You may not know it, but there is a very controversial issue in Old Testament theology concerning the afterlife. It seems that the Old Testament saints did not have the privilege of reading all these books about people who have died, seen heaven, and come back to tell us all about that which awaits us! In fact, as odd as it may seem, the hope that you and I have of being in a conscious state of existence with Christ at the moment of death is strangely absent among Old Testament believers. Those in the Old Testament often speak of death as the absence of God, hopelessness, and dead silence.
This makes little sense to most of us. We, like Paul, attempt to view death as gain (Phil. 1:21). We believe that the moment we exit the body is the moment we are present with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:8). Let me correct myself. The word “present” does not do this passage justice. “We are of good courage,” Paul says, “and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.” The word used here for “home” is endemeno. It is used only here in the New Testament. In fact, Paul uses it three times. It means “to be in a familiar place” (BDAG) or “to be in a place of comfort.” “Home” is a good translation. We believe that when we die, we exit the familiarity of our current existence to a greater comfort with the Lord. We believe that the day we die is the day we are in Paradise (Luke 23:43), when we are home. As well, although we need to be careful that we don’t make parables walk on all four theological legs, I think a good case can be made that we have an angelic escort to heaven the moment we take our last breath (Luke 16:22). All of this to say that believers in Christ have very strong biblical support for the hope that death immediately presents us with a mysterious yet wonderful new life with Christ.
However, this does not seem to be the case with Old Testament believers. They present themselves as those who fear death a great deal, more than most of us are comfortable with. In fact, in some cases, it looks like they don’t believe in heaven at all. Notice here:
Psalm 6:5
For in death there is no remembrance of you; in Sheol who will give you praise?
David, fearing the presence and antagonism of his enemies, is calling on God for deliverance. What is his main argument? Well, it goes like this: “If my enemies take my life, I will not be able to praise you.” What gives here, David? In Sheol (death, the grave), he won’t be able to praise God? Are you kidding? When we die, we will be in his very presence. And the first thing I will do is fall down and worship Christ.
And this verse is not the only troublesome verse in Old Testament personal eschatology (theology of the what happens after death). Listen to these passages:
Psalm 30:9
What profit is there in my death, if I go down to the pit? Will the dust praise you? Will it tell of your faithfulness?
Psalm 88:10
Do you work wonders for the dead? Do the departed rise up to praise you? Selah
Psalm 115:17
The dead do not praise the LORD, nor do any who go down into silence.
Isa, 38:18
For Sheol does not thank you; death does not praise you; those who go down to the pit do not hope for your faithfulness.
Ecc. 9:5
For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten.
Ecc. 9:10
Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.
These passages are indeed difficult to harmonize with a New Testament theology. All of them suggest that, at least according to Old Testament believers, death is it. There is no afterlife or intermediate state of existence and, possibly, no resurrection.
So how do we deal with this? I see a few options:
1. There is no intermediate state
This is often referred to as “soul sleep” or “Christian mortalism.” There is another fancy term for this, hypnopsychism. This view simply argues that the soul ceases to exist during the time between death and judgement. There is no conscious intermediate state of existence. This has been around for a while. In fact, John Calvin wrote a tract condemning this view called Psychopannychia. The subtitle reads: “Or a refutation of the error entertained by some unskillful persons, who ignorantly imagine that in the interval between death and the judgment the soul sleeps.” As odd as it may seem, there are some well-known theologians who have argued for this view. Among them are John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, John Milton, and A.T. Robertson. Of course this is the doctrine that is dogmatized by Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christadelphians, and Seventh Day Adventists. And it will probably surprise many of you to know that N.T. Wright is an advocate of Soul Sleep. But the most significant believer in this view is Martin Luther (although many argue he changed his position later in life).
My opinion is that while this view sufficiently deals with these Old Testament passages, it is nearly impossible to systematize with the New Testament passages mentioned above. I don’t think this is a legitimate Christian option and I would be comfortable labeling it as heterodoxy (note: that does not mean that those who hold to this are not saved; it just means that their view of personal eschatology is coloring outside the lines of the historic Christian faith and fails to present a legitimate biblical theology).
