The intermediate state – Walking With Giants

[Note: this article is a work in progress!]

The golden evening brightens in the west;
Soon, soon to faithful warriors comes their rest;
Sweet is the calm of paradise the blessed.
Alleluia, Alleluia!

But lo! there breaks a yet more glorious day;
The saints triumphant rise in bright array;
The King of glory passes on his way.
Alleluia, Alleluia!

(William Walsham How, ‘For All The Saints’)

Alone (so far as I am aware) among our better-known hymns, this one distinquishes between the restfulness of the Christian’s state immediately following death, and the ‘yet more glorious day’ of our Lord’s return and the ensuing resurrection of our bodies, the establishment of the new heavens and the new earth, and the completed triumph and eternal reign of God.

But what about this ‘intermediate state’? Various question arise, some of which crop up quite often in pastoral contexts:

Where is Grandma right now? In heaven? With Jesus? Gone to glory?
What further hope do we have for her when Jesus returns in judgment?
Is she awake, or asleep?
Are she and Granddad reunited?
What is she doing?
Should we think of her as being nearby?
Can she see what we are doing?
Does she pray for us, and should we pray for her?
Are we permitted any contact with her?

It is not my purpose in this article to answer all these questions, but rather to see how far we can get towards clearing the way for answers to be given.

1. Cautions

It is widely agreed that the Bible places much less emphasis on the intermediate state than on the cluster of events that will include our Lord’s return, the resurrection of our bodies, and our residence with Christ in the new heavens and the new earth.

So the apostle Paul frequently mentions the coming resurrection and judgement, without making any reference to the intermaediate state, as in:

Acts 24:15 “I have a hope in God (a hope that these men themselves accept too) that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.”

Again, the apostle comforts believers with the assurance that they will ‘always be with the Lord’: but in doing so, he points, not to death, but to the parousia:

1 Thessalonians 4:17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be suddenly caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will always be with the Lord.

Given such little scriptural data, our knowledge about the intermediate state is necessarily partial and provisional. Careful exegesis and theological analysis will lead us so far, but responsible interpreters may end up ‘joining the dots’ in different kinds of ways.

Calvin warns:-

‘It is neither lawful nor expedient to inquire too curiously concerning our souls’ intermediate state. Many torment themselves overmuch with disputing as to what place the souls occupy and whether or not they already enjoy heavenly glory. Yet it is foolish and rash to inquire concerning unknown matters more deeply than God permits us to know. Scripture goes no farther than to say that Christ is present with them, and receives them into paradise [cf. John 12:32] that they may obtain consolation, while the souls of the reprobate suffer such torments as they deserve.’ (Institutes, 3:XXV, 6)

Bavinck, similarly:

‘The history of the doctrine of the intermediate state shows that it is hard for theologians and people in general to stay within the limits of Scripture and not attempt to be wiser than they can be. The scriptural data about the intermediate state are sufficient for our needs in this life but leave unanswered many questions that may arise in the inquisitive mind.’

With caution, then, I’m going to examine two views, which, so as not to prejudice the discussion, I will label the ‘conventional’ view and the ‘alternative’ view respectively.

2. Two views

The early church seems to have paid little attention to the intermediate state, thinking rather in terms of an imminent return of Christ and an immediate entry into the blessedness of heaven or the punishment of hell. But then, according to Berkhof, the idea of an intermediate state began to take shape in the teaching of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Novatian, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose and Augustine. A minority of their contemporaries, including Gregory Nazianzus, Eusebius and Gregory the Great, continued to teach that the souls of the righteous entered heaven immediately following death.

(a) The ‘conventional’ view: restful, conscious, bliss

In his first theological publication, entitled Psychopannychia, Calvin vigorously opposed the teaching that, upon death, the soul either enters a state of unconsciousness or actually dies (awaiting the final resurrection).

Elsewhere, Calvin emphasises the anticipatory nature of the intermediate state:

‘Meanwhile, since Scripture everywhere bids us wait in expectation for Christ’s coming, and defers until then the crown of glory, let us be content with the limits divinely set for us: namely, that the souls of the pious, having ended the toil of their warfare, enter into blessed rest, where in glad expectation they await the enjoyment of promised glory, and so all things are held in suspense until Christ the Redeemer appear’ (Institutes, III.xxv.6).

The doctrine of soul-sleep was explicitly rejected in the 42 Articles (1552 – precursors of the 39 Articles of the Church of England):

Article 40. The Souls of Them That Depart this Life Do Neither Die with the Bodies, nor Sleep Idly.

They which say that the souls of such as depart hence do sleep, being without all sense, feeling, or perceiving, until the Day of Judgment, or affirm that the souls die with the bodies, and at the last day shall be raised up with the same, do utterly dissent from the right belief declared to us in Holy Scripture. (Source)

This understanding is supported by the main Reformed statements of faith, which posit that the souls of the righteous and unrighteous go to heaven and hell respectively upon death, there to experience blessedness or torment, while awaiting the final resurrection of their bodies and the day of judgment.

In the post-Reformation period, influential Christian leaders such as Richard Baxter taught that ‘that the souls of believers do enjoy inconceivable blessedness and glory, even while they remain separated from their bodies.’

Most Christian thinkers and Bible scholars have continued to teach that a believer’s soul, upon death of the body, goes immediately into the presence of Christ, there to enjoy conscious bliss in anticipation of his glorious return and of the general resurrection when their souls will be reunited with their transformed bodies, then to take up residence with their Saviour in the new heavens and the new earth.

Habermas and Moreland summarise this view:

‘Traditionally, the intermediate state refers to the state of individuals between the time they die until they are reunited with their own resurrected bodies. The majority of theologians have held that at death, a person’s soul becomes disembodied, and it is translated into an entirely different nonspatial mode of existence where time is still real. In this state the person enjoys conscious fellowship with God while waiting for a reunion with a new, resurrected body.’

Habermas and Moreland agree that the Bible offers very little information on the nature of life in the intermediate state. What can be said with confidence, they claim, is that this state will be more wonderful than our present state, but not as wonderful as our future, re-embodied, state.

Tom Wright, in Surprised by Hope, describes the state of the Christian departed in terms of ‘restful happiness’. It is ‘sleep’ in the sense that the body is ‘asleep’ (that is, dead), while the real person continues. The individual is held firmly in the conscious presence of Jesus Christ while they await the resurrection of the body. This intermediate state may be referred to as ‘paradise’. Wright does not offer much by way of elaboration or exegesis.

I think that Murray Harris is a little over-confident when he writes:

Not only are departed believers safe in God’ hands (Lk 23:46; cf. Acts 7:59) as they ‘rest’ from their labours in joyful satisfaction (Heb 4:10; Rev 14:13); they ‘live for God’ glory’ (Lk 20:38, autō zō sin) and ‘live spiritually, as God does’ (1 Pet 4:6, zōsi … kata theon pneumati).

I’m not convinced that these particular texts quite prove what Harris suggests. For example, Heb 4:10 does not point to the intermediate state, and, even if it did, it does not speak of ‘joyful satisfaction’.

Questions, then, arise about the conventional doctrine, prompting an examination of an alternative view.

(b) The alternative view: soul sleep or soul extinction

The alternative interpretation differs from the conventional view in one particular respect: it holds that after death the souls of believers are in an unconscious state until our Lord’s return. According to a variant of this view, the soul, being indivisible from the body and not innately immortal, does not survive death; rather the person, being a unified being, rises from a state of extinction to appear before the final judgment.

Proponents of this view have included a small Arabian sect in Eusebius’ time, some Anabaptists, some Irvingites, Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Eager to distance himself from the Roman doctrine of Purgatory, Martin Luther appeared to lean towards this alternative view:

‘The dead will sleep in an unconscious, dreamless way, “removed from space and time”.’ (Cited by Thiselton)

But, at other times, Luther stated otherwise:

‘In his Commentary on Genesis Luther categorically stated: “In the interim, the soul does not sleep but is awake and enjoys the vision of angels and of God, and has converse with them.”’ (Bloesch)

This view was shared, apparently, by Wycliffe and Tyndale, for similar reasons.

Edmund Law (1703-1787) was an English churchman (in later life, Bishop of Carlisle) who taught that human beings are not inherently immortal, and that after death the person is inactive until the resurrection. According to Froom (Vol. 2), Law taught that:

‘The soul, or spirit, is not separable from the man; that death is the complete negation of all life; that there is no intermediate,
conscious state; that the human souLand life are the same; and that in the grave is silence, oblivion, and darkness, according to
Scripture.’

Francis Blackburne (1704-1787), archdeacon of Cleveland, was, according to Froom, a Conditionalist who in 1756 published No Proof in the Scriptures of an Intermediate State of Happiness or Misery between Death and the Resurrection. and in 1765 A Short Historical View of the Controversy concerning an Intermediate State and the Separate Existence of the Soul….

Louis Gaussen (1790-1863) wrote that:

‘The dead are always spoken of as being in a state of sleep. – The Scriptures refer all hope, all consolation, all thoughts, all recompense, all joys, all rewards of the faithful, all sufferings, all shame, all opprobium, all tribulations, all weeping and gnashing of teeth to the day of Christ, to the day of the resurrection of the righteous when the Son of Man shall appear.’ (Source)

In the 19th century Richard Whately set out a case for this belief, although, in the end, he felt unable to adjudicate between the ‘conventional’ and the ‘alternative’ views; indeed, he suggested some reasons why God might have withheld the means in Scripture to confidently choose between them.

Henry Constable was another 19th century spokesman for the alternative view.

In recent times, this interpretation has been held by a number of Christian writers who would be regarded as generally orthodox in their theology. These include Basil Atkinson, Stephen Travis, Anthony Thiselton, Edward Fudge (see here and here), Glenn Peoples and Paul Marston.

Dr Marston (2025) summarises his own view:

‘It is most likely that for both unrighteous and righteous people this intermediate time involves total lack of consciousness, analogous to a time spent under general anaesthetic. The next thing of which everyone will be aware after death is resurrection to judgment.’

E.F. Harrison (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology) summarises the main arguments adduced in support of this doctrine:

(1) Human existence demands the unity of soul and body. If the body ceases to function, so must the soul.

(2) The use of the term “sleep” in Scripture for death is alleged to point to the cessation of consciousness.

(3) A state of consciousness between death and resurrection, characterized by bliss or woe, unwarrantably anticipates the judgment of the last day, when the basis for these experiences is provided.

I shall return to each of these points presently.

It is of interest that many of those who subscribe to this alternative view also espouse – or, at least, are sympathetic to – conditional immortality (the belief that the finally impenitent suffer destruction, rather than eternal torture). (I also espouse this view!). Walter Martin describes conditional immortality as the ‘necessary corollary’ of ‘soul-sleep’.

I should add that Le Roy Froom, along with many other Adventists, also held together a belief in an unconscious intermediate state and a belief in conditional immortality. Froom states:

‘The nature of the intervening state of death is that of sleep, without consciousness, and with no perception of time. A thousand years will seem no longer than an instant. The dead in Christ are “fallen asleep” (1 Cor. 15:18). If that sleep were unbroken by the call of the Life-giver, it would be tantamount to utter extinction—an eternal sleep.’

3. Death as ‘sleep’

The most prevalent scriptural metaphor for the death of believers is to ‘lie down’ (as in sleep), Gen 47:30; Deut 31:16; 2 Sam 7:12; or to ‘sleep’, Mt 27:52; Lk 8:52; Jn 11:11-13; Acts 7:60; 1 Cor 7:39; 15:6,18,20; 1 Thess 4:13,15; 2 Pet 3:4.

At first sight, this would appear to support the alternative view that those who die in the Lord are unconscious, remaining so until our Lord’s return. Indeed, this understanding carries considerable weight for many supporters of a doctrine of soul sleep.

Marston (2023) states that in the NT:

‘Death is seen as a kind of sleep—presumably like natural sleep but permanent (at least until there is a resurrection.’

I do not think that the idea of death as ‘sleep’ settles the question of whether the dead in Christ are conscious or unconscious in the intermediate state. Even if they are conscious, the metaphor of ‘sleep’ works well, because:

Sleep implies rest from labour, Rev 14:13.
Sleep implies cessation of activity in the environment of one’s wakeful life.
Sleep is a prelude to awakening, 1 Thess 4:16.

Calvin describes the soul’s restfulness after death:

‘Feeling desirous, as far as we can, to satisfy all, we will here say something respecting THE REST OF THE SOUL WHEN, IN SURE TRUST IN THE DIVINE PROMISE, IT IS FREED FROM THE BODY. Scripture, by the bosom of Abraham, only means to designate this rest. First, we give the name of “rest” to that which our opponents call “sleep.” We have no aversion, indeed, to the term sleep, were it not corrupted and almost polluted by their falsehoods. Secondly, by “rest” we understand, not sloth, or lethargy, or anything like the drowsiness of ebriety which they attribute to the soul; but tranquillity of conscience and security, which always accompanies faith, but is never complete in all its parts till after death.’ (Source)

Calvin noted that Scripture never speaks of the soul ‘sleeping’. ‘Sleep’ is a euphemism for bodily death, and is especially applicable to those who are in Christ, who will be raised at the last day to live with him for ever.

Mounce comments on the NT use of the word ‘koimaō‘ (to fall asleep):

‘When biblical authors want to focus on death as an entrance into the intermediate state and therefore as something temporary, they use koimaō. After the tragic stoning of Stephen, Luke tells us that he simply “fell asleep” (Acts 7:60); physical death is not the true end for Stephen. Paul likely has a pastoral motive when he uses koimaō in 1 Cor 7:39; 11:30, where he touches on the “sensitive” topics of the death of a spouse and death as a result of judgment. The bodies of the saints who have “fallen asleep” were raised at the death of Jesus (Mt 27:52). Jesus says that “our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awaken him,” before he raises him from the dead (Jn 11:11).’ (Complete Expository Dictionary)

The biblical notion of the death of believers as ‘sleep’, then, is consistent with a conscious (as well as an unconscious) intermediate state. Harris notes:

Christians who die ‘fall asleep’ in that they are no longer active in or conscious of the earthly world of time and space, although they are fully alert to their new environment. Since Paul applies the verb only to Christians (men in general simply ‘die’, apothnēskein), it may possibly allude to the peaceful manner of the Christian’ dying, whatever the mode of death (cf. Acts 7:60, of Stephen’s death under a hail of stones), or to the certainty of awakening to life through resurrection. (Themelios, Vol 11, No 2, Jan 1986)

4. Dualism or monism?

The conventional view of the intermediate state presupposes anthropological dualism; a belief that the soul is capable of separate existence (apart from the body).

