The Intermediate State

Trevor Peterson ???

1
1.1

So Just Die, Already!

The Options
Death

Conscious Existence

No Conscious Existence Re-creation/ Soul Sleep Timelessness

2
Platonic Eternal Immaterial Temporary Disembodiment Immediate Resurrection 1 state 2 states Heaven/ Hell Hades/ 2 Compartments 4/5 states

1.2

Dead, Well Sort of

1 Sam 28:15 Samuel expresses disturbance at being brought up, which seems to show some awareness of time dierentiation; it could simply indicate a realization that he has been roused prior to the resurrection, or it could be spoken for Sauls benet, to convey divine annoyance. Isa 14:911; Ezek 32:1832 In these poetic depictions of kingly abasement, dead kings in Sheol are portrayed as addressing the respective recipients of divine judgment; the diculty is knowing whether either portrayal goes beyond imagery in its suggestion of conscious existence on the part of these kings. Luke 16:1931 This vignette follows a parable addressed to Jesuss disciples, and is introduced in response to the scong of the Pharisees. The preceding parable uses a monetary motif, introducing a rich man in relationship to his manager. This passage also emphasizes and begins with the rich man, this time in relationship to a beggaran even greater social distinction. The stress is also shifted to the rich man himself instead of the other character in the narrative, and the manager diers from the beggar in that he has the means to better his situation, whereas the beggar does not. The lesson stresses responsibility to listen to Scripture, as no concession is made for the rich man who was unreceptive in life or for his brothers who are also unreceptive. Clearly, the second is intended as a follow-up to the rst, twisting the theme to direct a new message to the hard-hearted Pharisees. But what they share in common is that both narratives depend upon realistic situations to drive home their respective points. This is probably more the case with the latter, since it does not contain a direct exhortation to the audience. Clearly the reason is that the Pharisees are not expected to respond in obedience. But that doesnt diminish the fact that a purely ctional story with no basis in reality would hardly have communicated with any real signicance. John 11:2326 Martha anticipates a future resurrection, probably based on OT passages like Dan 12:2 which promises a resurrection to everlasting life. Jesuss response is clearly intended to communicate more than this OT notion. The focus is on His life-giving powerso great that faith in Him results in eternal life after death. What He does not say is when this life will take place. Conceivably, it could refer to the future resurrection, emphasizing 3

only His signicance to that end. But it could easily go beyond that to imply unbroken life after death. Matt 22:32 Jesuss response to the Sadducees on this point is clear in its main thrust. Gods self-identication in terms of the dead patriarchs would seem incomplete if life did not continue after death. But it must be kept in mind that He is primarily concerned here with the resurrection, not the intermediate state as such. It may be implicit in His assertion that God would identify Himself in terms of individuals currently living. But there is a sense in which this meaning might seem inconsistent. If they are perceived as being alive suciently to satisfy the needs of the self-identication, then what need is there of a resurrection? This is not to say that it would deny an intermediate consciousness, but they would be conceived of as dead, yet still consciously existentnot truly alive until the resurrection. Luke 23:4243 Just as Jesuss response to Martha went beyond her general expectation of a future resurrection, He clearly intends to expand the understanding of the thief. While it is argued that perhaps today serves as emphasis only or that it is simply a matter of the thiefs perceptionthat it will seem like the same day when he is raisedneither explanation is really adequate to the grammar or the context. There is no need to use today for emphasis, even if there were other instances in the NT where such an emphatic form was used, since truly and I tell you already serve as a double emphasis on what He is about to say. And if it is simply a matter of the thiefs perception, we might well ask how honest an answer Jesus gave, to say nothing of what such an assurance would really do to expand the thiefs expectation.1
The term paradeisos, rendered here and elsewhere as Paradise, is found in 2 Cor 12:4, where Paul identies it with the third heaven, to which he or someone else was caught up. (Were not sure exactly what that means. It may come from a cosmology of multiple levels to heaven, which some have speculated as atmosphere, universe, and divine presence. In Revelation, John sees on various occasions events transpiring in what he calls middle heaven (messouranma in 8:13; 14:6; 19:17), which conceivably has nothing to do with what Paul is describing here (as is reected in most translations) but may indicate the atmosphere as level two, rather than level one.) Whatever Pauls meaning, his use of the Greek denite article with paradeisos probably indicates that he was not simply describing the quality of this third heaven, but that he genuinely references a specic place with the term (so also the usage in Luke and elsewhere in the NT). What the addition of Pauls remarks then produces is an understanding of Paradise as in heaven (at least by
1