2. Old Testament believes did believe in a conscious intermediate state
The argument here is that these passages in the Old Testament must be contextualized. The writers were not trying to present a theology of personal eschatology, but simply saying that our life here on earth presents us with a particular work that ends at death. While here on earth, we can praise God in a different way through the trials, tribulations, and glories of this world. For example, when we die, we can no longer evangelize. When we die, we can no longer partake in the sufferings of Christ. When we die, we cannot grow in our sanctification. When we die, we cannot continue to acquire rewards. It is in this sense only that our spirit becomes silent. Support for this can be found in John 9:4 when Christ says, “We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work.” The “night” is not an uncouncious state of existence, but a ceasing from the work that glorifies God in a unique way.
This view is the most popular in Christian history and held by most evangelicals and Catholics.
3. Old Testament believers did not believe in a conscious intermediate state, but this does not mean that there is not one
Here, it is granted that the Old Testament believers did not believe in an intermediate state of existence, but the New Testament provides further revelation which reveals a greater hope. The Old Testament passages above seem to present an authorial understanding which lacks any view of hope in the afterlife, while it seems very possible that they did have a hazy view of the resurrection. In short, their view of what happens after death is dark, sad, and wrong. But we should not expect Old Testament believers to have a fulfilled theology. Revelation is given progressively. What this means is that there are a lot of things that Old Testament believers did not know. When they spoke on issues such as this, we should not expect them to always express a perfected hope.
Of course, the problem with this may be obvious. It seems to deny inerrancy as there is a suggestion that these Old Testament texts teach wrong theology. However, I don’t necessarily think we have to go there. Many times Old Testament saints write to illustrate their feelings, but this does not necessarily mean that what they write is teaching doctrine. For example, in Psalm 22:1 David says “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” We know that God does not forsake any of his children and he had not forsaken David (Heb. 13:5). David was wrong in his theology, but accurately expressed his feelings. We give David some theological slack here, understanding that such cries are not meant to contribute to doctrine, but to accurately represent the troubles that people go through. With the passages that do seem to suggest soul sleep, they, like Psalm 22:1, are not meant to contribute to doctrine. Yes, it is very possible that Old Testament saints (at least the ones who wrote the above passages), did not believe there was any consciousness after death, but this does not mean that there is not consciousness after death. Progressive revelation explains this problem.
My view
I reject any notion of soul sleep. Again, I don’t think anyone is going to hell for believing it, I just don’t think it is a legitimate option. I do believe both #2 and #3 are worthy of support. However, I am more inclined to #3 right now. I do understand the problems people may see with inerrancy (a doctrine to which I hold), but I think these problems can be overcome by looking at it as presented above. I think #3 holds to the integrity of authorial intent hermeneutics (interpreting the Bible through the eyes of the author) better than the other two options. Either way, I believe very strongly that when believers die, they are immediately escorted to the presence of Christ and await resurrection with great anticipation.
What about you? Which option do you think is best?
145 replies to "Where Did Old Testament Saints Think They Went When They Died?"
I’ve been pondering the variations between the following passages in which Paul contemplates states and events subsequent to his own “departure” from this life 2 Cor 5:1,2; Phil 1:23; 1 Tim 4:6-8; and that of his fellow believers. 1 Thess 4:13,18; 1 Cor 15:51-54.
in my own mind an intermediate conscious state raises more questions than the expectation of an unconscious “sleep” period between dying individually and awakening collectively to be “with the Lord”.
Such questions include:
1. At what stage is the gift of immortality received? Is it at the beginning or the end of the intermediate period?
2. If we can exist in perfection without a body for the intermediate period, why do we need to be given (or re-united with) a body at the end of it?
In my post above, 1Tim 4:6-8 should read 2 Tim 4:6-8.
Michael P, I agree in principle with your general observations under option3 in your opening post, but have difficulty in sharing your particular view and that of orthodox Christians in general.
I would be interested to look at any scriptural descriptions of a conscious intermediate state, as distinct from a final state. Which passages would you suggest?
