historical documents, contemporary with the events they recorded, but also legends and even fiction, which often contradict each other and known historical facts. 2. A second presupposition commonly held by modem theo- logians is the so-called development of doctrine. This method of interpretation has its basis in the evolutionary theory. It ap lies the fundamental principles of evolution to the religion of Ad ' s people in the Old and New Testaments. The history of Israel is thought of as reflecting "the gradual evolving of the Hebrew consci- ousness, from the simple and the crude conceptions of the earliest writings to the exalted ethical monotheism of the pro hets.'I6 Ac- cording to the historical-critical approach, the Old '8estament be- comes more and more a "developmental product of the Hebrew mind." Dillenberger expresses it thus: "Both in the interpretation of Christianity and in the general study of religions, increased em- phasis is laid upon the influence of cultural environment in the de- velopment of religious thought and practice."' But one may ask, what bearing has this on the subject of escha- tology? Simply this, those who believe in the development of doc- trine claim that the ancient Israelites such as Noah (if there was a Noah), Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, believed in neither heaven nor hell; for them life ended in a dismal Sheol. Furthermore, it is com- monly assumed that the doctrine of the soul was not part of the Hebrew faith; it came into the religion of Israel only after the exile, having originated in Persia. It is basicall Platonic dualism. What is more, the claim is also made that the d octrine of the resurrection of the dead had a similar beginning, entering the religion of Israel at a late date from one of the heathen neighbors. Problems in Eschatology I I But one may be inclined to ask, what about the Bible passages in Genesis, in Isaiah, in Daniel which speak so clearly of resurrec- tion and a life after death? Modem theologians will answer that these books, or at Ieast the eschatological passages, were not written by Moses, b Isaiah, and by Daniel but by other authors and at a much later d' ate. 3. A third presupposition commonly held by modern theo- logians concerns itself with the Biblical teaching regarding anthro- pology. I t is simply assumed by many contemporary scholars that the Bible has no intention of giving us information and data on the composition of man. I t has no interest in human anatomy. Of course, modem scholarship grants that the Scripture frequentIy speaks of man's body, his soul, his spirit, etc., but as Berkouwer says: It is obviously not the intention of the divine revelation to give exact information about man in himself and thus to anticipate what later scientific research on man offerss In another place the same author states that while the Bible does employ such concrete terms as flesh, spirit, soul, mind, in de- scribing man, the decisive question is this, whether the intent of the Biblical witness is to reveal to us something of the composition of man, or whether it makes use of this com osition as an anthro- pological given only incidentally in or er to speak of man as a whoIe. B It should be noted at this point that the above view is a very precarious and dangerous one, for any theologian who takes seriously the doctrine of verbal inspiration. Lutherans have always granted that the Bible does not claim to be a text-book on science, physiology, or anatomy, but at the same time we have consistently asserted that when Scripture touches on a scientific question, such as the com- position of man, it always speaks truth. Here the very pertinent question confronting us is this: Is the Bible reliable also when it deals with scientific problems? If not, then verbal inspiration must of necessity suffer. Finally, i t should be noted that no less a scholar than Franz Delitsch states categorically that the Scriptures do give us data on the "composition" of man. lo 4. A fourth presup sition generally embraced by modem scholarship concerns the re P" ationship between religion and science. I t is usuaIIy assumed by these men that the Bible represents an "out- moded world-view."" Therefore, it is also taken for granted that when a conflict arises between the views set forth in Scripture and those set forth by science, then science must be given preference. John Dillenberger describes the modem view in these words: The Bible is not a book of science, but a book of religion. The 'science' of the Bible is the science of those who wrote it, and we should not expect that the Biblical authors should have any more insight into the processes of nature than did their con- temporaries. Indeed the Bible itself shows no interest in nat- ural processes for their own sake. It aflirms that nature as well as history is ordered by the purpose of God, but its pri- mary concern is with the redeeming work of God in human history. Modern man cannot be satisfied with a simple view of the physical universe as men of former times, and this means that the task of relating the insights of faith to the 'secular' knowledge of the world becomes increasingly complex, but the witness of faith remains in substance the same. I" But, if we are prepared to grant this, we must realize at the outset that there are far-reaching doctrinal implications. We shall mention only three of them. 1) If we grant that science is a priori right and that the Bible represents an out-moded world view (inci- dentally, a claim that even science itself does not make), then it follows automatically that the Bible must basically be a human book; then its real author is not God but man-man who is bound by human limitations. That is a concession which our church and conservative Protestantism in general has never been willing to make. 2) If we grant that science is a priori right, we face a most frightening problem when we come to those passages in which Jesus Himself touches on matters where science is concerned; for example, His own incarnation, the resurrection, the ascension, His coming in the clouds for judgment. If we consider science to be a priori right, then we have this unthinkable alternative: either, a) Jesus did not know enough about science to realize that what he said was untenable, since he was, of course, a chid of his time, or b) Jesus knew better but consciously went along with the socalled "out- moded world view of his day." If either of these two opinions is