Luke 23:46; Acts 7:59 Although Jesuss use of the Psalm could be construed merely as echoing the Psalmists trust in God, taken together with Stephens similar exclamation the picture is somewhat dierent. Both go beyond the statement of Qoheleth that the spirit returns to God, which is based in Genesis 2 and could simply refer to the dissolution of man at death. Here we have rm expressions of trust in God, as they commit their spirits into His care not an absorption of life force into the divine origin, but a watchful protection, whatever He may do with them. Admittedly, they may not go all the way to the point of arming a conscious existence to follow, but they certainly present a problem for any notion that seeks to diminish the distinct identity of the human spirit as it departs at death. 2 Cor 5:110 The preceding context in chap. 4 emphasizes Pauls view toward resurrection and reward in light of his present suering. Vv. 12 anticipate an eternal body to replace this temporal one. Vv. 34 suggest an unclothed state that may occur. V. 5 introduces the Spirit as a pledgean intermediate hope, strengthening the notion of an intermediate state coming into view. V. 6 identies the condition of being physically present on earth as being separated from Christs localized presence in heaven. In v. 8, Paul asserts that it is better to be apart from the bodyunclothedif it means he can be present with the Lord. Vv. 910 point to a future judgment that follows both the state of being at home and that of being absent, presumably implying that the judgment comes after our present existence in the body and any existence we might have apart from it. Although Paul desires to be obedient in either circumstance, the judgment clearly emphasizes what we do in the body. Phil 1:2026 Pauls primary desire is for Christs exaltation, as expressed in v. 20. That He would be exalted by the life or death of Pauls body stresses pre-resurrection existence. He weighs the advantages of life and
the time Paul was writing). Furthermore, in Rev 2:7, the Spirit identies the location of the tree of life as in the Paradise of God. This tree is mentioned also in 22:2, 14, 19 as present in the holy city, the New Jerusalem, which John sees coming down out of heaven from God (21:2, 10). Although the evidence is not conclusive, there is every reason to think that the prior location of the city and the tree matches the Paradise to which Paul refers as being in the third heaven. Hence, when Jesus refers to Paradise on the cross, the clearest indication from scriptural use of the relevant terms is that the thief will be in heaven upon death.

deathChrist vs. gain, fruitful labor vs. being with Christbut concludes that the growth of fellow believers is enough motivation to remain in this life. Since the comparison is between life and death and the passage begins with a discussion of glorifying Christ through the bodypresumably the one Paul currently haswithout introduction of another, the idea of being with Christ in death has no apparent connection to the resurrection. On the contrary, it is associated with deathan unlikely connection to make in view of the resurrection. Likewise, Pauls mental struggle between the two options seems misplaced, if there is no conscious existence with Christ immediately to follow death in time. Whether by timeless leap or unconscious waiting, if the time between death and the resurrection is inconsequential, then none of the benets of dying would be diminished by continuing in life. Rev 6:911 At the breaking of the fth seal John witnesses souls of the dead crying out from beneath the altar. They are visible to him, they are encouraged, and they are given robes to wear. The major diculty, however, is in the fact that the four preceding seals release visual portrayals which bear a certain form but probably dier signicantly from that which they represent. They communicate an abstract reality through a personal symbol or manifestation, and it is somewhat dicult to tell whether the same thing is happening here.

1.3

Dead, Dead

Gen 2:7; Eccl 12:7 The view usually builds o of a corresponding anthropology which denies the soul as a real component of man. Man does not have a soul, but is a soul, and this is by virtue of his having been created out of dust and breath. As Qoheleth expresses it, death is simply the reversal of this creative process, whereby the two substances are returned to their sourcesthe dust to the ground, and the breath to God. At that point, man ceases to exist until God should resurrect him through recreation. But the supporting passages cannot sustain this idea, at least without help from other Scripture. The Genesis account addresses Adams creation, but that has no necessary relationship to the way other humans form. The narrative also makes no attempt to explain mans compositiononly what went into him at creation and what he became. But other passages do speak of man as having a soul in addition to being a soul, and spirit clearly has a fuller meaning than breath in Scripture. Qoheleth chooses one particular portrayal 6