But is this not just a specimen of Platonic dualism?

Not necessarily, because:

(a) The objection would hold whether one holds that the soul is conscious or unconscious in the intermediate state.

(b) Scripture teaches that the soul and the body belong together, and a day is coming – the day of our Lord’s return – when they will be reunited. Death is a temporary and unnatural severing of the tie, not a release of the soul from its bodily prison.

Hoekema claims that three biblical texts in particular support the idea that the soul (psychē) designate that part of the human being that continues to exist after death:

Matthew 10:28 “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Instead, fear the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

Revelation 6:9 ‘Now when the Lamb opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been violently killed because of the word of God and because of the testimony they had given.’

Revelation 20:4 Then I saw thrones and seated on them were those who had been given authority to judge. I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of the testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. These had not worshiped the beast or his image and had refused to receive his mark on their forehead or hand. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

Hoekema adds that the word spirit (pneuma) is sometimes used to describe this aspect of the human person, as in Lk 23:46, Acts 7:59, and Heb 12:23.24.

He concludes:

‘The Scriptures clearly teach that man is a unity, and that “body and soul” (Matt. 10:28) or “body and spirit” (I Cor. 7:34; Jas. 2:26) belong together.25 Only in this kind of psychosomatic unity is man complete. But death brings about a temporary separation between body and soul. Since the New Testament does occasionally speak of the “souls” or the “spirits” of men as still existing during the time between death and resurrection, we may also do so, as long as we remember that this state of existence is provisional, temporary, and incomplete. Because man is not totally man apart from the body, the central eschatological hope of the Scriptures with regard to man is not the mere continued existence of the “soul” (as in Greek thought) but the resurrection of the body.’

The alternative view, on the other hand, tends towards, and sometimes embraces, monism; a belief that personhood is unitary and the the soul and body are indivisible.

Under the alternative view, the state of the soul without the body would, at most, be one of stasis. It would be like sleep, with its cessation of rational thought, perception, and so on, – only more so. In sleep, only the vegetative rhythms persist, and it is possible that something similar obtains in the life of the soul after death.

Bavinck articulates this perspective (without giving it his support):

‘Though human persons are not merely physical beings, all their activities are bound to the body and dependent on it, not just the vegetative and animal functions but also the intellectual ones of thinking and willing. Although our brains are not the cause of our higher faculties of knowing and desiring, they are nevertheless the bearer and organ of these faculties. Every malfunction in the brain results in the abnormal functioning of the rational mind.’

If, then, the human person is a psychosomatic unity, then it seems plausible that the disruption of this unity in death leads to a ‘shut-down’ of the activities of the soul. Bavinck understands this well:

‘If…, as Scripture teaches, death is a sudden, violent, total, and absolute break with the present world, there is ostensibly no other possibility than that the soul is completely closed to the external world, loses all its content, and sinks back as it were into itself.’

Cornelis Venema, too, expresses the same thought (again, without giving it his support):

‘Because man is a psychosomatic unity (not a soul “having” a body, but a “living soul” or an “ensouled body”), death cuts man off from the possibility of any kind of meaningful experience or continued, conscious existence. It is simply inconceivable that man, his body having dissolved, could enjoy an intermediate state of fellowship with the Lord or others, apart from his body which is the indispensable condition for all human experience.’ (Source)

Letham (Systematic Theology) suggests that to posit a separate existence for the soul is to belittle the body.

It is a short step from the belief that, after death, the soul goes into a state of ‘suspended animation’ to say that, apart from the body, the soul has no existence at all. Such a monistic view is also consistent with conditional immortality, which helps to explain why many conditionalists are also advocates of this alternative view of the intermediate state. (Actually, it would be more accurate to say that, under this version of the alternative view, there is no intermediate state at all.)

The idea of soul-annihilation (rather than soul-sleep) is taught by Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists. The Lutheran Paul Althaus gave some weighty reasons for rejecting the doctrine of an intermediate state. These include (according to Hoekema):

‘This doctrine does not do justice to the seriousness of death, since the soul seems to pass through death unscathed.

By holding that without the body man can be totally blessed and totally happy, this doctrine denies the significance of the body.

The doctrine empties the resurrection of its meaning; the more one fills up the blessedness of the individual after death, the more one detracts from the significance of the last day.

If, according to this doctrine, believers after death are already blessed and the wicked are already in hell, why is the day of judgment still necessary?

The doctrine of the intermediate state is thoroughly individualistic; it involves a private kind of blessedness rather than fellowship with others, and ignores the redemption of the cosmos, the coming of the kingdom, and the perfection of the church.

In short, Althaus concludes, this doctrine rips apart what belongs together: soul and body, the individual and the community, blessedness and final glory, the destiny of individuals and the destiny of the world.’

(Paragraphing added)

Kim Papaioannou argues that the canonical writings of John evince:

‘a distinctly monist view of human existence; in other words man is one indivisible entity, not a combination of two, body and soul. This is evident in the way he refers to death and the tomb whereby he indicates that whole persons die and stay in the tomb: “Sir, come down before my child dies” (John 4:49). “Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died” (John 6:49). Then Jesus told them plainly, “Lazarus has died” (John 11:14). “An hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice” (John 5:28). He called Lazarus out of the tomb (John 12:17). In these texts (among many) it is evident that what dies is a person, not the body of a person as supposedly distinct from the soul. And what lies in the tomb is the dead person, not the dead person’s body as supposedly distinct from the soul.’

In Date, Christopher M. et al. A Consuming Passion: Essays on Hell and Immortality in Honor of Edward Fudge.

E. Earle Ellis argues:

‘The Scriptures, both Old and New Testament, represent individual personality as a complex and totally mortal monism, a unity that can be viewed from different perspectives, but that cannot be broken into separately existing parts. The biblical view is compatible with an outer/ inner distinction or even a matter/ thought or matter/ will distinction, as long as both aspects are recognized as mortal and as a part of the present fallen creation and thus subject to the natural death process. But it is incompatible with an anthropological dualism in which one part, i.e., the soul or spirit, is considered to have immunity from the processes of the present natural order and thus to be exempt from death, i.e., from a cessation of existence. This kind of dualism has departed from a biblical understanding to a conception rooted in Platonic philosophy.’

In Date, Christopher M. Rethinking Hell: Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism.

Among the problems Erickson finds with such a view is this: if human nature is unitary, and the person ceases to exist after death, what reason do we have for supposing that the person raised to life at the general resurrection is the same person who died? On the assumption of physicalism, the same molecules that made up the person in life would be required to make up the person at the resurrection; but these very molecules were constantly being recycled both in life and after death, such that at this very moment, your body and mine each contain billions of atoms that once belonged to Tutenkamen, billions that once belonged to Leonardo da Vinci, and so on. (Source)

5. Intermediate body?

In an attempt to reconcile various aspects of the eschatological teaching of the New Testament, some have understood that at death believers receive a sort of interim body, which at the Parousia will be replaced and surpassed by the final resurrection body.

This view has been espoused by Murray J. Harris, and also noted New Testament scholar F.F. Bruce (in Paul: Apostle of the Free Spirit and other works).

In the work just mentioned, Bruce focuses particularly on 2 Cor 5:1-10. Paul’s conviction was:

‘not simply that for the believer to depart is to be “with Christ”, which is “better by far”, as he puts it in Philippians 1:23, but that, for this to be so, some kind of new embodiment is necessary at death—and his assurance is that such embodiment is available.’

For those who do not live until the Parousia, this new body will be received immediately at death, just as at the Parousia the final, resurrection body will be conferred ‘in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye’ (1 Cor 15:52). Indeed, these two bodies are difficult to distinguish from each another. But Paul envisages no interval between death and the reception of this intermediate body: 2 Cor 5:1 implies that as soon as our earthly body dies, we have:

‘a building from God, a house not made by human hands, eternal, and in heaven.’

Bruce concludes:

‘Paul evidently could not contemplate immortality apart from resurrection; for him a body of some kind was essential to personality.’

Bruce’s interpretation of this passage has not met with much acceptance, and I find it unconvincing. I offer some alternative thoughts on 2 Cor 5:1-10 a little later.

Bloesch is another who postulates a newly embodied life for the blessed in paradise (which is conceived as their interim state). He writes:

‘I hold that the saints on the other side are not in a state of nakedness but are clothed in a resurrection body. They have not disembodied life but newly embodied life. They are clothed in a spiritual corporeality. Paul referred to them as “the saints in light” (Col 1:12).’

6. Atemporality?

Adherents of the alternative view may speak of the ‘intermediate state’ in one of three ways:

(a) The individual is unconscious; to be awakened at the last day.

(b) The individual passes out of existence, to be reconstituted at the last day.

When facing texts that seem to speak of the immediate blessedness of those who die in the Lord, advocates of the alternative view usually reply that the sleep of death is experienced as a fleeting moment, however long it may last objectively. This is an important point, and one which advocates of the conventional view often fail to acknowledge.

The idea is not new. Whately had articulated it in 1830. He said that, if the soul is completely insensible during the period between death and resurrection, then:

‘The time during which this continues, whether a single minute or a thousand years, is, to the person himself, no time at all. In either case, the moment of his reviving, must appear to him immediately to succeed that of his sinking into unconsciousness; not could be possibly be able to tell afterwards, from his own sensations and recollections, whether this state of suspended animation had lasted an hour, a day or a century.’

And, in 1880, it was possible to write that:

‘The soul-sleep theory claims in its behalf the idea that the night of death is to the sleepers but as a moment, however long it may seem to us who have not entered on its experience.’ (M’Clintock, J. and Strong)

Thomas Torrance argues from the relationship between time and eternity:

‘When the believer dies, he goes to be with Christ and is in his immediate presence, participant in him and made like him. That is to each believer the parousia of Christ to him. Yet when this is regarded on the plane of history and of the on-going processes of the fallen world, the death of each believer means that his body is laid to sleep in the earth, waiting until the redemption of the body and the recreation of all things at the final Parousia.’

Thiselton (The Thiselton Companion to Christian Theology) agrees that there are two complementary ways of looking at such a question: in the experience of the believer, the interval between death and the moment of resurrection will seem to be nothing, whereas to any observer it might be very long indeed. Thiselton illustrates:

‘When a child falls asleep on Christmas Eve night, we can use “participant” language to say, “The sooner you fall asleep, the sooner Christmas morning will be here.” But for the rest of the household we may need to use “observer” language. We may say: “You only have three hours to finish the tree and wrap up all the presents.” Both are true. In “participant” language, the next thing that dying Christians know is meeting Christ. In “observer” language, the great events of Christian eschatology unfold. There is no contradiction.’

In Life after Death, Thiselton concludes his discussion of the issue with these words:

‘The person who dies will know nothing of the intermediate state. Admittedly the believer is “in Christ,” and his or her “sleep” cannot be interrupted. But it conveys an idea that is not very helpful. The best way is to talk about “the next thing we know,” which is to be conscious of Christ. The exegete or theologian, however, may wish to contemplate the continuing acts of God, such as continuing history, waiting and expectation, the “last trumpet,” and the resurrection of the dead. In the role of observer, he is right. But that is not the practical concern of the dying Christian, whose role is that of active participant.’

After reviewing these views of Torrance and Thiselton, Letham (op. cit.) sounds a refreshing note of agnosticism:

‘As for me, I am in no rush to find out whether this is so; besides, once I do find out, I will be unable to inform you.’

Stephen Travis (I Believe in the Second Coming of Jesus) also posits a two-perspective understanding of time:

‘We ought not to assume that when a person dies he remains confined within our space-time system. Thus, when a Christian dies he goes to be with Christ (cf. Phil 1:23) and receives his resurrection body. From his perspective there is no gap between his death and Christ’s coming again and the resurrection of all God’s people. But from the perspective of those who go on living in earth-bound time, there is an interval between his death and Christ’s coming again – hence the passages such as 1 Corinthians 15 and Philippians 3:20f, which speak of a still future general resurrection.’

Others postulate an objective (as opposed to a merely perceived) atemporality. This appears to have been the position of A. A. Leenhouts (see the discussion in Berkouwer).

Marston (2025) also discusses the possibility of such an ‘objective atemporality’. This involves the idea that the living and the dead may be on completely different timelines, such that the interval between a person’s death and resurrection could reduce to nothing. We know, after all, that timelines do vary according to gravity and relative velocities. But (correct me if I’m wrong!) whereas modern physics certainly allows for the speeding up and slowing down of (relative) time, I’m not aware of any scientific principle that would support the idea that time can stand completely still. This is not, of course, to suggest that ‘God couldn’t do it’, but rather to say that from a scientific perspective the application of this thinking to the intermediate state must be considered speculative.

Berkouwer discusses this issue from a philosophical and theological rather than a scientific, perspective. In the minds of many, he says, time and eternity are assumed to be in dualistic contrast. As falled creatures, we are subject to time and its ravages, but in the life to come, it is claimed, time does not exist. In popular thinking this idea has sought support from Rev 10:5f, in the Authorised Version:

Revelation 10:5–6 ‘And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, 6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer.’ (Emphasis added)

This thought is echoed in the hymn ‘When the roll is called up yonder’ (James M. Black), with its opening line:

‘When the trumpet of the Lord shall sound and time shall be no more…’

But it is widely accepted that the reference in Rev 10 should read along the following lines:

Revelation 10:5–6 (NET) — ‘Then the angel I saw standing on the sea and on the land raised his right hand to heaven 6 and swore by the one who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and what is in it, and the earth and what is in it, and the sea and what is in it, “There will be no more delay!”‘ (Emphasis added)

But, although Berkouwer offers a rather extended critique of time/eternity dualism within his overall discussion of the intermediate state, it seems more relevant to the final state (‘when the trumpet of the Lord shall sound…’).

7. Bavinck’s critique

Bavinck, while showing insight into the arguments of those who advocate the alternative view, nevertheless identifies a number of problems with it:

Firstly, while in life the body is the instrument of the spirit, it cannot be demonstrated that the soul cannot continue its activities without the body. After all, angels, and God himself, are spirits, and yet have consciousness and will.