correct, then these basic doctrines of Christianity (the incarnation, the resurrection, Jesus coming in the clouds for judgment, etc.) have to be reinterpreted, perhaps de-mythologized, as Rudolf Bu tmann suggests. Again, this is a concession which conservative Protestantism has never been willing to make. 5. Permit me to mention yet one more of the presuppositions being embraced and also strongly urged by modern theologians. Modern critical scholars, particularly in Old Testament studies, claim to find a sharp difference between the Hebrew's view of man and the anthropology of the Greek or Hellenist world of Plato. I t is often simply taken for granted today that the Old Testament re- garded man as a unit. The claim is made that the Hebrew always spoke of the whole man, man in his entirety. Scholars will grant that the Bible indeed uses such terms as basar, sam, nephesh and psyche, pneuma and ruach, which are translated in the English by such words as body, flesh, soul and spirit; but these men suggest that the Hebrew mind, in fact, never divided man up in his way, never used these words as we do today to indicate various parts of Problems in Eschatology 13 man. The Hebrew thought of man in his entirety. On the other hand, the Greeks under the influence of Plato made a very sharp distinction between the human body and the immortal soul. Plato taught a dualistic view, meaning that the bod and the soul were actually antagonistic one to the other. The L d y was considered a prison for the soul. Redemption consisted in freeing the soul from the body. But why is this distinction considered so important by modem scholars today-so important that they speak and write constantly on this subject? The answer is quite apparent. Modem theology, of course, draws from these views the far-reaching conclusion that when classic Protestantism, when conservative Lutheranism, de- scribes man as a being consisting of body and soul, it is actually teaching Platonism; it is claimed that we are teaching and consoling our people with a heathen philosophy rather than the anthropology of the Bible. That is a very serious charge. Is it true? In reply, there are two points that need consideration: 1. There is the question, "Has the church down the centuries been teachmg Platonism?" The answer becomes very clear when we perforn the simple task of comparing the classic Protestant view of the soul with the view set forth by Plato. We are too limited in time to make this comparison now, but anyone willing to spend a few hours making such a study will find it most revealing. At this time we shall merely note a few of the conclusions of R. H. Charles, a scholar who has made a life-long study of the doctrine of a future life in Judaism, Hellenism and Christianity. He is not a Lutheran; in fact, he has been classged as a liberal theologian. But he writes as follows: It is obvious that an immeasurable gulf divides it (Plato's doc- trine of immortality) from Jewish no less than Christian doc- trine. We do not refer to such obvious differences as appear in his doctrine of the soul's transmigrations, its eternal pre- existence, and its antagonism to the body, but to the two following points: (i) it is not a human soul that Plato's h a 1 teaching deals with, but a pure intelligence; (ii) his doctrine, as set over against the Jewish and Christian, is the glodcation of an unbridled individualism. The individual soul owes no duty practically but to itself . . . 1 3 A more complete reading of this hook will reveal that R. H. Charles, after a life-long study of these matters, h d s that Chris- tianity and Platonism have very little in common. But another question arises in this connection. 2) Is it accu- rate, is it true scholarship to insist, as some theologians do today, that the Old Testament always thinks of man as a unit, that the Hebrew writers always spoke and wrote of the whole man, man in his entirety, even when they mentioned man's n e p k s h , his m c h , and his basar (i.e. his soul, his spirit, and his flesh)? Can it safely be assumed, yes, can it be proven that the Hebrew mind never used these words as we do today to indicate various parts of man? In re- ply, I should like to call your attention to a book by James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language. In it the author questions the validity of the position taken by modern theology in this regard in the ast few ears. l4 Nor is he alone. Today there are indications that mo ern i' B the0 ogy itself is beginning to take a second look at some of the things that have been written. James Burtness, assistant professor of systematic theology at Luther Theological Seminary, St. Paul, Minnesota, grants that "the present tendency is to point up the dan- ger of past attempts to draw too strong a line of demarcation between Greek and Hebrew thought."15 The extreme position of a few years ago is going out of vogue. I t is very important, in view of these developments, that our Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod does not now begin to get on the band wagon of modern theology at a time when others are beginning to get off. Let us not be so easily panicked into turning our backs upon our Lutheran heritage and adopt a view that is at most uncertain. This in part is the framework within which many modem scholars speak and write on eschatology. I have listed these points for the reason that it is highly important for us to keep these sup ositions in mind if we are to understand the views he1 by mo ~f ern theology and evaluate them correctly. 8" Now, against this background let us discuss the doctrines in question individually. 