of death that comes out of Genesis 23, but even advocates of the position will eventually turn to other portrayals such as that of sleep. Taken as they interpret them, the two are not readily compatible and must be assumed to represent dierent perspectives without contradiction. It seems therefore that they are selective in their emphasis of these two specic portrayals, when Scripture clearly has more to say about death. Ps 13:3; Jer 51:39, 57; Dan 12:2; Acts 7:60; 1 Cor 11:30; 15:51; 1 Thess 4:13 These passages are just a few examples of the use in Scripture of sleep language to reference death. It is clearly euphemistic, regardless of how one might understand its signicance. Some take this usage as showing a biblical understanding of death as an unconscious state. But the better analysis of the relevant terms in both testaments shows that the point of connection is in bodily posture. The Greek terms used in the NT refer quite often in the LXX to a conscious, reclining state. As usage is weighed from earlier writings to later, there is a progression through the fact that a person who dies while standing up lies down in death, so that it becomes common to speak of a person who dies as lying down with his ancestors. The other major Greek term for sleep found in Scripture actually does emphasize the mental state and can refer to a person who is not literally asleep but is simply unaware, but it is never used euphemistically of death. By calling death sleep, no commentary is being given on the mental state of the individual, which in many ways moves beyond human observation; rather, it is simply a polite way of referring to a physical event in very physical terminology. Job 14:712 One possible exception to the above discussion is this passage in Job, where he does seem to contrast the unconsciousness of sleep in death with the activity of life. But the stress is on deaths nality. Job borrows the familiar sleep motif, but he uses it to speak of death as irreversible (under normal, human circumstances). Whereas a tree cut down can grow new shoots and contribute to the world around it, man can do nothing else after death. In the physical, natural sense, this is quite true; yet it has no bearing on his consciousness or lack thereof in his spirit. John 11:11; Matt 9:24 In these passages, Jesus identies individuals whom He will soon raise as having fallen asleep, decidedly choosing not to say they are dead. In the rst, the disciples are confused, thinking Lazarus is 7

simply recovering; in the second, a direct contrast is drawn, that the girl is not dead but asleep. It may be in the case of Lazarus that Jesus is merely being polite in His terminology and then claries when it results in confusion. But at least in the second case, there seems to be a stress to the terminology He chooses. The stress, however, is on the transience of death in these instances, not on the mental state of the individuals. That, in fact, is hardly if at all in the picture. So if anything may be inferred about Jesuss use of the term in general, it is that He wants to communicate death as a temporary state where He is concerned. Otherwise, His usage ts the standard euphemism. Ps 146:4 The thoughts of humans are said to perish in death, but the stress in this passage is on whether a person should place his trust in men. Clearly, the emphasis is on the dead ones inability to act within the sphere of life on a persons behalf. In this regard, it is no dierent from saying that the person himself has perishedit does not have to say any more than that he is now gone from and useless to this lifeeven whatever helpful thoughts he might otherwise have had. Pss 6:5; 30:9; 115:17; Isa 33:1819 There is no thanks or praise to God, no hope in Him, in death. In all of these passages, the context is an appeal for Gods deliverance of the life of His servant. Part of this appeal is to point out that death silences the praises of His people. In an external sense, and from everything we can observe about the dead, this is true. The OT saints knew so little about the state of death, that they had no reason to think that they would be able to continue praising God in that state. It is also worthwhile to consider what the value of praise might be. It may be that the dead can mentally experience thankfulness, but if it cant be seen and experienced by others in the world around them, it does nothing to further the testimony of Gods faithfulness. And this is in fact the point of stress, as they appeal to Gods self-glorication as potentially damaged by their death. Eccl 9:10 Qoheleth expresses as a motivation for productive life the lack of activity, planning, knowledge, and wisdom in Sheol. This exhortation is often taken to indicate that he believed existence ends with death, but it does not necessarily have to. First, Qoheleth writes as a wisdom teacher, not as a prophet. While his writing is inspired, it is not direct revelation and does not have to go beyond what humans are capable of observing. If 8

his view is limited, that does not have to mean that there is nothing beyond what he can see. His book is about observations on life, and this is one area where he cannot observe anything. At the point of death, all interaction with the world ceases, and from what humans can observe, meaningful existence is unknowable. Furthermore, Sheol very often can be rendered simply as grave, and some scholars suspect that aside from gurative usage, that is its only meaning. If that is the case, or if that is the force it carries here, his attention would be focused on the physical fact that bodies in graves are not doing anything except decaying! Even if the term is being used in a more abstract sense, the four things that he denies in Sheol are all used in the OT, and especially in Ecclesiastes, in ways that they all require sensory interaction with the surrounding world. As such, all would be impossible in a state of death, cut o from the world that we know.

