Thinklings Book Club Discussion Five: Chapters 8 and 9



Highlights and Reflections

1. On p.87, Hoekema writes:
?God, as the fountain of life, is the source of all other immortality. In this sense God alone has immortality; others receive immortality and possess it only in dependence on him. As God has life in himself (John 5:26), so he has immortality in himself.?
This reminded me so much of:
?. . . For in Him we live and move and have our being? (Acts 17:28a)

2. Hoekema begins to explore the nature of man?s immortal soul, dissecting it in a sense to demonstrate that man?s soul is not immortal by nature, but is only immortal by virtue of that quality imparted to it by God. The foundational Reformational take on this approach is expressed by John Calvin. Hoekema writes:

John Calvin, for example, teaches that Adam had an immortal soul, and speaks of the immortality of the soul as an acceptable doctrine. At the same time, however, he admits that immortality does not belong to the nature of the soul, but is imparted to the soul by God. (p.88)

3. Hoekema continues this trail into p.90, in the second of his ?bullet points?: The Scriptures do not teach the continued existence of the soul by virtue of its inherent indestructibility.
Here?s where I say ? Okay, I understand that the distinction being drawn here is to distinguish the Christian theistic understanding of the immortality of the soul from the Greek philosophical understanding of the immortality of the soul. But isn?t this a bit like a distinction without a difference? I mean, saying that man?s soul is not inherently immortal but is only immortal because God endows it with immortality just a sort of hairsplitting? If the soul is indestructible because God endows it as such, can?t it be thought of then as ?inherently indestructible??
Are there any human souls that aren?t immortal?
Couldn?t you say that human lungs aren?t inherently useful for breathing but only become so because God endows them with that ability?
Once you think about it, nothing a part of man that functions in its respective way functions apart from God?s willing it to. I don?t know, maybe I?m off base here.

4. I liked Hoekema?s 4th point:
The central message of Scripture about the future of man is that of the resurrection of the body (p.91).
Not the rapture. Not the tribulation. Not the antichrist. Not signs in the skies. Not a one-world government or bar codes in your forehead or a beast of a supercomputer.
No, only something as ?mundane? and ?unexciting? as the resurrection of the body!

5. Hoekema begins Chapter 9 on the Intermediate State (p.92) with an overview of the different views. Here?s the list, as I see it:
a. circa Augustine: An intermediate state of either restful enjoyment or suffering.
b. Middle Ages: Purgatory developed
c. Reformation: Purgatory rejected, but intermediate state affirmed. (Calvin more inclined than Luther to discuss this state as one of conscious existence.)
d. Anabaptists: Soul Sleep

6. The biblical concept of the soul, essentially, is that of man?s ?life? (p.94). In antithetical terms, the soul is that part of man which is not physical, I suppose. ?It is not illegitimate or unscriptural to use the word soul to describe that aspect of man which continues to exist after death? (p.95).
In that sense, a lot the hairsplitting between ?soul? and ?spirit? is likely unwarranted, as many places in the Bible they are virtually synonymous.

7. I found the discussion of the continuity between the OT concept of the intermediate state and the NT concept (beginning on p.95) very interesting. A welcome clarification given the confusion out there about how the OT Jewish view of the afterlife meshes with the fuller revelation of the NT.

8. Speaking of synonymous:
?Louis Berkhof suggests a threefold meaning for Sheol: state of death, grave, or hell? (p.96).
If studying this book?s take on eschatology does one valuable thing for those who must eventually disagree with the general premise, perhaps it will be to provide a better understanding of biblical terminology and how language is used. I know it has been doing that for me.
Some of these revelations for me are akin to learning that the difference between the ?agape? and the ?phileo? in the ?Feed my sheep? exchange is not significant (don?t tell J. Vernon McGee) ? John uses those words for love synonymously throughout his Gospel. (Rather, if you want to see a textual significance in that passage, look it for in the threefold echo of Jesus? command compared to Peter?s earlier denial.)

