A few scraps...
Paidion wrote:
1 Cor.15 :16-18 "For if the dead are not raised, ...then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished."
In what sense would they have perished, if they flew off to heaven?
And 1 Cor.15: 32 "If the dead are not raised, Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”
The implication is that if the dead are not raised, there is no afterlife. But there would be an afterlife if we take off to heaven immediately after death.
I cannot be certain about the nature of the soul or its condition in the intermediate state—nor (like Matt) do I find it a very interesting subject. To me the question has no existential, spiritual or psychological relevance. However, it is only as one interested in exegesis that I jump in here.
Exegesis requires, perhaps more than anything else, the ability to follow an author’s flow of thought in a passage. The use of Paul’s statements (above) as an argument against “post-mortem soul survival” once seemed very strong to me, until I observed what Paul is actually arguing.
Paul, in this chapter, is not arguing for or against any view of the intermediate state. He is arguing for the doctrine of the resurrection, and is using several specific logical arguments. His first argument begins in verse 12 and runs through your quoted passage. The argument has three simple stages:
First, Paul points out the obvious: “If, as some say, there is no such phenomenon as resurrection of the dead [that is, if the very idea is an absurdity or an impossibility, as the Greeks asserted], then it is evident that the same absurdity or impossibility would preclude physical resurrection in Christ’s case.” (see vv.12-13, 16).
Second, from this premise, Paul correctly observes: “If Christ did not rise, then we lied to you in preaching a message of a risen Christ, meaning our gospel is a false message—there is nothing true about it.” (v.15)
Third, Paul identifies several ramifications of the proposition that the gospel he preached is a false message:
a) Your faith is vain—that is, we have preached, and you have believed, a message devoid of truth (v.14);
b) You are still in your sins—that is, our message of forgiveness was bogus. Your sinful condition remains unchanged (v.17);
c) The same is true of those who have died. If our message is false, there is no salvation for those who have died believing it (v.18);
d) All that we are suffering is simply for a delusion, rendering us very pitiable wretches. We are risking (and sacrificing) everything, for a fantasy (v.19).
There is no point at which Paul is arguing that the resurrection is the only conceivable post-mortem hope of the believer—hence, ruling out an intermediate state in heaven. His argument is simply that the concept of a resurrection (which would have to be denied by those who think resurrections unthinkable) is at the core of the gospel message, and without it, the gospel, as preached, is a complete lie. If it is a lie, then it can confer none of the benefits that we have come to associate with it.
It is the complete invalidation of the message, more than the specific loss of a future resurrection, that brings about the four unacceptable results Paul delineates.
The book of Revelation describes the visions which John saw. One cannot establish doctrine on the basis of what John saw in his vision.
But you believe in a future millennial kingdom following the second coming of Christ. Doesn’t this doctrine derive exclusively from the Book of Revelation—and more specifically, one chapter of that book (in which, incidentally, the souls of the martyrs are seen reigning in heaven)? We can find no biblical basis for a thousand-year reign of any kind outside the Book of Revelation.
Doug wrote:
As far as 1st Cor. 15 goes, as you know we have different ways of understanding the point. I don't think that Paul could have been more clear.
1Co 15:43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power.
1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
I think you overstate to clarity of the latter expression. The words “spirit” and “spiritual” are used a wide variety of ways, both in and outside of scripture.
If Paul had contrasted a “spiritual body” with (as would seem most predictable) a “physical body,” then I think your case would be airtight. However, Paul, counterintuitively, contrasted a “spiritual body” with a “
natural body”—suggesting the use of “spiritual” (in this context) to mean
non-natural, or
super-natural.
Whether a supernatural body may have physical qualities or not would not be deducible from the mere contrast, as worded. The comparison with Christ’s resurrection body (v.49) encourages us to examine the kind of body in which Christ was raised. I have nothing original to say about that, as we all know His resurrected body had physicality as well as supernatural characteristics.