Secondly, while in death the deceased person ‘sleeps’ with regard to this present world, Scripture represents the soul as being alive and awake to another world:

‘All believers who on earth already participated in eternal life, so far from losing it by dying (Jn 11:25-26), after death enjoy it all the more intensely and blessedly in fellowship with Christ (Lk 23:43; Acts 7:59; 2 Cor 5:8; Phil 1:23; Rev 6:9; 7:9-10). Being at home in the body is being away from the Lord; therefore, to die is the way to a closer, more intimate fellowship with Christ.’

(But this is to assume the answer to the very question under dispute: Do the relevant Scriptures actually represent the soul as ‘being alive and awake to another world’?)

Thirdly, we should not be surprised that those who, like Lazarus, returned to this life after death, impart no knowledge about what they saw and heard during their time away from this life. It is possible that they reported something that are not recorded for us in Scripture. Moreover:

‘It is most likely that they have not been permitted, or are unable, to convey their experiences on the other side of the grave. Moses and the prophets are enough for us (Lk 16:29). After being caught up into the third heaven, Paul could say only that he had heard things that are not to be told and that no mortal is permitted to repeat (2 Cor 12:4).’

Marston (personal communication) dismisses this as an attempt to ‘avoid an obvious question’. For:

‘Jesus several times told observers to tell no one what they had seen (eg at the Transfiguration or those like the healed leper) but says nothing to Jairus’ daughter, Lazarus, or the widow’s son in Nain about keeping what they experienced a secret.’

But this is an argument from silence. The two references cited by Bavinck – especially the second one – do point in the direction of individuals not being permitted, or not being able, to communicate their post-mortem experience.

8. But what are they doing?

Marston (2025) raises a question about what the departed are doing (and feeling) if the intermediate state is conscious. He asks (in a personal communication):

‘Are the dead conscious of each other? Are the unrepentant in fiery agony of just a bit of discomfort because of guilt? Do they all know the future? Can they see what we are doing on earth – including any activity which is private? Can they be doing something ‘pleasing to God’ whilst there?’

In other words: If the righteous dead are in a state of bliss, the unrighteous dead are presumably in a state of misery. And yet this would be before the final judgement. How can that be?

Many years before, Whately had raised the same objection. If the righteous experience bliss, and the unrighteous misery, in the intermediate state, why does Scripture speak as it does about the day of judgment? –

‘It seems strange that a man should first undergo his sentence, and afterwards be brought to trial.’

It is on the day of judgment, and not before (argues Whately) that there will be a separation of the sheep from the goats; that a decision will be made as to each peron’s deserts; that their final destiny will be determined.

In response to these objections, we might invoke the widely-accepted idea of ‘inaugurated eschatology’: just as it is true that those who have faith in Jesus Christ have been saved, are being saved, and will be saved, so it is true that the wicked have been condemned, are being condemned, and will be condemned.

See, for example:

John 3:18 The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. (My emphasis; see also Jn 5:24)

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness. (My emphasis)

Rom 2:5 Because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourselves in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed! (My emphasis)

It’s all part of the well-known and widely accepted ‘already/not yet’ trajectory of Biblical theology. It is consistent with this theology to suppose that the righteous experience a degree of bliss, and the unrighteous experience a degree of misery, in anticipation of the final judgement.

Marston (personal communication) objects that the above-quoted verses are irrelevant to the intermediate state. There is, he writes, no text of Scripture which suggests ‘a degree of misery’; this may be so, but it may be a reasonable inference within the framework of the ‘inaugurated eschatology’ just noted. Marston also queries the justice of such an arrangement: will Nero have suffered this ‘degree of misery’ for nearly two thousand years, while Hitler only for 80 years (and counting)? But it is agreed on all sides that our present knowledge of the intermediate state is severely limited, and there are bound such questions, and these, even if unanswerable at present, do not necessarily invalidate the point being made.

Berkouwer summarises Calvin’s teaching on this topic:

‘His position on the intermediate state may be summed up as being concentrated in blessedness and expectation. There is no irreconcilable tension or dualism in Calvin’s presentation. He speaks of blessedness, salvation, and peace, but only in dependence upon the final resurrection of the dead, in anticipation of “the happiest thing of all” (Inst., III.ix.5). Ultimately, the intermediate state anticipates the day when all believers will be called to possess the Kingdom. At that stage the fulfilment will be ushered in. Calvin’s stress on the bliss and salvation does not contradict his description of what was lacking. He prefers to connect these two themes of salvation and expectation. After death one sees the goal one expects, though this has not yet been achieved.’

For Robert Peterson (in Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment), the intermediate state occupies a ‘twilight zone’ between the ‘already’ and the ‘not yet’. For believers, this involves:

‘a disembodied spiritual existence in Christ’s immediate presence in heaven. Jesus spoke of it when he promised the repentant thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Paul longed for it because he regarded it as “better by far” to “depart and be with Christ” (Phil. 1:23). He says that believers “would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8).’

For the lost, it involves an anticipatory experience of judgment. This is taught (according to Peterson) in Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazarus, and (possibly) also in 2 Pet 2:9. I return to these passages later. If Peterson is correct in suggesting that these are the only two places in the NT that teach an anticipatory experience of punishment for the ungodly, then it is rather slender evidence, especially given that both passages are disputes so far as their relevance to the intermediate state is concerned.

Cunnington challenges the view that unbelievers enter an experience of punishment upon death by arguing, on the basis of Jesus’ teaching in the parables of The Wedding Banquet (Mt 22:1-14) and The Sheep and the Goats (Mt 25:31-46) that unbelievers will be surprised by the outcome of the final judgment. I have not yet attempted to evaluate this argument.

Berkouwer argues that the doctrine of soul-sleep contradicts our confession of Christ as Lord over death. For believers, ‘falling asleep’ has the meaning of dying in the Lord:

‘These words assume a meaning that is the exact opposite of the doctrine of soul-sleep. In this insight into the victory of the Lord over death, man is directed, not to a study of death, but to an understanding of life.

‘Accordingly, the doctrine of soul-sleep has become an anthropological argument in direct opposition to the confession of the victory of the Lord over death. It should be dismissed by the church as a distortion of the secret of God.’

9. Key Biblical Passages

There are relatively few Old Testament passages that speak with clarity about the prospect of a life beyond the grave. The word Sheol generally refers to the abode of the dead, without any clear implication of post-mortem existence.

However, there are a few OT references which suggest that the righteous will ultimately be delivered from the power of death (e.g Job 19:25–26; Ps 16:10 (cp Acts 2:27,31); 49:14–15; 73:24; Isa 25:7–8; 26:19; 53:11; Dan 12:2–3; Hos 13:14). But I am not aware that any of these clearly distinguishes an ‘intermediate state’.

The experience of Enoch (Gen 5:24) may have been virtually unique, but it does suggest the possibility of a post-mortem existence for at least some people.

Indirect evidence may be suggested by the Old Testament prohibitions on necromancy (Lev 19:31; 20:6, 27; Deut 18:10–11). These prohibitions may imply that contact with the dead may be possible, though to actively seek such contact is utterly forbidden. And, if the spirits of the dead are contactable, they are presumably conscious.

1 Sam 28 tells of a medium ‘calling up’ (the dead) Samuel. If this was really Samuel, then he was evidently conscious, at least for a while. Williamson comments:

‘A straightforward reading of the text would lead us to conclude that it was indeed the spirit or ghost of Samuel who appeared on this occasion, and who communicated (whether directly or indirectly) with Saul. Nothing suggests that the medium was mistaken or being deceptive; thus we can conclude that the text depicts either a visionary apparition or a genuine encounter with Saul’s ghost…Therefore, this extraordinary narrative evidently assumes that the spirits of the dead continue to exist, albeit in some somnolent form, between death and resurrection. ‘

I am somewhat inclined to the view that it was not (and is not) possible to contact the spirits of the dead; rather, what were being invoked were evil spirits masquerading as spirits of the dead. Whatever conclusion we come to, such practices do, as Williamson remarks, attest to a belief (if not the actuality) in continued existence after death.

For more detail on this, please see:

1 Samuel 28:7-14 – Did Samuel visit from the grave?

I move on to consider some of the most relevant New Testament passages:-

Matthew 10:28 “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Instead, fear the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

This text features prominently in the debate about the final destruction (annihilation) of the wicked, verses everlasting conscious punishment. But it also has some relevance for the present discussion. The question in this context is this: is the human being unitary (consisting of just one ‘substance’) or dual (consistng of distinct and separable parts – the body and the soul?

Williamson comments:

‘Not only does this text appear to express a dualistic anthropology (distinguishing body and soul as two distinct aspects of a human being), but it also teaches that the human soul can survive physical death (the killing of the body).’

Hoekema (The Bible and the Future): The human being is a unity of body and soul (Mt 10:28) or body and spirit (1 Cor 7:34; Jas 2:26). Only when these two are united is the person complete. In death they are separated temporarily. We may speak of ‘souls’ or ‘spirits’ contnuing to exist between death and resurrection. However, this state is provisional, temporary and incomplete. Therefore, our central eschatological hope is not the continued existence of the soul (as in Greek thought), but in the resurrection of the body and the reuniting of body and soul.

Grant Osborne seems less sure:

‘Jesus is not drawing an absolute distinction between the two parts of a human being, body and soul, as if we are a dualistic being rather than a whole person. Still, he is saying that if all a person can do is destroy your mortal body, that is nothing to fear. The most important part of a person, the soul, will live on. Moreover, we all look forward to a new “spiritual body” (1 Cor 15:44) anyway, to be received at the parousia.’ Note the parallel in Lk 12:5 – “Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell” (emphasis added).

Mt 17:1 Six days later Jesus took with him Peter, James, and John the brother of James, and led them privately up a high mountain. 17:2 And he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light. 17:3 Then Moses and Elijah also appeared before them, talking with him…17:9 As they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, “Do not tell anyone about the vision until the Son of Man is raised from the dead.”

In referring to the Transfiguration, Jesus refers (in Matthew’s account) to ‘the vision’ (horama). This prompts Dr Marston (2025) to suggest that Moses and Elijah were no more ‘really there’ than the animals in Peter’s ‘vision’ (Acts 12:9). But the text says that ‘Moses and Elijah…appeared before them’, suggesting that they were indeed ‘really there’. Marston argues that even if they were ‘really there’, we cannot be sure that they were conscious before and after the event; to be sure, God is the God of the living not the dead (Mt 22:32), but ‘living’ does not necessarily imply ‘conscious’. But Marston’s suggestion that Moses and Elijah may have been brought back temporarily from unconscious states does not, so far as I can see, have any basis in the text itself.

Marston concludes:

‘The transfiguration certainly gives no indication that the righteous dead are all conscious, and the language itself seems rather to indicate that the two were no more there than the animals for Peter or the Macedonian or Ananias for Paul.’

At this point, I must enter the usual caveat that I am not competent in the original languages of the Bible. But I have consulted the works of some who are.

According to Mounce (Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words), Horama is used twelve times in the NT: once in the Gospels (Mt 17:9) and the remainder in Acts. Of the twelve occurences, Mounce judges nine to refer to revelatory ‘dreams’, and three to appearances of people or things that were ‘really there’ (the transfiguration (Mt. 17:9), the burning bush (Acts 7:31), and the angel who appears to Cornelius (Acts 10:3).

It is certainly the case that in some instances, horama is clearly contrasted with what was real. In Acts 12:9, for example, we read that Peter, when freed from prison by an angel, ‘did not know that what was being done by the angel was real, but thought he was seeing a vision (horama).’

In his commentary on Acts (UBNT), Mounce notes that:

‘On the basis of [Mt 7:9], which speaks of the event as a horama (“vision”), some commentators hold that no physical change in Jesus’ appearance needs to be inferred. The parallel in Mark 9:9 (ha eidon) strongly suggests that horama be taken in the ordinary sense of “what they had seen.”’

Carson (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Revised Ed.) cites BDAG in agreement that horama:

‘does not necessarily mean “vision” as a result of a dream or a trance; it can simply refer to what is seen.’

Reymond (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith) notes the use of horama in Mt 17:9, and adduces three reasons why Jesus’ transfiguration was not merely a visionary experience shared by the three disciples:

‘First, a single vision is not shared, at least normally, by a plurality of persons at the same time. Second, ὅραμα, horama, may be used of what is seen in the ordinary way (see Deut 28:34). And third, Luke expressly declares that the disciples “had been very sleepy,” but it was when “they became fully awake” that “they saw his glory and the two men standing with him” (Mt 9:32).’

These points carry some weight, but I don’t think they are conclusive.

I think it probable that in Matthew’s account of the Transfiguration, ‘the vision’ in v9 probably refers to the entire scene, including the transfigured Jesus himself (who, presumably, was ‘really there’! I think it would be stretching it a bit to postulate the Jesus was indeed ‘really there’, but that his transfiguration, along with the appearance of Moses and Elijah, could have been perceived only by the three disciples). It seems best to read Matthew as indicating that the souls/spirits of Moses and Elijah were ‘really there’, being made visible in the same way as angels sometimes become visible, even though they too are spirits.

In considering the historicity of the Transfiguration, we should also take into account Peter’s testimony in his Second Epistle. Although he does not mention Moses and Elijah, he does stress the reality of the entire episode (2 Pet 16-18).

On the other hand, Whately pionts out that this episode was ‘manifestly an exception to general rules…in every respect.’ Therefore, ‘nothing generally decisive can be concluded’ from such a case.

On balance, then, I think that the account of the Transfiguration does give some support to the ‘conventional’ doctrine of the intermediate state.

Lk 16:19 “There was a rich man who dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 16:20 But at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus whose body was covered with sores, 16:21 who longed to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. In addition, the dogs came and licked his sores.

16:22 “Now the poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 16:23 And in hell, as he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far off with Lazarus at his side. 16:24 So he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in anguish in this fire.’ 16:25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things and Lazarus likewise bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in anguish. 16:26 Besides all this, a great chasm has been fixed between us, so that those who want to cross over from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.’ 16:27 So the rich man said, ‘Then I beg you, father—send Lazarus to my father’s house 16:28 (for I have five brothers) to warn them so that they don’t come into this place of torment.’ 16:29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; they must respond to them.’ 16:30 Then the rich man said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ 16:31 He replied to him, ‘If they do not respond to Moses and the prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ ”

This teaching is frequently cited in support of the notion of a conscious and active intermediate state. The idea that a parable (which is what this is, in all but name) may include realistic elements is not unreasonable. But here it is very difficult to determine what these realistic elements might be. I therefore do not think that we can conclude anything very definite about any intermediate state from this passage.