@jin: I can appreciate your zeal for your belief, but again, it does appear that you are but seeking to prove your supposition of soul-sleep. And again in hermeneutics this is more “eisegesis”, than exegesis. I hope you might see this? Perhaps you are in a Church tradition that teaches this position? But again, we must be able to step away from our own history, church and theology, if but to renew them in further study. This is always a challenge!
Btw, let me recommend a now classic book on this subject overall, called: The Hermeneutical Spiral, A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, by Grant Osborne, (IVP, 1991).
And to answer your last question, see Romans 14: 7-9 / Rev. 1:17-18. When Christ comes HE alone will destroy “Death” the last enemy… “Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.” (Rev. 20:14) But again, for the Christian there is really no death, as ‘In Christ’! (John 11: 25-26)
I would suggest that the reason we can exist without a body in the “intermediate” state, yet need one in our final state, is that we were not created to exist permanently as disembodied spirits… we are spirit, soul, and body (1 Thess 5:23) created to live in a physical world – the New Earth described by John. That IS heaven for us.
First of course Luke 43: 42-43 / 2 Cor. 5: 5-8 to give a few.
Fr. Robert,
I must respectfully ask you to heed your own advice. It seems to me that you have no interest in actually understanding the verses that you quoted. Any verse that talks about heaven, Father’s house, and earthly bodies does not automatically mean that there is an immediate ascension after death. Just because YOU believe in that doctrine does not mean that every after death description means immediate ascension.
You give me these verses that are ambiguous at best. There is not a single verse that describes immediate ascension after death. In the meanwhile, you conveniently neglect to explain my verses. Please explain these….
Psalms 115:17, JOb 14:12-15, Daniel 12:1-2, John 11:11-13
@jin: You asked “Michael” for a few verses, and I simply thru out a few!
There is really no further point to this however, you believe in soul-sleep (without a bit of biblical context or exegesis), and I do not! I would suggest you do a Greek word study on death, there are several Greek words involved in the NT, but surely “Thanatos” (noun), and “Thanatoo” (verb), are very important! Note however, “Anairesis” is used of the murder of Stephen, in Acts 8:1.
The Intermediate State is simply a NT biblical presupposition, and most certainly homogeneous with the doctrine of the Millennium and the Eschatological outlook and reality! And we should note too, that Christian sects such as Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventism, and Jehovah’s Witnesses teach soul-sleep. And btw, let me recommend Charles Hill fine book: Regnum Calelorum, Patterns of Millennial Thought In Early Christianity. He gathers both chiliastic (millennial) and non-chiliastic people.
Note “jin” I have a bit of a time constraint, since much of my time is done, up and down (on the blog), as a hospital chaplain. The blogs are indeed so imperfect in such biblical debates. And I am not a real full-blown blogger myself! Though I do have a wee blog (I am 63 btw).
*I have many of my personal books listed on my computer. I am a “full-time” reader, and old “theolog”! 😉
And Christ did NOT ascend right after death did He! See, 1 Peter 3:18 thru 20, etc. Though certainly death had no hold on Him! (Acts 2: 24 ; 27, etc.)
Fr. Robert,
I have to be brutally honest with you.
I don’t understand why you simply do not believe in the Word of God. I think it’s crystal clear that when Jesus says “sleep” it means sleep. There is just no way of going around that.
And, you frankly admitted that the Intermediate State is a presupposition. Are we to base our faith on presuppositions, assumptions, and hearsay?? There is only one truth. There is only one faith. It is from the Bible and not from the various other books you have been suggesting. While other people’s understanding of the truth may be valid and may give us more insight, it is not the source. When the source says “sleep”, it is sleep.
Please, do not give me your bio. No matter how much of a “learned scholar” one may be, if you have prideful blinders on, it results in nothing. The Bible was meant for everybody – the unlearned and the learned. Most often God uses the most poor and most uneducated to deliver His spiritual messages.
I urge you to re-study and ask the Holy Spirit for insight. Always remember that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior and that we must work out the vexing verses to harmonize with His teachings and not anything else.
Jin, you misread Fr. R. When he referred to presuppositions, he was not referring to his but to those of the disciples and other first century Christians. It was their presupposition that there was an intermediate state.