1.4

Discussion Questions

Why do you think God waited so long to reveal information about the intermediate state? What practical dierence does it make that we have conscious existence before the resurrection?

2
2.1
2.1.1

Sleep? What Sleep?

Youre Not Quite in Hell, but . . .
Fiery Purication

Mal 3:23 There is a need for a future purication of the sons of Levi. The imagery used is of rening precious metals, which suggests a purication by re. But there is nothing in the context to suggest that this purication occurs outside the bounds of earthly life. The desired outcome of the purication is so that Judah and Jerusalem may oer an acceptable sacrice. Without reading into the passage, this language suggests an actual nation of Judah, with its capital in Jerusaleman earthly setting. The reference then is probably to the same sort of judgment already experienced in the Babylonian invasionone inicted by earthly powers in earthly circumstances.

Isa 4:34 Again, the idea expressed here is holiness of the people of Jersualem by means of washing and purication by judgment and burning. But again, the preceding context at the end of chap. 3 species that this judgment will come through earthly battle (v. 25). 2.1.2 Temporary Imprisonment

Zech 9:11 This verse speaks of Israels prisoners being set free by God from a dry cistern. But this context focuses on Gods deliverance of His people from the aiction in which their enemies have placed them. It is a situation of despair, and granted, other passages may speak of it as Gods judgment upon them, but here the emphasis is on their earthly enemies as the aggressors and God as the deliverer. There is absolutely no indication that this refers to an afterlife experience, and no specic reference to their aiction as originating with God in the rst place. 2.1.3 Potential Forgiveness

Matt 12:32 This passage suggests that forgiveness of sins can take place in the age to come. But there is no scriptural precedent for that terminology describing the intermediate state, nor is there nearly enough detail in this passage to know whether such forgiveness is being entertained as a real possibility. It could simply be a hyperbolic statement of the fact that such oenders will never be forgiven, but even if it is not, it probably refers to the future kingdom, rather than the intermediate state. 2.1.4 Fiery Trial

1 Cor 3:1315 This passage speaks of a trial by re which may permit a person to be saved as through re, even if his works are burned up. But the burning is consistently addressed to his works, not to him as an individual, throughout this passage. It is also in keeping with the motif of his works as building materials that re is the means of testing the quality of those works. 2 Cor 5:10 That there is a judgment of believers cannot be denied from this passage or from other NT passages which teach the same thing. That the judgment involves a time of purging sin is hardly made clear in this case. Paul considers this judgment a worthwhile incentive to live in a manner

10

pleasing to God, and there is a recompense for both good deeds and bad. But there are many ways to recompense bad deeds without actual burning punishment. And since no passage up to this point even hints at a burning torment awaiting believers for their outstanding sins, there is no reason to think that would be the intended meaning. Furthermore, the context has already discussed presence within the body and without, and it seems from Pauls presentation that this judgment follows the time without the body. It would therefore follow the intermediate state, not parallel it, and could not be the Romanist notion of Purgatory. 2.1.5 Rites for the Dead

2 Macc 12:3945 After a battle, Judas discovers that his men slain in battle had been slain because they were practicing idolatry. He therefore collects money for a sin oering, to send to Jerusalem, so that the slain can be delivered from their sin. The text explains that he would not have done this if he had not believed in a resurrection of the dead. But even this passage is not a clear articulation of the doctrine of Purgatory. It does commend prayer for the dead, but it does not make clear whether the reference to the favor upon those who die godly is an implication of available righteousness of the saints or is simply a statement of why some extra measure would need to be taken for these men. It also places the focus on the notion of a resurrection, which raises the question of whether he thought such prayers would make any dierence at all for their present condition.2
NRS 2 Maccabees 12:39 On the next day, as had now become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kindred in the sepulchres of their ancestors. 40 Then under the tunic of each one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was the reason these men had fallen. 41 So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; 42 and they turned to supplication, praying that the sin that had been committed might be wholly blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened as the result of the sin of those who had fallen. 43 He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin oering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. 44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superuous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45 But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin.
2

11

1 Cor 15:29 This passage does mention baptism for the dead. But it is a notoriously unclear reference, the strongest possibility being that Paul was referring to some practice of the very same group in Corinth that objected to his teaching on the resurrection. In any event, Romanists do not actually practice baptism for the dead, so this passage provides no basis for their doctrine. 2.1.6 Theological Problems

Hebrews 910 Christs death is the only payment for sin we will ever need. John 5:24; Rom. 8:1 There is no judgment awaiting those who are in Christ.