Please see the following for a more extended discussion.

What, if anything, does this teach us about the afterlife?

What light, if any, does this story throw on the nature of the afterlife (specifically, the ‘intermediate state’)?

Some older commentators, including Calvin, thought that this was a true story. John Wesley agreed. He asks:

Is [this] account merely a parable, or a real history? It has been believed by many, and roundly asserted, to be a mere parable, because of one or two circumstances therein, which are not easy to be accounted for. In particular, it is hard to conceive, how a person in hell could hold conversation with one in paradise. But, admitting we cannot account for this, will it overbalance an express assertion of our Lord: “There was,” says our Lord, “a certain rich man.” — Was there not? Did such a man never exist? “And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus.”- -Was there, or was there not? Is it not bold enough, positively to deny what our blessed Lord positively affirms? Therefore, we cannot reasonably doubt, but the whole narration, with all its circumstances, is exactly true.’ (Source)

Most modern interpreters agree that it is a parable in all but name. As such, it is difficult to determine what information, if any, is imparted about the life to come. Some suggest that the story would not make sense even as a parable if it did not convey some realistic information about the afterlife. In this regard, they might point to the (so-called) parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25:31-46 as something of a parallel.

Williamson comments:

‘Even if the main point of the parable is ethical, it may still affirm common eschatological ideas; it is certainly difficult to dismiss all the details of the story as mere dramatic setting, especially in view of its correlation with what seem to be mainstream or popular Jewish eschatological beliefs of the time. In other words, to use such suggestive imagery, without intending to endorse the eschatological premise contained therein, would surely constitute gross naïveté or an error of judgment on the part of Jesus. Just as the geography or social circumstances reflected in the parable of the good Samaritan are not entirely fictive or inaccurate, so too the present parable most likely ‘contains several details that allude to the conditions in the hereafter’ (Lehtipuu 2007: 197).’

The difficulty lies, of course, in determining where the realism ends and the fiction begins.

Murray Harris (Themelios, Vol 11, No 2, Jan 1986) agrees that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was told with the primary aim of illustrating:

‘the danger of wealth (Lk 6:24) and the necessity of repentance (Lk 16:28–30), not to satisfy our natural curiosity about man’ anthropological condition after death.

Nevertheless, writes Harris:

‘It is not illegitimate to deduce from the setting of the story the basic characteristics of the post mortem state of believers and unbelievers. Both groups are conscious of surroundings: Lazarus is in Abraham’ bosom and comforted (vv. 22–23, 25), the rich man is in Hades and tormented (vv. 23–25, 28). There is memory of the past: the rich man is instructed to ‘remember’ earlier circumstances (v. 25), and he can recall his family and their attitude to ‘Moses and the prophets’ (vv. 27–30). Moreover the whole dialogue with Abraham suggests that the departed have not only retained their capacity to reason (v. 30) but also gained an acuteness of perception (vv. 27–28).’

Harris adds:

‘Significantly, the same three characteristics (consciousness, memory, rationality) may be deduced from the plea for vindication uttered by the martyrs who rest under the altar in God’ presence (Rev 6:9–10): ‘O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long will you refrain from judging and avenging our blood on ‘those who dwell on the earth?’ (v. 10).’

With Dr Marston, I cannot see how Harris arrives at his conclusion, given the parabolic nature of the story in Luke 6 and the highly symbolic character of the Revelation. Marston (2023) judges that nothing can be inferred about the geography of Hades (it is ‘parody, hyperbole to the point of satire’). I am inclined to agree with him. Therefore, I doubt that it sheds any clear light on the intermediate state.

Robert Yarbrough:

‘It is widely accepted that this story is parabolic and not intended to furnish a detailed geography of hell. Yet the picture of an impious sinner tortured by unquenchable thirst, with painful but unmitigated anxiety about his brothers who may end up in the same place, is far from irreconcilable with other allusions and images used by Christ in Matthew’s Gospel.’

(in Morgan, Christopher W. Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment)

Blomberg, however, cautions:

‘The restrictions against unlimited allegorizing and the fact that the source for much of the imagery of the parable probably was popular folklore should warn against viewing the details of this narrative as a realistic description of the afterlife. Attempts to limit those details to teaching about the “intermediate state” of the believer (after death and before the final resurrection) or to the situation of Old Testament saints (before Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection) do not alter this fact. Nevertheless even the most sober of commentators continues to squeeze more out of this parable than is defensible, probably because there are so few passages in Scripture which clearly teach about the details of life after death. Thus Murray Harris, for example, can at first agree that “the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was told to illustrate the danger of wealth and the necessity of repentance, not to satisfy our natural curiosity about man’s anthropological condition after death,” and yet immediately seem to ignore this salutary warning by adding, “it is not illegitimate to deduce from the setting of the story the basic characteristics of the post mortem state of believers and unbelievers.” Among these he includes consciousness of surroundings, memory of one’s past, capacity to reason, and acuteness of perception. If these are true aspects of the afterlife, they will be derived from other passages of Scripture, not from this one. Otherwise one might just as well conclude that it will be possible to talk to those “on the other side,” that Abraham will be God’s spokesman in meting out final judgment, and that some from “heaven” will apparently want to be able to travel to “hell” (“those who want to go from here to you”-v. 26)!’

Wright (Jesus and the Victory of God) counsels against supposing that the parable describes the afterlife, or that Jesus’ intention is to warn people to be sure of their ultimate destiny. In that case, says Wright, it would not be a parable at all. It is, rather, a traditional tale with an unexpected ending. A big part of the surprise is the realisation that the welcome afforded to the beggar in the life to come is already being extended to the poor and needy, in this life, by Jesus himself. God’s future kingdom is breaking in, right now. The rich man, who represents ‘the rich, the Pharisees, the grumblers’, now need to repent if they are to share in the same blessing; and that message has already been made plain in the writings of Moses and the prophets.

Snodgrass (Stories With Intent) cautions:

‘The problem of understanding the biblical material on life after death is much more problematic than most Christians are aware. We know far less, and Scripture is far less clear, than most think. Conclusions have been based on very little evidence, and it is only fair to say we have been influenced more by Greco-Roman and medieval ideas than by Scripture.’

For Snodgrass, it is a common assumption in Jewish writings that the righteous and the unrighteous can see each other. This was necessary, from a moral and literary point of view, to show to both that justice has prevailed.

But:

‘The parable is not intended to provide a schedule or details about precisely what happens after death. The “bosom of Abraham” is not literal, but points to a place of honor and celebration. If this detail is not literal, then caution must be applied to the other details as well.’

Nevertheless:

‘Although the caution about reading the details too literally is needed, the parable’s eschatological relevance cannot be wiped away. The themes of reversal and judgment must be given their due. The parable is a warning to the rich and emphasizes the importance of what humans do with the present, and it still teaches that humans will be judged for the way they lived and that the consequences will be serious.’

Paul Marston (Death and ‘Hell’: What the New Testament Does and Does Not Teach) agrees that this story does not impart any information about the geography of hell or the nature of the intermediate state:

(a) The background is an ongoing dispute about love of money (Luke 12:15; 14:12–14; 14:33; 16:1–9; 16:11–14).

(b) The story highlights the rich man’s selfishness and contempt for the poor.

(c) There is no pre-existing Jewish teaching that paints such a picture of the contrasting destinies of the rich and the poor, or of the righteous and the unrighteous:

‘So it is unlikely that Jesus was trying to frighten selfish Pharisees with a story about a kind of Hades in which they did not believe,
when they had ignored all his teaching on their fate at a resurrection and final judgment in which they did believe.’

(d) There were, however, Greek, Roman and Egyptian stories about visits to the realm of the dead, and Jesus may well have been drawing on this popular folklore to make his point (just as we might refer to, St George and the Dragon).

‘In the light of the repeated requests for Jesus to demonstrate a ‘sign’ (Mt 12:38; 16:1; Jn 2:18; 4:48; 6:30), Jesus’ concludes the story by warning: “If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead’ (Lk 16.31).”‘

(e) If the story really was intended to portray Hades, various absurdities would result:

It would imply that repeated conversations between Abraham and those in agony in the flames are possible;
If Lazarus went back to the rich man’s family as a beggar, who would believe him; and if he returned in some other form, who would believe that he was Lazarus [If they had ever been aware of his existence?]?
How is it that the rich man was in torment before the resurrection and final judgment, when the general NT view is that judgment takes place after the final resurrection?

Dr Marston adds (personal communication) – presumably, with certain interpretations of this parable in mind – that the idea of those who have not yet been judged to be suffering agony in sight of the righteous in their bliss is ‘repugnant’. Better, Marston argues, to accept that Scripture teaches that the intermediate state is one of unconsciousness – or, at most, one of ‘dream-like semiconsciousness’.

Part of my own response to this would to simply affirm that the intermediate state moves the ‘already-not yet’ situation one stage further on, so that both the righteous and unrighteous dead experience joy and misery respectively in anticipation of the final verdict. But I accept that this cannot be demonstrated with confidence from this passage, since I am uncertain which, if any, elements of it are realistic.

Luke 20:35–38 “But those who are regarded as worthy to share in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. In fact, they can no longer die, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, since they are sons of the resurrection. But even Moses revealed that the dead are raised in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live before him.”

Williamson writes that Jesus is here defending both the doctrine of the resurrection and the related doctrine of an intermediate state:

‘He does so by insisting that the three named patriarchs, long dead by the time of Moses, are nonetheless ‘alive to God’. Presumably this means that in some sense they remain ‘alive’, even though their bodies have returned to dust. So while this may not seem like the most obvious Old Testament proof of a future resurrection, it is built on the premise that some aspect of these three Old Testament figures remains in existence and thus logically anticipates a future resurrection. In other words, Jesus seems to assume here that part of us survives physical death and will eventually be reunited with our resurrected body.’

Lk 23:39 One of the criminals who was hanging there railed at him, saying, “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!” 23:40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Don’t you fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 23:41 And we rightly so, for we are getting what we deserve for what we did, but this man has done nothing wrong.” 23:42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom.” 23:43 And Jesus said to him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”

This is another passage that features prominently in discussions about the ‘intermediate state’.

There is no clear consensus on the meaning of ‘paradise’ here. Also debated is the grammar of Jesus’ wonderful promise to the penitent criminal. Two options are often explored:

(a) A minority interpretation, according to which Jesus’s intended meaning is: “I tell you the truth today, you will be with me in paradise.”

(b) A majority view, which places the comma as quoted from the NET Bible above.

(c) There is, however, a third view, which is, in fact, a variant of (b). According to this interpretation, the comma is correctly placed by the NET Bible (along with many other translations). But the ‘today’ is not a 24-hour period, but the ‘day’ of salvation, which was at that very time being ushered in by our Lord’s atoning death.

Although this third view is in some ways the least problematic, I find it difficult to choose between these options. Therefore, I am uncertain what, if anything, this passage says about the state of human beings between death and final resurrection.

For more detail on this, please see the following:

Today you will be with me in paradise

Luke 23:39 One of the criminals who was hanging there railed at him, saying, “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!” 23:40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Don’t you fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 23:41 And we rightly so, for we are getting what we deserve for what we did, but this man has done nothing wrong.” 23:42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom.” 23:43 And Jesus said to him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”

How could Jesus say that this repentant man would be in paradise ‘today’, when he himself would be in the grave for three days, and would not ascend to heaven until much later still?

There are several things to consider.

1. The meaning of ‘Paradise’

Edwards regards ‘Paradise’ as the opposite of ‘Gehenna’, the place of condemnation and punishment. In Jewish thought, it is ‘a celestial Garden of Eden, reserved for the righteous after death’. It is not some lower, temporary state, but rather signifies ‘the full presence of God, the highest heaven’.

According to HSB (along with many others), ‘paradise’ means heaven, and Jesus was, accordingly, in heaven before his ascension. His ‘preaching to the spirits in prison’ (1 Pet 3:19) was, if it was a pre-resurrection visit, may only have been very brief.

Paroschi concurs:

‘By “Paradise,” there should be no question that Jesus meant heaven (2 Cor 12:2–4) or the eternal habitation of the redeemed in the New Jerusalem in which the tree of life and the throne of God will be found (Rev 2:7; 22:1–5).’

Archer (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties) suggests that ‘paradise’ was not exalted to heaven until Easter Sunday. If ‘paradise’ is another name for ‘Abraham’s Bosom’ (Lk 16:19-31), then it could have been that part of the abode of the dead (Hades/Sheol) which was reserved for the righteous. They would be admitted to the presence of God when the price of their redemption had been paid and when their Saviour was himself raised to life. Under this interpretation, our Lord’s ‘descent’ (Eph 4:8) was to that very place, and from there he led those held there up to glory. It must be admitted that this is conjectural.

2. The meaning of ‘today’

Does ‘today’ qualify ‘You will be with me’, or ‘I tell you’? In other words, does Jesus mean ‘I tell you that today you will be with me in paradise’, or ‘I tell you today that you will be with me in paradise’?

I will discuss each of these options in turn.

(a) ‘I tell you that today you will be with me in paradise’

This may be regarded as the ‘received’ interpretation, being supported by the majority of translations and commentators. These include, among older writers: Ambrose, Origen, Augustine, Calvin (implied), Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, Barnes, JFB, Lange, Ryle.

And among more recent commentators: Morris, Hendriksen, Brown (The Death of the Messiah), Marshall, Edwards, Garland, Perrin, Stein, Liefeld, Evans, Nolland, Gundry, Bock, Schreiner, Murray Harris, and others.

J.B. Green says that

‘Although it is grammatically possible that “today” could be read with “I assure you,” its function as an adverb to denote when the criminal will join Jesus in Paradise is assured by Luke’s well-documented concern with the immediacy of salvation (e.g., Lk 4:21; 19:9). And, since “paradise” connotes the end-time dwelling of the righteous with God, Jesus promises an immediate transfer to life in God’s presence.’ (DJG [2nd ed.], art. ‘Heaven and Hell’)

Popular though this view is, Marston raises a theological objection. If Jesus and the criminal were together in paradise later on that very day, where was Jesus’ soul? His resurrection was three days away, and his ascension to heaven occurred after six weeks.