Further, your argument can be turned on you: you are the one with prideful blinders and so your posts result in nothing. You are the one that is urged to re-study and ask the Holy Spirit for insight. –what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
@jin: And I too will be “brutally” honest with you! It appears that YOU are bound by a kind of “cult” mentality, since you are PRESSING this position of soul-sleep! As Michael has said, it may not mean heresy, but then again, it just may.. if it is pressed and connected to other poor and perhaps wrong doctrine! And I suspect this with you? Note, “suspect” (not sure?), but I have been around awhile! 😉 And I do see a strain of “fundamentalist” doctrine and supposition with you certainly! Btw, I used the word “presupposition” in its most historical, biblical and certainly theological way!
And yes, we all have “prideful blinders” at times, were children of Adam still, even as Christians! I have noted yours in your use of so-called spiritual simplicity! (Over and above my “Biblicism”). Yes, I am really a Biblicist, though always a “theological”- minded one! (2 Tim. 2:15 / 3:16) Btw, you too might want to “re-study and ask the Holy Spirit for insight”. In reality, this is something we all must do and really daily! So climb down and join the rest of us poor sinner-saints, as Luther so stated of Christians!
Hey Amen there @John I! 🙂
Btw, just a point, but I have heard some of the same verses used by our soul-sleep friends, used by those that believe in Annihilation of the soul-spirit of the lost! Death is certainly the consequence of sin, but the biblical Second Death surely does seem eternal! (Matt. 25: 46) I say this, for the one (soul-sleep) does seem to lead to the other, of annihilation.. at least in many of the so-called Christian cults! So heterodoxy is always among the orthodox, and has been in the life of the Church and Christianity.
Fr. Robert,
All this ancillary arguments really do not hold water.
Again, back to the scriptures please….
Remember, Jesus showed us that the only way to deliver the truth is through scripture when He fought off the devil’s temptations while in the desert.
Despite all your accusations and assertions and presuppositions (whether from you or the early church), you still can’t and for some reason won’t explain those verses to me.
Back to the scriptures – The Inspired Word of God – please.
@jin: Well for your information, I am a Anglican Christian, but most certainly a Protestant-Reformed- Evangelical, in doctrine and theology. I would challenge you to read the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles, and perhaps even the Irish Articles 1615 (noting the latter is pretty much the work of the great Anglican Archbishop, James Ussher).
Note, I really don’t care what YOU personally believe, and I am not really seeking to win any argument either. But I am, as I have stated in the position of # 2, as to this post and position. Here I believe myself that soul-sleep is in error! But as I have noted, one of my rather favorite Anglican “theolog’s”, E.W. Bullinger came close to this position, though with certain variations. But, Bullinger always has some ideas that are simply not orthodox. Though on the “absolutes” of the faith, I believe he is sound. But yes, this is nother issue.
Perhaps the reason I don’t want to take the time to fully engage, is that you appear ill bent on this subject, and no matter what anyone says, you will continue your soul-sleep position! And you have not engaged fully and honestly with the texts I have mentioned. So, I am not going to pound the keys for nothing! And again, the history of the Church is certainly with # 2! We can see this plainly with the theological history of 1 Peter 3: 18-22! Catholic, Reformational-Lutheran & Reformed! The classic Descent of Christ into death & hades is as the Victor! And most certainly Luke 23: 41-43 is central here also, the economy and salvation history of God! Here is Covenant/covenants also. We simply must do “theology” here! (Something you appear afraid of it certainly seems!)
Do you believe in the Nicene “homoousios” and Creed? Yes, note I am Churchmen! Do you know what that means? So the so-called “ancillary arguments” really do matter, and often lead back to the centre of The Faith!
Regarding soul sleep and the Fr. Robert / Jin debate, although Jesus might seem to equate death with soul-sleep in the case of Lazarus, He equally distinguishes between the two in regards to the daughter of Jairus: “The child is not dead, but asleep.” (Mk 5:41). So either death = sleep (Lazarus) or death does not = sleep (Jairus’ daughter). I don’t think Jesus’ references to “sleep” can be used definitively either way.