2.2

So What Was He Doing All that Time?

1 Pet 3:1822 As part of Peters exhortation to the dispersed elect, to exercise good behavior in their oppressive circumstances, he sets up Christ as an example to follow in maintaining a clear conscience. Having already discussed the way and fate of the righteous vs. the way and fate of the evil, he continues these themes in his presentation of Christs example. In v. 18, he speaks of Christ dying for the unrighteous to lead them to God, having been put to death in esh but made alive in spirit. The rst problem encountered is identifying the sense of made alive in spirit. The idea of making alive seems to refer not to the intermediate state (which is in no sense a making aliveperhaps continued life, but not making alive) but to the resurrection. But does in spirit refer to the Holy Spirit as the active agent or to a spiritual resurrection (cf. 1 Cor 15:44)? If stress is placed on the parallel with in esh, it would seem to be the latter. This stress also seems to be more in keeping with the strong contrast throughout this passage between a godly spiritual life and bodily suering. The in which of v. 19 presents the second interpretive problem. Does it refer to the spirit of v. 18, or does it refer to the whole idea of Jesuss death? Both are grammatically possible, but the resulting emphases are quite distinct. If it is the whole idea of Jesuss death, what follows almost certainly refers to a preaching chronologically placed after the death of Christ. If it is the spirit, that option is still a possibility, but the stress is on a preaching in 12

spirit, rather than the time of the preaching. The particle translated also seems to favor the latter notion, since nothing else has been described until this point as an activity performed by Jesus during the time of His death and resurrection. In addition, the continuity of the use of the preposition in makes the latter option more likely. But the third problem grows directly out of this one, especially on the assumption that the path taken so far is the best. It is now necessary to determine the nature and timing of the preaching in this verse, and that without any clear help from the preceding grammar. Clearly, it would be a preaching performed in spirit, but that in itself allows for a spiritual preaching at any time, most likely either at the time of Noah or at the time of His own death and resurrection. The word order in Greek unfortunately cannot be duplicated well in a good English translation. Literally, it would be something like in which also to the imprisoned spirits he went and preached having disobeyed formerly while was waiting Gods patience in the days of Noah . . . . Two things are important to notice for the issue at hand. First, unlike most English translations, the description in v. 20 does not follow immediately after the mentioning of the imprisoned spirits. Rather, they are divided (not as a matter of necessity) by the action of going and preaching. This is signicant, because it precludes attaching who disobeyed to the spirits but the time references (formerly, while, etc.) to the act of preaching. In other words, the English wording might allow for us to read it thus: In which he also went and preached to the imprisoned spirits (who disobeyed) formerly while the patience of God was waiting in the days of Noah . . . ; but the Greek order does not. The second important factor is that the participle having disobeyed, separated as it is from spirits, is most likely to be translated with relative time indication who had disobeyed, or some such rendering. Hence, the preaching is taking place after the disobedience, as is presumably their imprisonment with which the preaching is concurrent. Therefore, the implied sequence is that the spirits disobeyed during the Days of Noah, then they were imprisoned, then at some point during their imprisonment, Jesus preached to them in spirit. This still allows hypothetically for various times after their imprisonment at which Jesus could have preached to them. But the conclusion still holds that it is a preaching to them after they are imprisoned, which is supportive of the notion that it is a preaching during the intermediate state. Considering that the context deals with only two denite time framesthat of the death and resurrection of 13

Christ, and that of the days of Noahand adding to that the continuation of discussion of the death and resurrection of Christ after the interlude about the ood and baptism is completed, the most logical time for the preaching to have taken place is during His death. The nal question raised then is who and what these spirits are. Clearly men were disobedient during the days of Noah, but there is also a tradition that the sons of God mentioned in Genesis 6 are fallen angels. If Peter is following that tradition, there are two real possibilities; but the latter may be preferable, since it would be less likely to refer to humans in life as spirits (as this passage seems to do when it indicates that the spirits themselves were disobedient). V. 22 also seems to lend some weight to this conclusion, with its otherwise somewhat unrelated mention of angels with regard to Christs resurrection.

14