I do not see this objection as conclusive. On either view, the bodies of both Jesus and the criminal would lay in their graves (with that of Jesus to be raised on the third day) but their souls would enter the intermediate state immediately upon death: the only question then would be the nature of that intermediate state, and whether the souls of one or both of them would conscious or unconscious. And that is the very issue under discussion.

So, is there a hint here of the intermediate state?

Joel Green (op. cit.) maintains that neither this passage nor Lk 16:19-31 testify to the idea of an ‘intermediate state’.

Garland agrees:

‘Since Jesus promises that he will be “with” the criminal in paradise “today,” it cannot be thought of as an intermediate abode. It is where Jesus is seated at God’s right hand (Lk 22:69).’

Others, however, think that is possible to see here a hint of a distinction between the intermediate state (that pertains to believers immediately following death) and the final state of the blessed (that pertains after the parousia). The former is intimate blessedness (it is being ‘with Christ’). The latter is cosmic blessedness (in the new heaven and the new earth).

Murray Harris:

‘Where was Jesus during the long intervals between his appearances? We know he was in paradise on the day of his death (Luke 23:43), and so we must assume his appearances were incursions from the heavenly realm where he had already been exalted to his Father’s right hand. His ascension into heaven after forty days was a visible dramatization of this invisible enthronement, and it marked the end of his earthly resurrection appearances.’ (Navigating Tough Texts, p51)

Perrin:

‘Because of the natural word order of the Greek and Luke’s thematic insistence that salvation is a matter of today (Lk 2:11; 4:21; 19:9), we conclude that Jesus expects to enter into some kind of intermediate state along with the now-forgiven malefactor—and to do so today.’

Bird (Evangelical Theology, 2nd ed.):

‘Most likely, “paradise” here denotes the intermediate state and is another way of referring to Hades. This comports with the biblical teaching that when Jesus died, he went to the waiting place of the dead (Acts 2:27, 31; 1 Pet 3:19–21).’

Some (including Froom and Papaioannou) claim, against this view, that the penitent criminal did not, in fact, die that very day. Rather, he was likely to have survived for several more days. According to Mk 15:44, Pilate was surprised that Jesus had died within a few hours of crucifixion. But Jn 19:31-34 makes very clear that the deaths of the two criminals was hastened by breaking their legs so that they would not be left hanging on the cross on the next day (an important Sabbath).

But how could Jesus refer to himself (along with the penitent criminal) as being in Paradise that very day, when Peter, in Acts 2, locates Jesus in Hades between his death and resurrection? The solution, according to Williamson, is that Hades refers to the abode of the dead, and Paradise being ‘the blessed section of Hades, the intermediate state’ (Osei-Bonsu).

One additional factor counts in favour of this interpretation. There may be a deliberate antithetical parallelism between the criminal’s request, and Jesus’ reply.

The vague ‘remember me’ is answered by the definite, ‘You will be with me.’

The indefinite ‘when you come in your kingdom’ evokes the specific, ‘Today…in paradise.’

(b) ‘I tell you today that you will be with me in paradise’

This interpretation is maintained by some Roman Catholic exegetes, influenced, no doubt, by their doctrine of Purgatory (see the discussion in Lange).

It is also defended at some length in this article by Dr Wilson Paroschi (from a SDA publication), and in this article by Dr Paul Marston.

Ancient manuscripts had little puctuation, and in most cases there is no indication of a comma (marked by a point on the line) either before or after the adverb sēmeron. That is so in the present case.

The main exception is the important fourth century Codex Vaticanus, which reorders the syntax to read: ‘Truly I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise’.

Thiselton accepts interpretation (b) of this text, while maintaining belief in the sleep of the soul between death and resurrection. He does so by invoking the idea of ‘subjective atemporality’ mentioned previously.

Paroschi (followed by Marston) notes that the adverb sēmeron can be placed either before or after the verb it describes. Luke uses it 20 times in his writings. In the majority of cases, he places it after the verb which it modifies. In this case (as in Acts 20:26) the expression ‘I tell you today’ conveys the urgency and importance of the statement. It is reasonable to suppose, then, that it modifies ‘I tell you’ here. Luke’s usage, then, would give some support to this interpretation.

Marston (Death and ‘Hell’: What the New Testament Does and Does Not Teach) draws particular attention Paul’s use of ‘today’ in Acts 20:26 –

Acts 20:26 “Therefore I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of you all.”

Paroschi suggests that Luke, in placing sēmeron after the verb in Acts 20:26 is employing a semitic idiom that has the effect of emphasising the urgency and importance of the declaration.

This reflects OT usage, particularly in Deuteronomy:

“I teach you today” (4:1) “I set before you today” (11:26), “I give you today” (28:13), “I command you today” (6:6; 7:11; 12:32), “I testify against you today” (8:19), and “I declare you today” (30:18).

Paroschi notes that in Jn 14:1-3 Jesus refers to the time when he will come again and take his own to be with him in his Father’s house. The implication is that they will not be with him in his Father’s house before his return. But this objection relies on a questionable (though popular) interpretation of Jn 14. Rather than insisting the Jesus was referring only to his parousia, it may well be the case that he had more than one ‘return’ in mind, beginning with his return to them following his death and resurrection (cf. Jn 20:19-29); continuing with his return in the person of the Spirit, (Cf. Jn 14:15-23); and concluding with his second advent (Jn 5:25ff; 14:28; 21:22–23; cf. 1 Jn 2:28).

Paroschi raises a further point. According to Mt 25:31-34, Christ’s kingdom will be inherited at the end of the age. Therefore, when the criminal requests that Jesus ‘remember’ him when he enters his kingdom, it would make Jesus’ reply inconsistent with this if he meant that he would make that entry that very day. But this is to derive doctrine from a parable (a procedure that should always give hesitation), and to deny that there may be an ‘already/not yet’ nature to the kingdom. In any case, it is perfectly possible that Jesus never intended to give a ‘straight’ answer to the criminal’s request. It would be entirely in keeping with what we know of our Lord if he were to have promised the man much more than he actually asked for: ‘Remember you when I come into my kingdom? Why, you will be with me this very day!’

Paul teaches that deceased believers will rise from their graves at Jesus’ return (1 Cor 15:20-23). He never seeks to comfort them by saying that they are in paradise/heaven with Jesus already. He points to the final resurrection (1 Thess 4:13– 18; cf. 2 Cor 1:8–10; Phil 3:8–11), and it will only be after that even they will be with the Lord for ever, 1 Thess 4:17. It is certainly true that Paul places much more emphasis on the final state than on the intermediate state. But this falls short of demonstrating that the intermediate state is of no consequence, consisting only of unconscious waiting.

Moreover, Paroschi argues, it is Jesus’ resurrection, not his death, that gives believers hope for life beyond death (1 Cor 15:16–20; Rom. 10:9). How could Jesus promise the criminal that they would be together in Paradise that same day, when it is clear that when Jesus died, he went into the grave (Luke 23:50–54; Acts 2:31f; 13:29–31)? It will not do to argue that, while Jesus’ body went into the grave, his spirit ascended to heaven, because he himself, on the morning of his resurrection, told Mary not to hold on to him, because he had not yet ascended to his Father, Jn 20:17.

(c) A theological, rather than a chronological ‘today’?

An increasing number of modern scholars think that ‘today’ is to be interpreted theologically, rather than chronologically.

‘To the criminal’s vague “when” Jesus responded with a precise “today,” referring less to within the next twenty-four hours or before the sun goes down than to the realization of Jesus’ reign through his death, resurrection, and ascension. This day through Jesus’ death, salvation was being achieved, and the criminal would share in it. As a result even though this took place temporally that day, “Luke’s ‘today’ belongs … more to theology than to chronology.”’ (Stein, quoting Sabourin)

Similarly, the contributor to Harper’s Bible Commentary:

‘”Today” does not mean ‘within a twenty-four-hour period, but in the “today” of the kingdom (Luke 4:21).’

France (TTCS) seems to incline towards this view:

‘In earthly reality the resurrection and subsequent ascension are still to come, but in the perspective of eternity Jesus goes straight from the cross to his heavenly throne.’

So also Parsons:

‘The use of the word “today” echoes especially the words spoken by Jesus to Zacchaeus: “Today, salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham” (Lk 19:9; see also Lk 2:11 and Lk 4:21). The import is one of immediacy, not of chronological specificity. ‘

Pate (40 Questions About the Historical Jesus) discusses the issue with regard to Jesus’ promise that he would be in his grave three days (or parts thereof). Whereas ‘today’ has traditionally been interpreted as referring to a 24-hour period, this would be in conflict with other Scriptures that teach that he first ‘descended’ to Hades after death (Mt 12:40; Acts 2:31; Rom 10:7). Thus, for Pate and some others, ‘today’ should be understood as eschatologically, rather than chronologically; it refers to ‘the day of salvation’ which would dawn when he was exalted at his resurrection.

Joel Green (op. cit.) suggests that

‘this passing of time could be a matter of perspective: the participation of the dead in the movement from this life to the next versus the perception of time by those who bury their dead and await the eschaton. If the dead experience eternity with God, then there is good basis for imagining that they are not governed by the passing of time as we experience it.’

Nolland:

‘Still in the hour of his own death Jesus brings salvation (in the context of the present mocking of his pretensions about saving others, he extends salvation to yet another person). This criminal has no need to wait for Jesus to come into his kingdom; though not yet come to his kingdom, Jesus is already granting royal clemency.’

R.E. Brown allows both senses:

‘On the one hand “this day” has an eschatological tone, so that E. E. Ellis is correct in saying that of itself the phrase does not necessarily mean the day of crucifixion but could refer to a period of salvation inaugurated by the death of Jesus. Yet the context, in which the response goes beyond the request, favors the literal meaning of “this very day” (which, in any case, is eschatological), not some indefinite future in God’s plan. Luke signals that by the immediately following references (Lk 23:44) to the sixth hour (noon) and the ninth hour (3 P.M.), i.e., hours of that same day which is now hastening to a close. In Lk 2:11; 4:21; and 19:9 Luke has used “this day” of a chronological day that is also an eschatological moment of salvation.’

Gonzalez warns that using this as a proof-text in debates about the ‘intermediate state’ misses the point:

‘This saying of Jesus has often been used as a proof text to argue that immediately upon death the soul of the believer goes to heaven, against those who say that the soul has to await the final resurrection. Without entering into such a debate, one can at least see that this is a rather flimsy argument. Indeed, were one to take this text in that literal and doctrinal fashion, one could similarly quote other texts to claim that immediately after his death Jesus was not in paradise, but rather in the place of the dead, or, as the Apostles’ Creed says, “he descended into hell” (Eph. 4:9; 1 Pet. 3:18–20).

‘Such a debate obscures the text itself as a response to the irony that has permeated the earlier part of the narrative. Jesus, who has saved others, will not save himself. But even now, as he is about to die, and as he undergoes the torments of the cross, he is able to save the repentant criminal.’

But I think we can improve upon this protest against taking the text in a ‘literal and doctrinal fashion’. E. Earle Ellis (in his commentary on Luke in The Century Bible New Edition), adopts the majority position that ‘today’ belongs with ‘you will be with me in Paradise’. But:

‘This does not mean, however, that Jesus expects an immediate parousia. Nor is the reference to a twenty-four-hour period. “Today” is sometimes a technical expression for the time of messianic salvation. Here that time is Jesus’ exaltation at the resurrection.’

Ellis cites Luke 2:11; 3:22; 4:21; 19:9; Matt. 6:11 & 2 Cor. 6:2 in support of this view.

Conclusion

I lack expertise in the original languages of the Bible. But I am inclined to think that Jesus meant: “Today you will be with me in Paradise”, and that this was not the ‘today’ of 24 hours, but the ‘today’ of salvation.

Bibliography

In addition to the works cited above, see this, by Eddie Lawrence.

Also:

Farrar, T. (2017) Today in Paradise?: Ambiguous Adverb Attachment and the Meaning of Luke 23:43. Neotestamentica 51.2 (2017). Online. (Argues that ‘Truly I say to you today’ is a possible translation, but less likely than ‘Today you will be with me in paradise’.)

Papaioannou, K. (2013) The Geography of Hell in the Teaching of Jesus. Pickwick Publications.

Lk 23:46 Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And after he said this he breathed his last.

We may infer from this that our Saviour expected his spirit to be safe in his Father’s hands as soon as his body expired. But whether his spirit was conscious or unconscious from the moment of his death until that of his resurrection cannot be determined with confidence.

I do not think that this passage provides any definite evidence either for or against either the ‘conventional’ or the ‘alternative’ view.

Luke 24:37–39 But they were startled and terrified, thinking they saw a ghost.38 Then he said to them, “Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 Look at my hands and my feet; it’s me! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones like you see I have.”

This appears to assume a duastic anthropology on the part of the disciples (Green). Williamson asks us to note Jesus’ response. He doesn’t say, “Don’t be silly, ghosts don’t exist.” Rather, he states that ghosts of spirits do not have flesh and bones, as he has. As Williamson suggests: either Jesus is accommodatng himself to their superstitious beliefs, or he is acknowledging that the dead do have a contnued existence, albeit without physical bodies.

Jn 11:24 – Martha said, “I know that he will come back to life again in the resurrection at the last day.”

Bavinck anticipates an observation made by some advocates of soul sleep, that:

‘Scripture nowhere makes mention of anything that those who, like Lazarus and others, returned to life from the dead reported concerning what they saw or heard in the intermediate state.’

Marston (2023) notes that Lazarus appears not to have given any account of his time in the place of the dead. This would suggest that Lazarus had not been conscious, and therefore had no such account to give. I do not find this completely convincing: Lazarus’ (and/or John’s) silence in this matter is consistent with the reticence of Scripture generally to say anything about the intermediate state. Moreover, Paul’s words in 1 Cor 12 suggest another reason why Lazarus may have said nothing about his experience: they both ‘heard things too sacred to be put into words, things that a person is not permitted to speak.’