11. THE INTERMEDIATE STATE As was stated earlier, one of the principle issues confronting the church today is the question concerning the nature of death. More specifically: Is death the separation of soul and bod , accord- ing to which the body dies but the soul lives on? Or, is death "the unconditional end of the body-soul existence?" In other words, is it correct according to Scripture to say that "the whole person, body and soul, is involved in death!"I6 A. The view of modem theology. Many modern theologians answer this latter question in the affirmative, assertin that nothing in man escapes the grave. Since both body and so nf have sinned, both body and soul die. Paul Althaus expresses his view in these words : Death is more than a departure of the soul from the body. The person, body and soul, is involved in death. . . . The Christian faith knows nothing about an immortality of the personality. . . . It knows only an awakening from real death through the power of God. There is existence after death only by an awakening, resurrection. There is no immortality of the soul, but a resurrection of the whole person, body and soul, after death. ' Karl Heim, who is in substantial agreement with Althaus, explains his views regarding death as follows: Problems in Eschatology 15 When we die, we r e d y die, we ass into nothingness. There is nothing in man that is capab f e of resisting the destructive power of death. The Christian hope is, however, that we do not fall into nothingness but into the hands of God. I t is only when we are annihilated that we can be truly resur- rected. The Bible does not distinguish between man and beast on the ground that man has an immortal soul while the beasts do not. Men, beasts, even plants are alike in death. . . . The whole matter of death and life after death is simplified when our only concern is faith in God who can destroy and who can resurrect. l8 John A. T. Robinson, in his recent publication entitled "The Body, puts i t this way: "The soul does not survive a man-it simply goes out, draining away with the Taito Kantonen, in his monograph Life after Death, makes this pointed statement: The Christian view (of death) is in full accord with the view of natural science so far as the latter goes. When we die we are really dead. Our hopes and desires cannot change this fact. Man does not differ from the rest of creation by having a soul that cannot die."40 Other scholars, however, apparently feel constrained to soften this view somewhat. In an attempt to follow a more moderate line of reasoning and avoid the extreme of picturing death as bordering on annihilation, scholars such as Otto Procksch of the University at Erlangen have gone on record as favoring the opinion that, ac- cording to the Old Testament way of thinking, the dead exist but they do not live. Procksch asserts that "existence and life are evi- dently distinguished by the ancient Israelite. The difference con- sists in that where there is Iife there is also "development, something which is possible only when one is in communion with God and man." In death, however, "existence is isolated, it is a dull vegeta- tion (Job 14:22), without change, without fellowship one with another" (Job 3 : 1 3ff).21 But this view is actually inconsistent with the presupposition that man is a unit; i.e. when he dies, nothing escapes the grave. Logic would dictate the conclusion that, if man is an indivisible unit, if he dies in his entirety, then as his body returns to the dust, he truly ceases to exist. Thus modern theology's theory concerning the unity of man actually proves too much. But at this point one is inclined to ask in all seriousness: On what does modern theology base its assumption that man is a unit? Perhaps the simplest and most satisfactory answer is they base their view in this matter at least in part on a study of the Hebrew words such as nephesh and rauch, together with the Greek equiva- lents psyche and pneuma-words which are ordinarily translated by the English terms "soul" and "spirit." I t is their claim and con- tention that the words nephesh and ruach do not really mean what the English "soul" and "spirit" suggest to the 20th century man. Instead it is asserted that nephesh means simply "life" or at times "personality." And in the great majority of cases it means nothing more or less than the personal pronoun: "I", "you", "he", etc. For example, the passage, "My soul doth magnify the Lord," means in prose "I magnify the Lord." Thus nephesh signifies a person in his totality, not just a part of him, but man in his entirety. Prof. A. Nicholainen of Helsinki in his recent book, Man in the Light of the Gospels, summarizes modern thinking in these words : Man is an indivisible whole. Seen from different points of view, he is in turn body, flesh and blood, soul, spirit and heart. Each of these portrays a specific characteristic, but they are not parts into which man may be divided. Body is man as a concrete being; flesh and blood is man as a creature distin- guished from the Creator; soul is the living human individual; spirit is man as having his source in God; heart is man as a whole in action.'" How shall we evaluate these conclusions? Is such a line of reasoning accurate? Does this definition for nephesh do justice to this Old Testailent word? Even a hasty glance at the Tlzeobgisches Woerterbuch edited by Kittel, will show us at a glance that when the word nephesh is defined in this manner, it is an oversimplifica- tion. Even an ordinary Hebrew dictionary wiU indicate that nephesh is in reality a most complex word, one that is used in the Old Testa- ment in many different ways. Certainly at times it may "stand for people, an individual, I, thou, she, as in the case of Josh. 10:28; 11: 11; Gen. 46:18; Gen. 12:5; 27:25; Is. 1:14."23 But we must by all means avoid giving the impression that nephesh has this mean- ing only and that it cannot indicate a part of man but must always mean man in his entirety. Ludwig Koehler, a highly respected lexicographer in Europe and an Old Testament scholar, warns against such cversimplification when he says: "In the Psalter the word (nephesh) occurs 144 times, 105 times in the form of 'my soul.' But one may not simply replace it with the 'I'." A few lines there- after he adds: "The soul is not the I, it is something added to it." In support of this statement he calls attention to passages such as Job 14 : 22; Psalm 42 : 5-6; 13 1 : 2, and Job 30 : 16, where the Bibli- cal writers speak of "my soul" as something within me.e4 In the light of these facts, it seems rather hazardous for any- one to say dogmatically, as some have done, that a study of the Hebrew word nephesh and the Greek equivalent psyche leads one inevitably to the conclusion that these words never refer to a part of man, such as the soul, but must always mean man in his entirety. A much more detailed discussion of these Hebrew and Greek terms could be presented; and there can be no doubt that a deeper study of the individual words would prove profitable and enlightening. But time will not permit. It is my conviction, however, that modem Problems in Eschatology 17 theology has not offered sufficient evidence to prove its contention that man is an indivisible unit. It seems rather dangerous to make a statement such as this "when a man