Don Donaldson,
Thank you! Finally, a scripture based answer and debate. Don’t need all this church history, Anglican this, Anglican that, reformed, un-reformed….ugh.
Good point.
But, did not Jesus also refer to Lazarus as being asleep instead of being dead. It was the disciples who understood that Jesus was talking about the “dead state” of Lazarus.
11These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep…..
13Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. John 11
Debate? Not from me! One cannot debate ignorance and fundamentalism, and the super spiritual! (Or so they think).
But again as the context in John, Lazarus had died, and “sleep” in NT scripture means the body had died, as in 1 Thess. 4: 13-15-16…”and the dead in Christ shall rise first.” Again, this is speaking of the “body” of the redeemed!
So are you saying that the resurrection is just the “body” while the soul awaits it somewhere?
But then how do you explain Paul’s assertion that we will have a spiritual body upon resurrection?
42So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 43It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 1 Corinthians 15
Going strictly by the Bible: Yes, Jesus first said that Lazarus was asleep, but then declared emphatically, “Lazarus is dead.” (v14). In the case of Jairus’ daughter, Jesus clearly distinguished between the two in a single statement: “The child is not dead, but asleep.” So you can 1) make an assumption that sleep is a euphemism for death, or 2) you can conclude that death is really some sort of literal sleep, or 3) death and sleep are two different things entirely. Each of these views is supported by something Jesus said, but none is fully supported based strictly on His words alone. That’s why we have to interpret.
I interpret that both Lazarus and the girl were literally dead, and that Jesus used “sleep” as a eupmemism for death, because He was about to “wake” them (call them back to life).
The Resurrection is of the body, soul & spirit! And in 1 Cor. 15, Paul sees the essence of the resurrected body as surely spiritual, but this does not diminish the natural body, but it is not the old body merely resuscitated. We can but imagine the grandiose glory of the Resurrected “spirit-soul-body” ‘In Christ’! (Note, 1 Thess. 5: 23) When a person and believer dies his spirit returns to God, who gave it, (Ecc. 12: 7), but also for the believer: “WE are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and present with the Lord.” (2 Cor. 5: 8)…And the Bema-Seat of Christ surely follows the “death” of the believers body, (verse 10). Note too, Hebrews 9: 27.
“I interpret that both Lazarus and the girl were literally dead, and that Jesus used “sleep” as a eupmemism for death, because He was about to “wake” them (call them back to life).” Amen there Don!
okay…I can see how we can surmise that Jesus might have used “sleep” as a euphemism for death from those verses.
However….if you take into account all other verses by Paul
51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 1 Corinthians 15
by Job
12So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep. Job 14
by Daniel
2And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Daniel 12
and many more…
If we take all of them using the word for “sleep” into account then it leads to two conclusions. 1) They all knew to use the word “sleep” as a euphemism despite living in different times. or 2) they all knew that it was death.
I think 1) is too much a coincidence.
Therefore, I think it is more likely to be 2).
I’m more inclined to believe that all used sleep as a eupmemism, partly because it seems so apt: a dead person does appear to be sleeping, and if one has knowledge of the resurrection, it might naturally described as “waking up.” These descriptions apply- I think – to the physical body, since it is the body that dies, and appears to sleep, and will one day be resurrected.
Mike, I could not help but notice that your OT references are usually attributed to David, Saul, or one of their contemporaries. I find this fascinating as from Paul and Jesus, an afterlife was definitely part of Jewish thought. One could argue of course that this was due to Babylonian syncretism, but we find David remarking upon the death of his and Bathsheba’s first child, “I will go to him, but he will not return to me.” I would like to submit the following suggestion: Death as cited in your examples not only referred to physical death as we understand it, but the separation of the individual from the covenant. One who died outside the covenant would have no opportunity for the afterlife, they would exemplify the state described. This would be reconcilable with the notion of progressive revelation showing that God desired all the nations come to Him, not just Israel. This combined with Jesus’ refutation of the Sadducees and their contention with the Pharisees on the subject of resurrection and the afterlife, would seem to indicate there was a stronger awareness of the afterlife in the OT than these verses suggest.