Marston (2023) notes that Martha affirms belief in the resurrection ‘at the last day’. She makes no mention of Lazarus now being in paradise or in Abraham’s bosom:

‘All this is consistent with the belief that in Hades there is no consciousness as everyone awaits the resurrection and the last judgment in “the Day” (Matt 10:15; 11:22; 11:24; Matt 12:35; Acts 17:31; Rom 2:16; 2 Pet 2:9; 2 Pet 3:7; 1 John 4:17).’

Of course, even if Martha herself was ignorant of a conscious intermediate state, this does not mean that such a state does not exist.

Marston (personal communication) adds that Martha was an able woman: a well-to-do householder (Lk 10:38) and a core follower of Jesus (Jn 11:5, 27). It is highly likely (argues Marston) that if her brother was now in some state of intermediate bliss, she would have been aware of this. But, instead, she points to the resurrection at the last day.

All are agreed that biblical teaching places much greater emphasis on the final, resurrected state than on the intermediate state. As Dr Marston has shown, many scriptural passages jump straight to our final, eternal, hope, without pausing to mention the intermediate hope. But, to my mind, this fact indicates the relative importance of the intermediate and final states, not that the former does not exist in any meaningful sense.

I do not think, then, that this passage counts either for against a conscious intermediate state.

Acts 7:59 They continued to stone Stephen while he prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!” 7:60 Then he fell to his knees and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them!” When he had said this, he died.

This prayer of Stephen suggests that he expected to be with Jesus ‘in spirit’ the moment he died. He clearly expected his spirit to be safe with Jesus. But whether it would be conscious or unconscious cannot be determined with confidence.

Rom 8:38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor heavenly rulers, nor things that are present, nor things to come, nor powers, 8:39 nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

It is a blessed truth that death cannot separate believers from the love of God in Christ. This would be true whether the soul lived on in a conscious or unconscience state, pending the general resurrection. Nevertheless, I think the most natural reading of these words would be to understand them to mean that the love of God in Christ from which we cannot be separated is something that would be known and experienced at the time.

In my view, therefore, this passage offers some support for the conventional view of the intermediate state.

1 Cor 15:16-18 If the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised. 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless; you are still in your sins. 15:18 Furthermore, those who have fallen asleep in Christ have also perished.

Marston (2025) argues that if those who had fallen asleep in Christ were in a conscious and blissful intermediate state, then if there were no resurrection they would not have ‘perished’ but could stay in this conscious and blissful state as spirits for ever. But this argument, if valid, would prove too much: for it would apply whether the intermediate state was conscious or unconscious. In the latter case, we could say: ‘But if they are in an intermediate state of unconsciousness then if there were no resurrection they would not have “perished” (ceased to exist) but could stay in their restful unconscious state forever.’ In a personal communication, Dr Marston suggests that this argument does not hold, because:

‘a person in a permanent state of unconsciousness would be the same as a person who had perished surely? What would be the difference?’

Therefore, I do not think that this passage is relevant to the subject under discussion.

2 Cor 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house, the tent we live in, is dismantled, we have a building from God, a house not built by human hands, that is eternal in the heavens. 5:2 For in this earthly house we groan, because we desire to put on our heavenly dwelling, 5:3 if indeed, after we have put on our heavenly house, we will not be found naked. 5:4 For we groan while we are in this tent, since we are weighed down, because we do not want to be unclothed, but clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5:5 Now the one who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave us the Spirit as a down payment. 5:6 Therefore we are always full of courage, and we know that as long as we are alive here on earth we are absent from the Lord—5:7 for we live by faith, not by sight. 5:8 Thus we are full of courage and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 5:9 So then whether we are alive or away, we make it our ambition to please him.

This passage has attracted a great deal of scholarly interest. The key question to address here is whether Paul is writing about two states (that which pertains now and that which is ushered in at the time of the Parousia), or three (the two just mentioned, and the intermediate state).

According to some interpreters, Paul distinguishes between three states: (a) our present bodily existence (‘our earthly house, the tent we live in’); (b) the intermediate state – being ‘naked’, ‘unclothed’, ‘at home with the Lord’; (c) our final, resurrected state – having ‘a building from God, a house not built by human hands, that is eternal in the heavens’.

Siefrid summarises:

‘Over his present life, Paul thus prefers the better life of the intermediate state, which in turn contains the promise of the best life, the life of the resurrection.’

If this is the correct reading of the text, then the apostle’s teaching supports the idea that the soul, between death and the final resurrection, is conscious and active. In that state, the believer would be ‘absent from the body’, yet still seeking to be ‘pleasing to the Lord’. How can those in a state of dreamless sleep expect to be ‘pleasing to the Lord’?

Habermas and Moreland note than in this passage:

‘Paul longs for his future resurrection body, while still proclaiming his preference for the intermediate state over remaining on earth (cf. Phil. 1:21-23). But how do we explain this desire for the final state if, at least from his vantage point, he knows he will achieve it immediately after death?’

But it is by no means certain that ‘being found naked’ refers to the ‘intermediate bodiless state’. When Paul says that when we get our spiritual body we will ‘not be found naked’, he does not imply that we will be found naked for some period of time before that.

Hoekema thinks that Paul does not envisage any gap between being ‘away from the body’ and being ‘at home with the Lord’:

‘At this point he is not speaking of the resurrection but of what happens immediately after death. This is evident, first, from the words “away from the body” (ek tou sōmatos); if he had intended to speak about our existence in the resurrection body, he should have said, “away from this body.” This is evident, further, from the tenses of the verbs used. We find two aorist tenses in verse 8: ekdēmēsai (to be away from home) and endēmēsai (to be at home). The aorist tense in Greek suggests momentary, snapshot action. Whereas the present tenses of the same verbs in verse 6 picture a continuing at-homeness in the body and a continuing away-from-homeness as to the Lord, the aorist infinitives of verse 8 point to a once-for-all, momentary happening. What can this be? There is only one answer: death, which is an immediate transition from being at home in the body to being away from the body. At the very moment when this happens, Paul is saying, I shall begin to be at home with the Lord. The word pros (in the phrase pros ton kyrion, “with the Lord”) suggests a very close fellowship with the Lord, implying that the communion with Christ which will be experienced after death will be richer than that which was experienced here on earth. At the moment of death, in other words, Paul hopes to be at home with the Lord.’

I previously regarded this passage as lending quite strong support for a conscious intermediate state. However, I now doubt that Paul is here addressing the question of the intermediate state at all. In v24 of the previous chapter, the apostle writes:

‘We know that the one who raised up Jesus will also raise us up with Jesus and will bring us with you into his presence.’

I suspect that Paul is continuing the same thought in this first section of chapter 5.

12:1 It is necessary to go on boasting. Though it is not profitable, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 12:2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago (whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows) was caught up to the third heaven. 12:3 And I know that this man (whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows) 12:4 was caught up into paradise and heard things too sacred to be put into words, things that a person is not permitted to speak.

This was clearly a definite and memorable experience. It is possible that the apostle is here describing a ‘near-death’ experience, during which he entered what we call the ‘intermediate state’ temporarily.

Yeulett wonders:

‘Granted, this passage does not deal with any “intermediate state” – or does it? At what point in his life did this “man in Christ” make this sublime journey? It is tantalising to speculate that when Paul was stoned in Lystra, was taken for dead and subsequently got up and continued his work (Acts 14:19-20) that he was actually dead for a time. But given that Paul himself did not know whether he was “in the body” or “out of the body”, and especially in view of his own prohibition on what could be related from his experience, Bavinck’s warning that theologians should “not attempt to be wiser than they can be” rings loud and clear.’

If Paul’s experience was ‘out of the body’, then we have some confirmation that personal identity continues outside the body, and the soul continues to have some kind of conscious existence during the intermediate state.

It is true that in v1 the apostle refers to ‘visions and revelations from the Lord’ (my emphasis). If the experience that Paul goes on the recount was just such a vision, this would seem to count against it being an ‘in body’ experience. But he himself says that he does not know whether it was ‘in the body or apart from the body’, so we must allow for the possibility that it was either.

It might be objected that if Paul had visited the righteous dead in their intermediate state, why did he not reassure the Thessalonians and Corinthians accordingly? The answer – insofar as we have an answer to such questions – is in Paul’s profound reticence in speaking about the experience at all (v4).

It might be further asked: what place is there for resurrection and judgment if the righteous dead are already in paradise? But the answer to this is, I think, fairly straightforward. The righteous dead are in a blissful and peaceful state in paradise, but their joy is by no means complete, because they await the reunion of their souls and bodies and taking up residence with their Saviour in the new heavens and the new earth.

As for final judgment, it is possible that both the righteous and unrighteous dead will have some foretaste or anticipation of this in their respective intermediate states; and this would be just an extension of the ‘already…not yet’ dimension that we experience in this present life. I have discussed this aspect of ‘inaugurated eschatology’ elsewhere in this article.

Phil 1:21 For to me, living is Christ and dying is gain. 22 Now if I am to go on living in the body, this will mean productive work for me, yet I don’t know which I prefer: 23 I feel torn between the two, because I have a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far.

According to the conventional reading, there is no interval of time between ‘departing’ and ‘being with Christ’.

Hoekema asks: ‘Why does Paul here call death gain?’ He responds:

‘One could argue that he is thinking only of the day of resurrection and saying nothing about the intermediate state. Verse 23, however, sheds further light on the matter. There he says, “My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.” Analysai (to depart) is an aorist infinitive, depicting the momentary experience of death. Linked to analysai by a single article is the present infinitive, einai (to be). The single article ties the two infinitives together, so that the actions depicted by these infinitives are to be considered two aspects of the same thing, like two sides of the same coin. What Paul is saying here is that the moment he departs or dies, that very same moment he will be with Christ.’

Whatever form this ‘being with Christ’ takes, writes Hoekema, it is clearly something more than being in a state of unconsciousness or non-existence.

Reymond’s comment (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith) is typical of many:

‘Since it is a state “with Christ” and one “very much better” than this one, it must at least have as great an aspect of self-consciousness as we have now or the significance of our being “with Christ” and our being “very much better” would seem to have little or no significance.’

Murray Harris agrees:

‘It would have been incongruous for Paul to express a preference (2 Cor 5:8) or a desire (Phil. 1:23) to leave the securities of earthly existence and reside with the Lord unless that post mortem state involved fellowship with Christ that was even more profound than his experience of Christ on earth.’ (Op. cit.)

It might be objected that Paul’s earthly existence was hardly ‘secure’. And this is certainly true as regards his outward situation. But the latter part of Harris’ comment suggests that he is thinking of Paul’s sense of security in Christ, and it is this that would be enhanced after his departure from this present life.

Hendriksen argues:

‘It cannot be argued that it is “far better” to be in a state of sleep, with the soul in an unconscious condition. No, that would not be “far better” than the conscious communion of the believer with our Lord in this world. Paul is enjoying his present communion: “For to me to live”, he says, “is Christ”. To go into a state of unconsciousness cannot be better than that. No, Paul says that to die is far better because it means he will be with Christ, and will enjoy His presence face to face.’ (The Bible on the Life Hereafter)

Habermas and Moreland state the problem succinctly:

‘How could Christ’s presence be enjoyed if one were asleep?’

Advocates of the alternative approach would probably regard the above comments as beside the point. Of course the apostle did not long for the totally unconscious state that pertains to the period between death and resurrection! What he longed for is his next conscious experience – the final resurrected state. But, since Scripture says nothing about this putative unconscious state, I think that it is better to take the words of these texts in (what I regard as) their more natural and obvious sense.

Marston (2024), then, regards this verse as inconclusive in the debate about the intermediate state:

‘Paul says he would rather be ‘away from the body and at home with the Lord’ (2 Cor 5.8–10) and that to die is gain and ‘be with Christ, for that is far better’ (Phil 1.23). These do not necessarily imply that the experience of being with the Lord happens between death and resurrection. If the next conscious thing after death is the resurrection and judgment, then these verses would fit just as well.’

For Marston, to ‘be with Christ’ is defined by the apostle in 1 Thess 4:17, where to ‘always be with the Lord’ comes at the time of our resurrection, not at the time of our departure from this present life (this point had been forcefully urged many years previously by Whately). Paul’s ambivalence in Phil 1 makes sense because being ‘with Christ’ will be Paul’s next experience after death.

If being ‘with Christ’ meant being ‘safe in Christ’, with no remainder, then this interpretation might work. But Paul already knew that he was safe with Christ. He is now anticipating something which is ‘better by far’. I think that the most natural reading of this statement is that the apostle expected to ‘be with Christ’ immediately upon departure from this life.

1 Thess 4:13 Now we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve like the rest who have no hope. 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, so also we believe that God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep as Christians.

Marston notes that Paul reassures his readers about their departed friends by pointing to the general resurrection, not to the intermediate state. This is true, of course. But we do not expect every text to tell us everything. After all, the NT places much greater emphasis on the final, resurrected, state than on the intermediate state. It is no argument to suggest that because Paul does not want his readers to be ‘uninformed’, v13, he ought to have informed them of a conscious and blissful intermediate states (if such a state existed).

Heb 12:1 – ‘Since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses…’

This has been assumed (especially in popular thinking) to refer to deceased believers witnessing the lives of living Christians. But they are not witnesses of anyone; they are witnesses to Christ by means of their faith. We are encouraged by their testimony. The verse is therefore irrelevant to any discussion about the intermediate state.

For more detail on this, please see:

A great cloud of witnesses

12:1 ‘Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses…’

Does this mean that the redeemed in heaven observe us here on earth? Some think so (with varying degrees of clarity and conviction, Donald Guthrie, EBC). It is noted that the imagery is that of the amphitheatre, and so it would make sense to understand these ‘witnesses’ be the spectators in the grandstand. Even if this interpretation were correct, the text gives little encouragement to the kind of popular sentimentalism (“Grandma is looking down on us”) that operates in the absence of gospel faith.

But it is doubtful whether the text can be pushed this far:-

The language is figurative, and we should not seek to establish doctrines from the details or incidentals of figures of speech. Barnes:

‘It cannot be fairly inferred from this that he means to say that all those ancient worthies were actually looking at the conduct of Christians, and saw their conflicts. It is a figurative representation, such as is common, and means that we ought to act as if they were in sight, and cheered us on. How far the spirits of the just who are departed from this world are permitted to behold what is done on earth—if at all—is not revealed in the Scriptures.’

The word translated ‘witness’ (martys) normally means ‘one who testifies’, and it has been used several times in this sense in the previous chapter. (1 Tim 6:12 is one of the few places in the NT where it probably carries the meaning of ‘spectator’. See also Heb 10:28).