dies, he is dead-in his en- tirety, the whole man, nothing escapes the grave", and to base this claim on a study of words as complex as nephesh, psyche, ruach and pneuma. This will become even clearer to all of us when we now direct our attention to those passages of Holy Scripture which set forth the Biblical view of the nature of death. B. The Nature of Death as presented in Scripture. \%%en we search the Bible carefully and diligently for a description of death, we find that it offers us an abundant amount of information -what is more, it sets forth this information in clear statements that need little or no interpretation. Also in respect to this doc- trine the Bible is a clear book. 1. Scripture describes death as decomposition and decay, a return to the elements from which man was originally made. In Genesis 3 : 19, when the Lord God pronounced sentence upon Adam after he had disobeyed God's command, the Lord said: "In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread tiIl you return to the ground, for . . . you are dust and to dust you shall return." The same point is also set forth in John 11 :39, in the episode of the raising of Lazarus from the dead. When Jesus asked the men standing by to remove the stone from Lazarus' sepulchre, Martha suggested: "Lord, by this time there will be an odor." Even experience teaches us that death brings about decay, disintegration, decomposition, and corruption. 2. According to passages such as Matt. 2 :20, Mark 3:4, Luke 6 : 9 and 14 : 26, death is clear1 described by the hol writers as the termination of one's physical E e . w e need not o d er inter- pretation of these passages since there is no difficulty at this point. 3. The Scripture, however, makes it clear in other passages that it is not the entire man that descends into the dust, decomposes and sees corruption. According to Eccl. 12 : 7, there occurs at the time of death a separation of the spirit from the body; the holy writer, thinking probably of the story of the creation of man, asserts: When a man dies, the "dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit (runch) returns to God who gave it." Likewise the apostle James, speaking by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, undoubtedly has the same view of death, for he mites: "The body away from the spirit is dead." (2:26). Thus death results when the spirit or the soul separates from the body. This is the manner in which dying is fre- quently spoken of also in other parts of the Old Testament. For instance, in Gen. 35 : 18, when the holy writer reports the death of Rachel, who died in child-birth, he describes it thus: "As her saul was departing (for she died) she called the name of her son Benoni." Again in 1 Kings 17: 21f, when the Lord related the story of Elijah restoring the widow's son to life, He says: "Then Elijah stretched himself upon the child three times and cried to the Lord, 0 Lord my God, let this child's nephesh (soul) come unto him again. And the Lord harkened to the voice of Elijah, and the nephesh of the child came into him again, and he revived." Thus death results when the nephesh departs from the body, and a body revives when the nephesh reenters. This is a natural understand- ing of these passages unless the exegete approaches these statements of Scripture bound by the uncertain presupposition that man is not a being composed of body and soul. But some of the very clearest passages dealing with the nature of death are those which report the death of Jesus Himself. As we view this event through the eyes of Luke, who incidentally was a physician, we are told that death came to Jesus when he commended His spirit (pneurna) into the hands of the Father. I t was then that he ex ired. What is the significance of the Lord's words: "Father into t E y hands I entrust my pneuma"? I t cannot mean simply this that Jesus was here asking the Father in heaven to watch over His remains that nothing might desecrate them. This is evident from other statements concerning the death of Jesus where it is said that Jesus yielded up his pneuma. (Matt. 27 : 50). His pzeuma was not his remains, his body or his entire self, but it was something that he in death was yielding up. It was somethin that was being sepa- rated from his remains, from his body. Nor &d it mean simply His last breathe. For this pneuma was something precious, even to Jesus, since Luke says "He entrusted i t to the Father." Paratitheemi is the Greek word used-a word which implies somethin valuable, something precious. Thus it is quite evident that bo t f the Old Testament and the New Testament picture death as a separation of the pneuma (ruach) from the body. I t should be noted that modern theology has gone to great lengths in an attempt to reinterpret these assages in a way that would conform to their line of reasoning, %ut actually these p a r sages pose no particular difliculty unless one approaches them with the uncertain presupposition that a man is a unit in the sense that when he dies, he dies in his entirety, body and soul. 4. Scripture also speaks of the body (soma) of man as sub- ject to death at the hand of man while soul (psyche) is not. The classic passage quoted by conservative theologians in support of this truth is Matthew 10:28, where Jesus is comforting the twelve apostles as He sends them out to preach the Gospel. He warns them that they will face diflicult times; they will be persecuted even as Jesus was; at times they will even be in danger of losing their lives. But he encourages them by telling them: do not fear these persecutors; while they may kill our body, they cannot kill your psyche (your soul). Here the c r ear implication is that the soma (body) is of such a nature that it can be killed by man; the soul, however, is not perishable in that same sense of the word. When man takes a life, he cannot thereby kill the soul and send it too Problems in Eschatology 19 into the grave. Then the holy writer adds the comment: Of cause, God can bring hurt to the soul by destroying it in hell. This is dif- ferent, however, from physical death. Again, it should be noted that modem theology has gone to great lengths in an effort to discredit this passage, but here again this statement of Scripture presents no problems unless one ap- proaches it with the assumption that man is a unit and not a being composed of body and soul. 5 . Scripture describes death also as a putting off of the body. An example of this manner of speaking occurs in