9. Hoekema writes:

In the light of the principle of parallelism which is generally characteristic of Hebrew poetry, it would seem that the second line is only repeating the thought of the first line . . . (p.97)

The potential problems in interpreting these prophetic passages due to the nature of biblical poetry runs parallel to the potential problems in interpreting other prophetic passages due to the use of apocalyptic language.
Telescoping. Prophetic perspective. Near/far prophecy. Apocalyptic literature. Symbolism. Poetry. Allusion.
All of the above (and more) complicate our understanding of biblical prophecy. Frankly, it sort of makes the ?literal? approach to apocalyptic passages seem as arrogant as it is wrongheaded.
We will need to keep all that in mind if we are to attempt untangling the various threads in the Olivet Discourse discussed in next week?s reading.

10. ?The expression ?the gates of Hades? is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew phrase ?the gates of Sheol?? (p.100).
Very interesting. So just as a general rule, despite the fact that both terms and concepts encompass their own nuances, Hades = Greek and NT while Sheol = Hebrew and OT.

11. Really liked this summation passage:

Summing up, what can we learn about the intermediate state from the biblical use of the concepts of Sheol and Hades? We may note the following points: 1) Persons do not go totally out of existence after death but go to a ?realm of the dead.? 2) In this realm of the dead the ungodly shall remain, with death as their shepherd. The New Testament adds the detail that after death the ungodly will suffer torment, already before the resurrection of the body (Luke 16:19-31). 3) God?s people, however, knowing that Christ was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, have the firm hope that they too shall be delivered from the power of Sheol. The New Testament again carries this hope one step further when it suggests that after death the godly are comforted (Luke 16:25). In each case we note that the New Testament complements and expands on Old Testament teachings.
(p.101)

12. From the category of Making it Harder than it Really Is . . .
Hoekema writes in the first footnote on p.103, ?To make the word today go with the words ?he said to him? [in Luke 23:42-43], as, e.g., Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah?s Witnesses do in order to make the verse fit their teachings, is unwarranted. For when else could Jesus say these words but today? The reason why Jesus added the word today is evident from the preceding request . . .?
Right. I think the Adventist/Watchtower approach to that verse is a clear case of the interpretative tail wagging the exegetical dog.

13. Another gem from Calvin:
?I prefer to understand [2 Corinthians 15:1] as meaning, that the blessed condition of the soul after death is the commencement of this building, and the glory of the final resurrection is the consummation of it? (p.106).
Following that line, it appears that to add a middle dynamic to the near/far dynamic in the actualization of our redemption. Near: we live now in the flesh awaiting the rest of the intermediate state. Middle: in the intermediate state we await the resurrection of the dead. Far: The consummation of the kingdom brings the awaited resurrection and the bestowing of our new bodies.
Hoekema elaborates:

[2 Corinthians 15:1], then, tells us what happens immediately after death: When the earthly tent in which we now live is destroyed or dissolved (the aorist tense of katalyth? suggests the moment when death occurs), we have, not at some future time but immediately, a building from God. That is, as soon as we who are in Christ die, we enter into a glorious heavenly existence which is not temporary like our present existence but permanent and eternal. Though the first phase of this existence will be incomplete, awaiting the resurrection of the body at the Parousia, this entire mode of being, from the moment of death to the resurrection and then throughout eternity, will be glorious, far to be preferred to our present existence.
(p.106).

Amen!

Questions for Reflection and/or Discussion

1. What do you make of soul sleep? Even if you disagree with it, can it be taken seriously from a Scriptural standpoint? Or does it have no legs to stand on?

2. Hoekema will discuss eternity and Eternal Punishment in a later chapter, but for now I find the concept relevant to the discussion. What is your take on annihilationism? Is it related, at least in spirit, to the concept of soul sleep? (Basically what I mean is, do you think both concepts emerge from wishful thinking? Do you think that they arrive, not necessarily from Scripture, but from how we hope God?s love is manifest?)

3. Another semi-unrelated query:
In 2 Corinthians 12, Paul talks about knowing a dude who ascended to the third heaven. What the heck do you think he?s talking about?

(I was a little stumped for questions this time around, so this week especially feel free to offer your own.)
---

This week?s reading, for next Monday: Chapters 10 and 11 (approx. 28 pages).