There is little support to be found elsewhere in Scripture for the idea of departed saints as spectators of the living. As Lenski says,

‘The Scriptures teach that they behold the heavenly glories and say nothing about their beholding and watching earthly events.’

They are, indeed, viewed as ‘asleep’ so far as contact with this life is concerned, 1 Thess 4:13.

So,

‘it is not so much they who look at us as we who look to them – for encouragement.’ (Bruce).

Or, in the words of Moffat, it is

‘what we see in them, not what they see in us, that is the writer’s main point’.

Allen:

‘The overall context…favors the meaning to be that their lives have borne witness to their faith.’

Hagner:

‘Witnesses here does not mean observers of the present conduct of Christians but rather those who testify or give evidence of the victorious life of faith. They show that it is possible to live by faith. Motivated by the preceding catalogue of examples, the readers are themselves to live the life of faith.’

Vos:

‘Heb 12:1 does not necessarily represent the Old Testament saints as “witnesses” of our race of faith in the sense of spectators in the literal sense, but perhaps in the figurative sense, that we ought to feel, having in memory their example, as if the ages of the past and their historic figures were looking down upon us (Lk 16:29; Acts 8:9; 13:6 ff; 19:13 ff).’ (in ISBE)

Heb 12:22-24 – ‘You have come to Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the assembly 12:23 and congregation of the firstborn, who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous, who have been made perfect, 12:24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks of something better than Abel’s does.’ (Emphasis added)

For some, these ‘spirits of the righteous, who have been made perfect’ are the living, not the departed. Note Heb 10:14, ‘For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy’. This, it is claimed, clarifies that the ‘perfection’ applies to those who are being made holy in the present life (not in the intermediate state).

Many other interpreters, however, understand ‘the spirits of the righteous, who have been made perfect’ to be departed souls.

If these are the righteous dead then, by implication, they are in their present, intermediate, state. This is supported by their being referred to as ‘spirits’ – suggesting a state between the embodiment of this life and that of the life to come. They await the final resurrection (Allen, Hagner, Gundry etc.).

DaSilva cites 1 Enoch 22:9, which ‘uses the phrase “the spirits of the righteous” (τὰ πνεύματα τῶν δικαίων) to describe the departed souls of righteous human beings, who are kept separate from the souls of sinners after death.’

Lane adds Jub. 23:30–31; 1 Enoch 102:4; 103:3–4; 2 Apoc. Bar. 30:2 as references to the “spirits [or souls] of righteous persons” as an idiom for the godly dead. They are ‘righteous’ because saved by the sacrifice of Christ (cf. Heb 10:14), and reflecting in their lives the kind of faith of which God approves (cf. Heb 11:4). For Lane, they include Old Testament believers and Christians alike: all alike enjoy God’s presence in the heavenly city. They are ‘perfect’ in that they lack nothing in their relationship with God.

Marston (personal communication) says that none of the above-mentioned books are accepted as Scripture by Protestants, Roman Catholics or Jews. So how (he asks) can they carry any weight in determining the interpretation of this text in Hebrews? But DaSilva and Lane are not citing these works as inspired: rather, they are appealing to them in order to clarify the meaning of ‘the spirits of the righteous’, as used by the author to the Hebrews.

The Puritan, John Flavel, was one of those who thought that verse 23 sheds light on the intermediate state:

‘The souls of the just when separated from their bodies, do not wander up and down in this world, nor hover about the sepulchres where their bodies are; not are they detained in any purgatory, in order to their more perfect purification; nor do they fall asleep in a benumbed stupid state: but do forthwith pass into glory, and are immediately with the Lord.’ (Pneumatologia, Sermon 5. Online)

So also Calvin, Owen, Thomas Watson, and many modern interpreters.

I think that the references cited by DaSilva and Lane tip the balance in favour of regarding this verse as referring to departed saints in their intermediate state. And if so, the description is hardly compatible with the idea that those same souls are in a state of dreamless sleep.

1 Peter 3:18-20 – ‘Because Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, to bring you to God, by being put to death in the flesh but by being made alive in the spirit. In it he went and preached to the spirits in prison, after they were disobedient long ago when God patiently waited in the days of Noah as an ark was being constructed. In the ark a few, that is eight souls, were delivered through water.’

This is a difficult passage to interpret. However, I am inclined to agree with Dr Marston that the ‘spirits’ are fallen angels in ‘hell’ (‘Tartarus’ in 2 Pet 2.4), not humans in Hades. If so, it not relevant to any discussion about the intermediate state.

For more detail on this, please see:

Christ and the spirits in prison

This difficult text raises a number of questions:

What does it mean when it says that ‘through the Spirit Christ went and preached to the spirits in prison’?
What was this ‘prison’?
Is it some kind of purgatory?
Who were these ‘spirits’?
What did Christ preach to them?
Does it mean that Christ was giving a second chance to those who had died?
What does it mean when it says that he went and preached to them ‘through the Spirit’?
When did this take place?

Pate (40 Questions About the Historical Jesus) lists six possible views:

View 1: When Noah was building the ark, Christ “in spirit” was in Noah preaching repentance and righteousness through him to unbelievers who were on the earth then but are now “spirits in prison” (people in hell).
View 2: After Christ died, he went and preached to people in hell, offering them a second chance of salvation.
View 3: After Christ died, he went and preached to people in hell, proclaiming to them that he had triumphed over them and their condemnation was final.
View 4: After Christ died, he proclaimed release to people who had repented just before they died in the flood, and led them out of their imprisonment (in Purgatory) into heaven.
View 5: After Christ died (or: after he arose but before he ascended into heaven), he travelled to hell and proclaimed triumph over the fallen angels who had sinned by marrying human women before the flood. [Cf. Marston, Death and Hell: What the New Testament Does and Does Not Teach: ‘Peter places this after Jesus’ resurrection and the ‘spirits’ are fallen angels in ‘hell’ (‘Tartarus’ in 2 Pet 2.4), not humans in Hades.]
View 6: After his resurrection, Jesus announced his victory over the spiritual principalities and powers—fallen angels—but not in a descent to hell between his death and resurrection but rather after his resurrection. In other words, 1 Peter 3:18–20 has nothing to do with Jesus descending into hell.

To these alternatives we might add the one mentioned by Bauckham (New Dictionary of Theology, art. ‘Descent into Hell):

‘many modern exegetes take 1 Pet 3:19 to refer to Christ’s ascension, during which he proclaimed his victory to the rebellious angels imprisoned in the lower heavens, while 1 Pet 4:6 refers to Christians who died after the gospel was preached to them’

Pate himself favours view 5, on lexical and contextual grounds. He also refers to 1 Enoch, which elaborates the story told in Gen 6:1-4. In 1 Enoch,

‘The Watchers were the fallen angels who had abandoned heaven (12.4), slept with human women (15.3), and produced children, referred to as “giants” from whose bodies “evil spirits” have come (15.9). These evil spirits have taught people “deeds of shame, injustice, and sin” (13.2) and will continue to corrupt the earth until “the day of the great conclusion, until the great age is consummated, until everything is concluded” (16.1). The Watchers appeal to Enoch to intercede with God on behalf of themselves and the evil progeny they have produced. Enoch obliges and returns with God’s proclamation to the Watchers: “[You will] not be able to ascend into heaven unto all eternity, but you shall remain inside the earth, imprisoned all the days of eternity.” Moreover, the Watchers would see the destruction of their sons (referred to as “the spirits”) because the petitions for themselves and for their sons (the spirits) will not be heard by God (14.5–6). These “spirits” that came from the bodies of the giants fathered by the Watchers through human women were the cause of the human evil that led to the great flood during the time of Enoch’s grandson, Noah.’ (Jobes)

Given this background (Pate argues),

‘then the spirits to whom Christ preached should be understood as fallen angels and/or demonic spirits. Their imprisonment represents in spatial terms God’s restraining power over them, and the message Christ preached to them is the confirmation that “the day of the great conclusion,” first announced by the flood, is now upon them. Christ’s ascension itself may have been the proclamation of their defeat. In other words, the apostle Peter is identifying Jesus Christ as the victor over all evil in both the spirit and the human worlds forevermore.’

Pate suggests that Jude 6 and 2 Pet 2:4 probably refer to the same situation.

The ‘preaching’, Pate further argues, is not of the gospel, but of judgement (as implied in v22). This took place after Christ’s death but before his resurrection.

Moffat’s translation of this verse attracted particular criticism in its day: “Enoch also went and preached to the imprisoned spirits.”

J.I. Packer (God’s Words, p210) deals with the question of whether this verse, taken with v18, gives any support for the notion of post-mortem evangelism. In answering in the negative, he explains:-

The spirits in prison are at least as likely to be fallen angels as fallen men (cf. Gen 6:1-4; Jude 6);
The statement that Christ preached to spirits who disobeyed in Noah’s day more naturally implies that the preaching was not to others than that it was;
‘Preached’ (Greek kerusso, with the message unspecified, does not imply an offer of life any more naturally than it does a bare proclamation of Jesus’ triumph.

Gerald Bray (God Is Love):

‘Exactly what this means is hard to say. If we take it literally, then Jesus went down to hell to preach to the rebellious spirits who were imprisoned there in the days of Noah. This presumably refers to those who were drowned in the flood, but why they should be singled out for particular attention is unclear. What about everyone else? Should they not have had a chance to hear the gospel as well? Perhaps we should understand Noah as the man who received God’s promise that the sinful world would be preserved in spite of its wrongdoing. If we take it that way, then it may be that all those who died before the coming of Christ were granted the chance to hear the gospel, though we cannot say how they responded to it if they did hear it.’

This verse must, of course, be read in context. Moreover, we look to the RSV and NRSV for a clearer rending of the passage. Peter is urging his persecuted readers to follow the example of Christ, who was put to death in the body rather, in the flesh but made alive by rather in the Spirit, v18. Through whom in this verse should accordingly be translated in which. It is clear that two spheres of existence are being described. Christ’s death ‘in the flesh’ was the gateway to his exaltation ‘in the spirit’. Cf. the contrast in Heb 12:2: ‘who for the joy set before him endured the cross’.

It may be helpful to see this verse as parallel with 1 Pet 3:22: by his resurrection and ascension Christ was victorious over the principalities and powers of the present world order. Other texts, such as Eph 1:20-23; Col 2:15; 1 Tim 3:16 teach something similar.

When did this journey of Christ take place?

‘[It] took place after the resurrection rather than between his death and resurrection, since the description follows the resurrection in verse 18, and the relative clause “in which” (en hō) refers either to his resurrected spiritual state, or “at that time,” that is, after his death and resurrection. Since the very same form of the participle (poreutheis, “going,” or “traveling”) is used in both verse 19 and verse 22, it is most likely that this is a single journey of Christ through the heavens to the right hand of the Father (v. 22).’ (Ericson, EDBT)

Who were these spirits in prison? The next verse connects them with the days of Noah. They may have been the spirits of wicked people from those days? (cf. Gen 6:3-6,11) More probably, they are to be identified with the ‘sons of God’, Gen 6:2. These latter appear to have been fallen angels, cf. Jude 6 2 Pet 2:4. There was a long Jewish tradition (cf. 1 Enoch 10-16; 21) of these fallen angels as having been kept in a prison. The latter is the interpretation favoured by HSB.

Norman Ericson agrees that they are the evil angels of Gen 6:1-4 (or their offspring):

‘[This] is indicated by their being in prison, their disobedience in the time of Noah, their mention in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6, and the New Testament use of the plural noun (“spirits,” pneumasin) as a reference to evil spirits unless otherwise qualified. This is further supported by contemporary Jewish literature (1 Enoch 6:1–8; 12:1–16:4; 19:1; 2 Baruch 56:12), which describes these evil angels in the same way as the passage in 1 Peter.’ (EDBT)

But what did Jesus preach to these spirits? The word preached is not only used in the NT for the preaching of the gospel. It is also used for other kinds of announcement or proclamation. (cf. Lk 12:3 Rom 2:21 Rev 5:2) In 1 Enoch (known to the early church and quoted in Jude), Enoch announces to these spirits their doom. This accords with the present passage, which ends on the triumphant note of v22 with angels, authorities and powers in submission to Christ. This victory of Christ over the spirit world is attested elsewhere in the NT, e.g. 2 Cor 2:14; Eph 6:11-12; Col 2:15; Rev 12:7-11.

The entry in Hard Sayings of the Bible, whose interpretation is closely followed above, concludes its discussion of this passage as follows:-

‘The Christians in Asia Minor were facing persecution and possible martyrdom. Peter calls them to look at the example of Jesus. He was, from the human point of view, killed. Yet, in fact, he rose, not simply to renewed natural life, but to transformed life in the spiritual world, and in that world he proclaimed his victory to the fallen angels who were disobedient in Noah’s day. This may have been during his ascension, for while this text does not tell us where this prison was, some Jews located it in the “second heaven” and thus on the way between earth and the heaven where God dwells. Whatever the case, in the end of this section in 1 Peter Christ is in heaven with all spiritual beings subject to him. Peter’s point is that Christians through baptism have identified with Christ and so will be saved in the final judgment and share his triumph. They too will live with Christ in exaltation, no matter how human beings persecute or condemn them. As for their persecutors, unless they repent, what hope do they have, living as they do in the purely human sphere? Christ triumphed over his foes and proclaimed his victory. The Christians in Asia Minor (and today) will do the same if they remain faithful to this Christ.’

Gundry summarises:

‘The context favors a proclamation of triumph over demonic powers. Just as Jesus gained such vindication before them, so too at the Last Day his persecuted followers will gain vindication in the presence of their persecutors. As usual, when lacking qualification to the contrary, the term “spirits” refers to spirits of an angelic or demonic kind, not to the spirits of disembodied human beings.’

We might tentatively propose the following paraphrase, itself based on that of Grudem:

‘Long ago, Christ went, in the realm of the spirit, and preached through Noah to those who had disobeyed. To these people, now imprisoned in hell, God in his patience was giving an opportunity for repentance even while the ark was being built.‘

Grudem says that this passage, in its context, functions,

to encourage the readers to bear witness boldly in them midst of hostile unbelievers, just as Noah did;
to assure them that though they are few, God will surely save them;
to remind them of the certainty of final judgement and Christ’s ultimate triumph over all the forces of evil which oppose them.