the second epistle of Peter, the first chapter, the fourteenth verse, where the apostle makes reference to his own death, anticipating that it would occur soon. IVe note with interest the manner in which he describes his departure; he states "I think it is right, as long as I am in this body, to arouse you by way of reminder, since I know that the putting of f of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me. And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things." In this passage Peter describes life as an existence in the body, while death is the putting off of the body. The apostle Paul spoke of death in a similar fashion. In 2 Cor. 5, -one of his great chapters on eschatology-he wrote: "For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a build- ing from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. Here indeed we groan and long to put on our heavenly dwelling, so that by putting it on we may not be found naked. For while we are still in this tent, we sigh with anxiety, not that we would be unclothed but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. . . ." In this passage Paul speaks of life here on earth, as living in this tent; and he refers to death by means of two word pictures: a) it is the laying aside of this tent; b) it is being unclothed. In each of these cases he is apparently referring to the mortal body which we have in this life, but which we put aside in death. 6. At this point a question may arise. Is it possible for a person to live without a body? Can a man exist without flesh and blood and bones? We ask this question only because modern theology categorically denies that a nephesh (soul) can exist with- out a body. It is claimed that neither the body nor the soul has independent existence. Neither can exist without the other for they are completely dependent upon one another. It is true, Scri ture s ecifically states that "the body away from the spirit is Ad," Rames 2 : 26), but nowhere does Scripture says that the spirit away from the body is dead. In fact, there are passages which clearly indicate that man can live without the body. In the familiar Epistle for Sexagesima, we read: "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven-whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into paradise-whether in the body or out of the body I do not know-and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter" ( 2 Cor. 12:2-4). Here Paul grants the possibility that without his body, he had experienced heaven and had seen wonderful things. How man can see without eyes and hear without ears we cannot fully comprehend, but that it is true there can be no doubt. St. Paul states something similar in 2 Cor. 5: 8. Even in the face of death, he exults "we are of good courage we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord." The apostle evidently believed that in death, while away from the body, he would still en'oy the blessedness of Christ's presence. Thus the soul is not depen d ent for its life upon the body. 7. Finally, the Bible describes death in still another manner. In passages such as Dan. 12 : 2; Matt. 9: 24, and 1 Thess. 4 : 13 i t is called a slee . However, it is not our p se at this time to enter upon a {iscussion of this important su T" ject, since a fuller treatment of death as a sleep will be presented in part 111. For the moment we shall concern ourselves with the definition of death as i t has been set forth by classic Protestantism. On the basis of the passages of Scripture considered above, conservative Lutheran theologians of the past have defined it in the following manner : Temporal death is nothing less than a tearing asunder of men, the separation of the soul from the body, the unnatural dis- ruption of the union of soul and body which has been created by GO^ to be According to the Law, death is a terrifying experience; i t is an expression of divine wrath (Ps. 90: 7 , l l ) ; a divine judgment because of transgression (Gen. 2: 17); an unnatural putting off of the temple of this body (2 Peter 1 : 14); a putting aside of this taber- nacle (2 Cor. 5: 1); it is a termination of our physical life (Luke 6:9); a returning to the dust (Gen. 3:19); the decomposition of our earthly body (John 11 :29). But according to the Gospel, death has lost its sting ( 1 Cor. 15: 55-57). For the Christian it is not a punishment, not a mark of Gods wrath; it is not a state in which we need fear that God will abandon us. Instead it is a gathering to one's people (Gen. 2 5 : 8), a departure in peace (Luke 2: 29), a return of our spirit to God (Eccl. 12: 7; Acts 7: 59) whence it came. But this now leads us into the third part of our discussion, in which we shall deal with a number of important ques- tions relative to the state of death itself. 111. THE STATE OF DEATH It has been said tkat there are two indisputable realities in eschatology, the fact of death and the fact of the resurrection. But between these two events there is, from the human point of view, an interval of time, a period of waiting. This in turn has given rise to the question: 'What is the nature of this so-called interme- Problems in Eschatology 2 1 diate state!" As most pastors know from personal experience, there is among our people a considerable amount of interest in this sub- ject. Many paper-back books are being published, bought and read, with the hope that they may give answers to at least some of the gnawing questions. Also in our own Synod there is considerable interest and discussion revolving around this matter. Because of this intense interest it might be worthwhile from the outset to remind ourselves of something which Francis Pieper wrote as he dealt with this subject in his Christian Dogmatics. He begins his discussion by cautioning his readers that the Scripture "reveaIs but little concerning the state of the souls between death and the resurrection." He reminds us that, in speaking of the last things, the Bible directs our gaze primarily to the Day of Judgment and to the events clustering around it.%= That was also Luther's emphasis in his many writings. It was the principle interest in the theological works of Chemnitz, Gerhard, and others among the 17th and 18th century Lutheran scholars. I t should also be the chief emphasis in our preaching. In the words of the great apostle Paul: "We look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile body that i t may be fashioned like unto His glorious body." (Phil. 3:20-21). But having this as our primary accent and emphasis does not mean that we should undervalue or even ignore the information which the Lord in His grace gives us on the pages of Scripture re- garding that period of time when our bodies lie in the grave. I t is a legitimate question when we ask: How does death affect the soul? Does man descend into the dust of the grave according to both body and soul and there sleep and repose in an unconscious state until the Lord awakens him on the last day? Or, does the soul, as i t separates from the body at the time of death, go immediately into the presence of Jesus, there to experience consciously the joys of be- ing with the Lord? Today theologians are generally agreed that man has some form of existence during the intermediate state, be- tween death and the resurrection, but opinions differ sharply as to the nature of this existence. And since at least some of these views have had an influence on contemporary Protestant thinking, we shall begin our discussion by outlining briefly a few of the more popular opinions. A. View of Modern Theology. First there is the view of Karl Barth, whose position is somewhat unique; yet it has its following. As I understand it, Barth does not believe that there is an interval of time between the death of a person and his resurrection. His method of reasoning is somewhat like this: At the moment of death man is projected into eternity; eternity is timelessness; timelessness means that everything that happens takes lace in the present tense. Therefore on the day of his passing, a begever will eqerience both death and the resurrection. His mortal body will be transformed immediately into a glorified body. Thus there is no problem with regard to the question 'What happens to the soul of the believer in that interval between his death and resurrection?' There is no in- terval of time. In evaluating this view, let us from the outset recognize that these are philosophical arguments, when we discuss such concepts as time and timelessness. In addition, let us keep in mind that, despite all that has been written on these subjects in recent years, we still do not actually know what is meant by the concept known as time. And much less do we understand timelessness. I t seems to me that if Luther were here today, he would say that the concept of eternity is, in the h a 1 analysis, a part of the Deus Abscolzditus; that is to say, a part of that vast knowledge of God which He has not seen fit to reveal to us mortal men. Luther would advise us that since God has in His grace condescended to speak to us in the lan- guage of this world, since He has revealed himself and His mysteries in terms that are common on earth, we do well to think of these great truths in earthly terms, rather than to try to understand those mysteries which God in His wisdom has not revealed to us. To be- come more specific, when God in His Word describes to us such concepts as death, the resurrection, heaven, he couches them in earthly terms, so that, at least in a measure, we can grasp what he means to communicate to us. With this we ought to be content. In the second place, it is evident that at the time of death, our bodies remain on earth; they are given burial being placed in the ground; thus they remain in time; one could conceivably dig up the remains years later. \%%at is more, the Bible implies that they will ~emain in the earth until the Lord comes to raise them at the last day. But if Barth is right when he says that our resurrection takes place on the same day that we die, then one is inclined to ask: Does this mean that we will have two bodies, one in heaven and one rest- ing in the grave? Barth would perhaps agree with this interpreta- tion because it is his belief that this body of flesh which we now have and which will die, will never rise from the dust. With this interpretation we cannot agree. Yet his view makes that conclusion necessary. In the third place, if Barth's view is correct, then the problem which troubled the Thessalonians in Paul's day would not make sense; and the apostle's first letter to the Thessalonians would be . You will recall Paul's purpose for writing. The Thessa- onlans were fearful Iest their friends and loved ones, who died before Jesus' return, would not share in the events of the Second Coming. Paul, however, calmed their fears by assuring them in chapter 4, verses 15 to 17: This we declared to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise k t ; then we who are alive, Problems in Eschatology 2 3 who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. . . . This passage of Scripture makes no sense, if Barth is correct in saying that the dead have already risen and are in heaven accord- ing to both body and soul. Another prominent view regarding the intermediate state is that held by men such as Oscar Cullmann, Taito Kantonen, and others who seem to favor the opinion that the dead spend the in- terval between death and the resurrection in a state of sleep. Strict- ly speaking, at least some of these men wish to take a mediating position. On the one hand, they want to avoid the classic doctrine of the immortality of the soul because they consider this view Pla- tonic; and on the other hand, they wish also to escape the dangers associated with the more extreme position held by Althaus and Heim, whose teaching regarding the intermediate state is one that borders on annihilationism and extinction. You will recall that Karl Heim asserts: 'When we die, we really die, we pass into nothingness. . . . It is only when we are annihilated that we can be truly resur- rected." Taito Kantonen indicated clearly that he disagrees with this extreme position for he writes: When we bear in mind the Scriptural view of man as an in- dikisible whole, and of man's incapacity to resist the destructive power of death, such a position as that of Althaus and Heim appears sound. I t also provides an effective safeguard against natural curiosity, imamhation, and wishful thinking which tend to run riot in these matters. Yet, in the course of the present study I have been led to revise my former adherence to this position in favor of recognizing that more than this can be said while remaining on the ground of Scripture. I h d it necessary to agree with Walter Kuenneth that it is theologically impossible simply to dismiss the idea of the inter- mediate state. This state, as Kuenneth has insisted, being neither complete bliss nor complete damnation, reflects man's predicament as a fallen creature dependent upon God's escha- tological plan of salvation. There is considerable Scriptural evidence of a double aspect of waiting for the h a 1 judgment (Phil. 1:23; Romans 1 4 : s ; Luke 23:43; 2 Cor. 5:4-10; Rev. 6 : 9; Matt. 18 : 3 5), a state which for the believer means a foretaste of heaven and for the unbeliever a foretaste of damnation. 