So, the sense would be:

Don’t be afraid; don’t be ashamed of suffering in a good cause. Those who persecute you may hurt you, but they can do you no lasting harm. Christ, in suffering, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, suffered for doing good. And, though his suffering ended in his dying in the physical realm, it ended also in his being made alive in the spiritual realm. It is in the spiritual realm that he has gone and preached the gospel via his messengers to the spiritual captives. Among such spiritual captives had been those disobedient people who long ago in Noah’s day exercised God’s patience while the ark was being built. If a few people – eight in all – could be delivered in those far-off days long before the coming of Christ, how much more is your own deliverance assured now that his saving work is finished and his reign is supreme?

What a description of those outside of Christ! They are ‘spiritual captives’. What a captivity: condemned, waiting for their sentence. Yet it is not a hopeless imprisonment. The key that will liberate the captives is at hand. What a description of our Deliverer. He has taken our place; he has paid the price; he has secured the way back to God. He only can unlock the dungeon. He only can give life to dead soul. He has give life to many, and will give it to many more, as long as this day of opportunity lasts. What a description of Christian ministry. The work of evangelism is the work of Christ. The word of salvation, faithfully proclaimed, is the word of Christ himself. We are Christ’s voice on earth.

2 Peter 2:9 ‘the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from their trials, and to reserve the unrighteous for punishment at the day of judgment.’

This verse is seen by some as shedding light on the state of the ungodly after death but prior to the final judgment. Hoekema, for example, reads this verse, in context, as follows:

‘Peter has been expounding the severity of divine judgment over the angels that sinned, over the ancient world, and over Sodom and Gomorrah. According to verse 4 God cast the angels that sinned into hell (Greek, Tartarys), to be kept until the judgment. In verse 9 Peter is speaking about unrighteous men. These, he says, God knows how to keep or hold under punishment until the Day of Judgment—literally, while being punished. The Greek word used here, kolazomenous, is a present passive participle from the verb kolazō, to punish. The present tense of the participle conveys the thought that this punishment is a continuing one (note the NIV translation, quoted above). The words eis hēmeran kriseōs, until or for the Day of Judgment, tell us that what is described here is not the final punishment of the ungodly, but a punishment which precedes the judgment day. It cannot be maintained, further, that the punishment here spoken of is administered only during this present life, since the words “until the day of judgment” clearly extend the punishment until that day. This passage, therefore, confirms what we have learned from the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, and tells us that the ungodly undergo continuing punishment (the nature of which is here not further described) between their death and the Day of Judgment.’

Peterson offers the reading:

‘The Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.’ (Emphasis added by Peterson)

Peterson explains:

‘Peter says this after he has taught that God punishes certain evil angels by sending “them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment” (2:4). There is thus a penultimate judgment for certain wicked angels. Similarly, Peter could be saying in 2:9 that there is a penultimate (intermediate) judgment and existence for all wicked human beings who die. This is the opinion of some commentators, although the majority translate the participle kolazomenous as “to be punished” and interpret 2:9 as referring to the Judgment Day.’

Given the paucity of other biblical data on this topic, and the uncertainty regarding the correct translation of this verse, I do not think it is possible to draw any definite conclusions regarding any intermediate state of the ungodly.

Rev 6:9 I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been violently killed because of the word of God and because of the testimony they had given. 6:10 They cried out with a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Master, holy and true, before you judge those who live on the earth and avenge our blood?” 6:11 Each of them was given a long white robe and they were told to rest for a little longer, until the full number was reached of both their fellow servants and their brothers who were going to be killed just as they had been.

We must take into account the highly symbolic nature of the Revelation. Nevertheless, this passage does seem to suggest that Christian martyrs experience and express an urgent longing for divine judgment. Their existence is blissful, but not perfectly so. The ‘souls’ ‘cry out’, and ask, ‘How long…?’ These souls are very much awake and aware of the passage of time.

This passage, then, is consistent with, but does not prove, a conscious intermediate state.

Rev 7:13 Then one of the elders asked me, “These dressed in long white robes—who are they and where have they come from?” 7:14 So I said to him, “My lord, you know the answer.” Then he said to me, “These are the ones who have come out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb! 7:15 For this reason they are before the throne of God, and they serve him day and night in his temple, and the one seated on the throne will shelter them. 7:16 They will never go hungry or be thirsty again, and the sun will not beat down on them, nor any burning heat, 7:17 because the Lamb in the middle of the throne will shepherd them and lead them to springs of living water, and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.”

Here, departed saints are in the presence of God in heaven, and are shepherded by the Lamb. This would appear to be a penultimate stage before the restoration of all things. Once again, this passage is consistent with, but (because of the highly symbolic nature of the Revelation) does not prove, a conscious intermediate state. (See the discussion in Bird, Evangelical Theology).

Rev 14:13 Then I heard a voice from heaven say, “Write this:
‘Blessed are the dead,
those who die in the Lord from this moment on!’ ”
“Yes,” says the Spirit, “so they can rest from their hard work, because their deeds will follow them.”

We may be on slightly firmer ground here, because these words do not form part of a vision, but are heard directly from heaven.

Michael Bird concludes:

‘An affirmation of a future resurrection does not demand that there is no conscious existence in a nonbodied, postmortem state ahead of the resurrection. When Paul dies, he intends to be with Christ, which is better than his current bodily existence (Phil 1:23; cf. John 14:2–3; Acts 7:59), yet he also thinks of the immediate postmortem state as something temporary, like a car on loan from a mechanic, waiting for the original vehicle to be renewed (2 Cor 5:1–10). So it seems that upon death, the separation of body and soul is both blessing and a bummer, something enjoyable but also somewhat ephemeral. The unity of the material and immaterial parts of one’s being are the norm, but death ruptures that norm ahead of the resurrection. Despite the awkward disunity of body and soul at death, believers still enjoy God’s presence and look forward to the day when they will be raised in a psychosomatic unity of body and soul in God’s everlasting kingdom.’

10. Conclusion

I have not discovered any biblical text, or theological principle, that offers a clear answer to the question of whether the individual, between death and final resurrection, is conscious or unconscious.

I approached this subject with the assumption that the ‘conventional’ view was correct, and that the ‘alternative’ view was something of a theological outlier. Influenced by the arguments of Dr Paul Marston and others, along with my own re-examination of the relevant scriptural texts, I am now much less sure. My current view is that it may not be possible, in our present state of knowledge, to adjudicate on the matter with any confidence.

I do not, indeed, retreat into the agnosticism expressed by F.H. Hodge (not, so far as I am aware, related to the famous Hodges associated with Princeton):

‘The diversity and confusion in the doctrine of the church [on the subject of eschatology] is due, in part, to the conflict of the views represented in the New Testament itself…It is impossible, I believe, to deduce from the scriptures of the New Testament a doctrine of the life to come; which shall fit all the texts, and satisfy all the demands of the subject; which shall harmonize the Apocalyptic vision of the “new earth” and the new Jerusalem upon it, with Paul’s conception of being raised from the dead and caught up into the clouds to dwell with the Lord in the air; which shall harmonize any doctrine of final resurrection with the words of Jesus to the thief on the cross: “This day shall thou be with me in paradise.” (Source)

This is a counsel of despair, and quite unfitting for any Christian who believes that ‘all Scripture is God-breathed’. Still, it is one thing to believe that the relevant texts do harmonise, and another to be able demonstrate that harmony with confidence.

Whately examined both sides of the debate, and came to the same conclusion. Ideed, he suggested some reasons why God, in his wisdom, may not of revealed this knowledge to us. Whately argues that if the dead are conscious, knowledge of this would be of no practical use to us. Our final condition depends entirely on what transpires between us and our Saviour in this life. If we were told that the intermediate state was one of consciousness, then we might be drawn towards the errors of Purgatory, of prayers for the dead, and of invoking the prayers of the dead. If we thought that a loved one had departed this life unsaved, we might rest in the unscriptural notion that he or she, being conscious, was capable of repentance unto life. This false hope might seriously detract from the urgency of turning to Christ in this present life.

All are agreed, I think, that this is not a ‘hill to die on’.

We can together rejoice that:

Soon, soon to faithful warriors comes their rest;

Beyond that, we wait with eager anticipation for the ‘yet more glorious day’, when,

The saints triumphant rise in bright array;

Alleluia, Alleluia!

Bibliography

Atkinson, B. (1969) Life and Immortality. Online.

Bavinck, H. (2008) Reformed Dogmatics : Volume 4. Baker Academic.

Berkhof, L. Systematic Theology.

Berkouwer Studies in Dogmatics: The Return of Christ. (Esp. ch. 2)

Bird, M. (2020) Evangelical Theology, Second Edition. Zondervan Academic.

Bloesch, D. G. (2004) The Last Things: Resurrection, Judgment, Glory. IVP. (Esp. ch. 7). [Idiosyncratic}

Boettner, L. (1956) Immortality. G.L.H. Publishing. [Defends traditional conservative views.]

Calvin, J. (2011) Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by J.T. McNeill. Translated by F.L. Battles. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press (The Library of Christian Classics), p. 947.

Calvin, J. (n.d) Psychopannychia. Online.

Constable, H. (1893) Hades: or the intermediate state of man. 3rd ed. Kellaway & Co. Online.

Constable, H. (1871) The Duration and Nature of Future Punishment. Online.

Cunnington, R. (2010) A re-examination of the intermediate state of unbelievers. Evangelical Quarterly, 82.3. Online.

Drake, K. J. 2024. “The Intermediate State in Herman Bavinck: Answering Two Contemporary Neocalvinist Challenges.” Neocalviniana, June. Online.

Erickson, Millard, J. (2013) Christian Theology. 3rd ed. Baker Academic.

Froom, LeRoy E. (1965-1966) The Conditionalist Faith of our Fathers, Vol 1, Vol 2. Review & Herald.

Gousmett, C. J. (1993) Shall the body strive and not be crowned? Unitary and instrumentalist anthropological models
as keys to interpreting the structure of Patristic eschatology. PhD Thesis. (Esp. ch. 3, available here)

Grant. F.W. (1889) Facts and Theories as to a Future State. 2nd ed. (Esp. chs 11 & 12). Online.

Grudem, W. (2020) Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. 2nd Edition. Zondervan Academic.

Habermas, G. and Moreland, J. (2004) Beyond Death. Wipf and Stock.

Harris, M.J. (1971) 2 Corinthians 5:1-10 – Watershed in Paul’s Eschatology? Tyndale Bulletin 22:32-57. Online

Harris, M.J. (1986) “The New Testament View of Life after Death,” Themelios, 11(2).

Hoekema, A. A. (1979) The Bible and the future. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Esp. ch. 9.

Hong, J. (1995) “Understanding and Translating ‘Today’ in Luke 23:43,” The Bible Translator 46:4 (1995): 408-417, 416. Online.

Jackson, S.M. (ed.) (1908–1914) The new Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia of religious knowledge. New York; London: Funk & Wagnalls.

Kovald, Barry (2014) Death and the Intermediate State: Comparison of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Doctrinal Views About the Christian’s Eternal State. Online.

Ladd, G.E. (1979–1988) “Eschatology,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised. Edited by G.W. Bromiley. Wm. B. Eerdmans.

Marston, P. (2023) Hellfire and Destruction: What Does the Bible Really Say about Hell? Wipf & Stock.

Marston, P. (2024) Death and ‘Hell’: What the New Testament Does and Does Not Teach. Grove Books.

Marston, P. (2025) After Death: The Intermediate State. Online.

(I should add that Dr Marston has graciously allowed me to refer to his personal communications with me, in addition to his published works.)

Martin, W. (2021) The Puzzle of Seventh-Day Adventists. Online. (Discusses SDA doctrine of soul-sleep)

Mounce, W. (2009) Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Zondervan Academic.

M’Clintock, J. and Strong, J. (1880) “Soul-Sleep,” Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers.

Osei-Bonsu, J. (1991) The Intermediate State in the New Testament. Scottish Journal of Theology. Online.

Pache, Rene (1962) The Future Life. Moody Press. [Esp chs 3-5. Conventional view]

Paroschi, Wilson (2013) The Significance of a Comma: An Analysis of Luke 23:43. Online.

Prestidge, Warren (2010) Life, Death and Destiny. Online.

Reubelt, J. A. (1870) ‘Eschatological Studies’. Bibliotheca Sacra 27 No. 108, 647-673. Online.

Reymond, R. (2010) A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. Thomas Nelson. [Conventional view]

Stafford Wright, J. (1968) What Is Man? 2nd ed. Paternoster. [Esp ch. 16, ‘Man and his future’.]

Thiselton, A. (2011) Life after Death. Eerdmans.

Thiselton, A.C. (2015) “Intermediate State,” The Thiselton Companion to Christian Theology. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Torrance, T. (2018) Space, Time and Resurrection. 2nd edn. T & T Clark.

Waters, Larry J. (2012) “The Believer’s Intermediate State after Death,” Bibliotheca Sacra 169:675. Online.

Whately, R. (1830) A View of the Scripture Revelations concerning a Future State. Online. [States a case for both views, without coming to definite conclusion]

White, E. (1878) Life in Christ: A Study of the Scriptural Doctrine On the Nature of Man, the Object of the Divine Incarnation, and the Conditions of Human Immortality. 3rd ed. Elliot Stock. Esp ch. 21. Online. [Affirms conditional immortality, but also intermediate state.]

Williamson, P. R. (2017) Death and the afterlife. IVP. (Esp. ch. 2)

Wright, T. (2011) Surprised by Hope. SPCK Publishing.

Wright, Tony (2008). Death, the Dead and the Underworld in Biblical Theology — Part 1. The Churchman, Vol 122/1, 9-36. Online.

Wright, Tony (2008). Death, the Dead and the Underworld in Biblical Theology — Part 2. The Churchman, Vol 122/2, 107-124. Online.

Yates, J. (1987) Immediate or Intermediate? The State of the Believer Upon Death. Churchman. Online

Yeulett, Paul, “With Me in Paradise” – Questions About the So-Called “Intermediate State”: Is it Biblical and it is Pastorally Helpful?. Foundations, Issue 81, Autumn 2021. Online.

For links to online books on this subject, see here.

Here’s another useful list of resources, focusing on the ‘sleep of the dead’.