2 7 At the same time, however, Kantonen wants to avoid being classified with conservative classic Protestantism which holds to the immortality of the soul. He claims that Protestant orthodoxy was inclined to ascribe too much positive content to the intermediate state. Apparently he sees death as a more neutral state, as a period of waiting for the day of judgment. In an attempt to support his view, he quotes two statements of Luther in which the great Re- former called death a sleep. The two statements are these: Just as one who falls asleep and reaches morning unexpected when he awakes, without knowing what has happened to him, so shall we suddenly rise on the last day without knowing how we have come into death and through death.z8 Again : We shall sleep until He comes and knocks on the little grave and says, Doctor Martin, get up! Then I shall rise in a mo- ment and be happy with Him forever.eg From these statements, Kantonen draws the conclusion that "alread in Luther's view, so far as the dead person himself is concerned: the intermediate state is reduced to an unconscious moment."30 As a second argument in support of their view, those who favor the teaching of soul-sleep quote passages from Scripture such as 1 Kings 2: 10; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 9:24; 1 Thess. 4: 13ff, in which it is quite evident that Jesus and the holy writers speak of death as a sleep. How shall we evaluate these arguments? First, let us look at the statements of Luther. To understand them we must take into consideration both the person of Luther and the times in which he lived. It is quite evident from his writings that in 15 17 when the Reformation began, Luther was not completely certain regarding some doctrines. It was only later that he formulated a definite opinion on the basis of Scripture and then spoke out bold1 . It also d took some time for him to clarify his thinking regarding eath. In a letter, under the date of January 13, 1522, Luther replied to cer- tain questions that his friend Arnsdorf had asked, and it is quite evi- dent that at that time he hesitated to speak dogmatically concern- ing the precise status of the departed. It is simply not historically accurate, therefore, to quote statements which Luther made in those early years and then draw the conclusion: "This is the view of Luther; he believed in soul-sleep." If one is to describe Luther's point of view accurately with reference to soul-sleep, one must also quote from the writings of the mature Luther. We note, therefore, a few quotations taken from his Commentary on Genesis-a work which he completed about 1537 A.D., nine years before he died. In these statements he makes it quite clear that he does not think of the soul as unconscious while in the state of death, for he says: I t is certain that to this day Abraham is serving Cod, just as Adam, Abel, Noah are serving God. And this we should care- fully note, for it is divine truth that Abraham is living, serving Cod and ruling with Him. But what sort of life that may be, whether he is asleep or awake, is another question. How the soul is resting we are not to hour, but it is certain that it is living. 31 The previous statement may sound rather cryptic, and we may won- der what kind of sleep would enable Abraham, while resting also to be living and serving God, and even ruling with Him. Perhaps the next statement wiU offer some c ldca t ion . Commenting on Gen. 25:7-10, he remarks: At this point another question arises. Since it is certain that the souE live in peace, what sort of life or rest may this be? . . . There is a difference between the sleep or rest of this life and that of the future life. For in this life a man, fatigued by the day's work, enters his bedroom at night in order there to sleep in peace and to enjoy rest during the night. Nor is he conscious of any evil that is happening, be it fire or mur- der. But the departed soul does not sleep in this manner; it is, more properly speaking, awake and has visions and con- versations with the angels and God. Therefore, the sleep of the future life is deeper than that of this life, and yet the souls live before God. With this image, drawn from the sleep of a living man, I am satisfied, for peace and quiet dwells in such a man. He thinks that he has slept scarcely an hour or two, and yet he observes that the soul sleeps in a way that it is awake at the same time.3z Thus, throughout his life, Luther called death a sleep, follow- ing the terminology of the Bible. However, it is equally clear that the mature Luther distinguished sharply between what he terms "the sleep of this life" and "the sleep of the future life." I t is especially signscant that he explains wherein this difference con- sists. The difference, he says, lies in this that the sleep of this life is an unconscious state, while the sleep of the future life is one in which the departed soul is actually awake, and is alive but is resting -resting in the sense that its labors are at an end. It is my firm opinion that it would be very cWicuIt to prove that the Reformer held the view that the souls of the departed are in an unconscious condition between the time of death and the resurrection. But what shall we say concernin the numerous passages of Scripture which em loy this figure of 8 eath as a sleep? Shall we not take there worz literally? At this point perhaps we will do well to look more closely at a few of these pertinent passages. And as we do so, let us note carefully that they have one thing in com- mon. By far the majority of them appear in a context which speaks of the resurrection. This furnishes the key to the correct interpre- tation. For example, Matt. 9: 24 relates the story of Jesus entering the home of Jairus soon after his daughter had died. The Savior comforted the family and friends by telling them "The girl is not dead but sleeping." Someone could have asked Jesus: "How can you say that she is only sleeping when you know that she is dead?" And Jesus could have answered: "She is, as it were sleeping, be- cause I am going to raise her from the dead." One thing is quite clear, Jesus did not intend here to teach those in Jairus' home the theological doctrine which is known as soul-sleep. The same is true of John 11 : 1 1 , the story of the raising of Lazarus. After Lazarus had died, Jesus told his disciples, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep." Again, he calls death a sleep. But why? Not to teach his disciples that the state of death is a state of unconscious- ness. No, it is evident from the context that the Savior meant: "Lazarus is indeed dead, but it is just as if he were sleeping because I am going to awaken him." In 1 Cor. 15 : 51, St. Paul told the congregation at Corinth: "Lo, I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed." Obviously, the apostle is here describing death as a sleep. But in what sense? The context shows very clearly that Paul is not speaking here of soul-sleep, of being unconscious when one is dead. The entire 15th chapter of First Corinthians deals with the resurrection. In 1 Thess. 4 : 13, too, the dead are said to be asleep. Once more we ask: In what respect is death a sleep; and the context answers, verse 14: "Since we be- lieve that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep." Death is called a sleep simply because there is a resurrection, an awakening. Finally, there is the Old Testament passage Daniel 12: 2: "Many of those s l e ~ in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, an some to shame and everlasting contempt." From this passage one concludes: "Death is a sleep even for the unbeliever; not because it renders him unconscious of what is going on, but because he too shall be raised up and face judgment." But someone may say: 'What of those passages, in the Old Testament, which seem to say rather clear particularly y that the dead are unconscious, passages such as, Psalm 6 : 5 : "In death there is no remembrance of thee, in she01 who can give the praise?" Or, Psalm 30 : 9 : '%'hat profit is there in my death, if I go down to the pit? Will the dust ?raise thee? Will it tell of thy faithfulness?" Or, Psalm 11 5 : 17: The dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any that go down into silence." Or, Psalm 146 : 3-4 : "Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help. When his breath departs he returns to his earth; on that ve day his plans perish." What is the meaning of these passages? I 7 one examines the context, it becomes quite clear that the intent of these passages is not to teach that the soul of man is unconscious when he dies. Instead is it not possible that these passages are intended to stress the fact that in the state of death man can no longer take part in the activities of this present world? His relationship to this life is past. The preacher can no longer enter his pulpit and tell of God's faith- fulness; the layman cannot enter the church as he is accustomed to do and sing God's praise; the prince can no longer give help to his people. All earthly plans are at an end. The thought expressed in these passages is simiIar to that set forth in Job 14 : 2 1. Man dies and thereafter 'his sons come to honor and he does not know it; they are brought low and he perceives it not." Why? The context shows that it is not because he is unconscious, but because the dead do not return to this earth nor are they aware of what is happening where they once lived. Problems in Eschatology 27 But it would seem that the strongest argument against sod- sleep are those passages which state in a positive way that imme- diately after death, prior to judgment and the resurrection, the believer is in close communion with God and with Christ. Lazarus died and was camed into Abraham's bosom; Dives died and went to the place of torment. Does this, perhaps, occur after the resur- rection? Hardly, because Dives still had brothers living in his father's house on earth (Luke 16: 19-31). The malefactor, dying on the cross beside Jesus, was told by the Savior, 'Today, thou shalt be with me in paradise" (Luke 23 : 43). But one may ask: "Where is para- dise?" Some modern theologians have answered: "Paradise is simp ly another word for the realm of death or Hades." St. Paul, how- ever, conceived of paradise in a different light. In 2 Cor. 12 : 2-4 the apostle states his view of paradise thus : "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years a o was caught up to the third heaven-whether in the body or out o f the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into paradise. . . And he heard things that cannot be told." Thus Paul equated paradise with heaven. Again Stephen was stoned to death because of his testimony to Christ. Before he died he saw the heaven open and Jesus standing at the right hand of the Father, and as he breathed out his final breath, he prayed: "Lord Jesus receive my pneuirza (spirit)" (Acts 7: 59). Could it have been that Stephen was mere- ly asking His Lord to match over his ashes as he slept? No, it is quite obvious that he expected to be in Christ's presence after his death; and as the Bible itself informs us: "In thy presence is full- ness of joy, and at thy right hand are pleasures forevermore." (Ps. 16 : 1 1 ) SimiIarly, in Phil. 1 : 2 3, as Paul was languishing in prison, expecting soon to be beheaded by the Romans, he ex- pressed the desire to depart and 'h with Christ, which is far better." Hardly can it be said that he expected death to be a state of un- consciousness. He looked forward rather to being present with the Lord, where as we have seen, there is fullness of joy. He states this clearly in 2 Cor. 5:8 where he exults: 'We are of good cheer, and we would rather be away from the body and home with the Lord." But, again one might ask: "Does this passage not speak of life after the resurrection? And if so, how can one employ it to indicate what conditions are like in the intermediate state? At the beginning of this chapter Paul is indeed speaking of the time when he will have a glorified body. He longs for that time and wishes that it might come immediately, so that he need not pass through the experience of death; but if he must face the nakedness of being away from his body, he is stiU of good courage for then he will be at home with the Lord. Thus the last verses deal directly *th the intermediate state, not with life after the resurrection, for he de- scribes a time when he will be away from his body. What is more, it is clear that Paul does not regard the state of death as a time when his soul shall be unconscious.