Sorry, I meant to type ‘Solomon’ not Saul.
Here is a nice link on Soul-Sleep I believe!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/864087/posts
And Amen there Don! It simply obvious to orthodoxy overall! And again, we cannot escape the simple essence and context of Luke 23: 42-43…””Truly I say to you TODAY with ME you will be in Paradise”!
And again, 1 Peter 3: 18-19, etc.
I have found no better and yet simple historical and theological statement about Paradise (Paradeisos, Gk.), than old W. E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary! A word of Persian origin, and used in the Septuagint of the Garden of Eden, Gen. 2: 8. See Luke 23: 43 in the NET Bible also. And in Rev. 2: 7 for the Edenic paradise, as in Isa. 51: 3 and Ezek. 36: 35. Surely this is a word & moniker for Heaven!
Luke 23:42-42…can be explained in two ways.
1)17Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’ ” John 20
This was 3rd after he had promised the thief on the cross. Jesus would not lie. And…don’t tell me that “today” meant the next thought only for the thief.
2) The Greek language did not have punctuation and the translators simply misplaced the comma. Luke 23:43 should have the comma after the word “today”. So it should have been written, “Assuredly, I say to you today, you will be in heaven today”.
There are similar mistakes in the Bible.
12So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them. Acts 19
This verse reads as if the handkerchiefs or aprons are the ones sick and diseased. But with the comma in the right place….
There are many such punctuation mistakes that often confuse people.
OOpss, sorry.
Luke 23:43 should say
Assuredly, I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise.
Here’s another verse that needs to be addressed by those who believe in immediate ascension.
29Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day…..
34For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Acts 2
I am pretty sure that we all agree that King David would be saved and would be in Heaven. Then why does Peter specifically say that King David has not ascended into Heaven. Peter is speaking approximately 2-3 thousand years after King David’s death.
Jin, I would explain Jesus’ words to the thief vs. his statement to Mary this way: Paradise refers to that place of rest for the righteous (Abraham’s bosom) and discomfort for the unrighteous – also known as hades. It was to this place that Jesus descended, and this is where the thief went also – on that very day. After rising from the dead, Jesus ascended to the Father, and because He was given the keys of death and hades, He took with Him all the righteous who had been resting in Paradise. They are now in His presence, as we will also be at death. A fundamental change took place at the ascention of Jesus insofar as there is no longer an intermediate “Paradise” for the righteous, but immediate access to the presence of the Lord.
@jin: Indeed the literal Greek does not follow out of any punctucation! But if we were to place the so-called comma for translation, it would be better at: ‘Truly I say to you,’ Again, note the NET Bible notes here…”Truly (amen), I say to you,”
“Jesus gives more than the criminal asked for, because the blessing will come “today”, not in the future. He will be among the righteous.” (Note “today”, in Lk. 2:11)
@Don: I think as Michael, with his position of # 3, we cannot overly press “Paradise” as soley Abraham’s Bosom, but again the promise of the Edenic (Garden), and “the Paradise of God”, (Rev. 2: 7). Surely again, this is the presence of God, and thus “heaven”! This verse in Revelation is a hammer blow to my mind! (Noting too, Isa. 51: 3) 🙂
I quoted Acts 2 in this discussion! Funny, people don’t fully read the comments often I guess.
And we who believe in the biblical Intermediate State, don’t believe Christ ascended to the Throne, before His Resurrection, but He was the God-Man before, after, and (during His own Holy Death)…John 3: 13! And forever now at the Right Hand & Throne of God, in Resurrection & Ascension!
Also David was simply not the Mediator, so the ascension was not his place. There is nothing else here! Christ alone is the Resurrection, the Ascension.. and thus both Lord & Christ, i.e. the Mediator! (Acts 2: 30-36)
Fr. Robert,
You see one but not the other.
Yes, David is not the mediator. Peter is explaining that BECAUSE King David is not the mediator, he has not ascended yet….or BECAUSE he did not ascend yet, King David is not the mediator. in other words, all other ordinary humans are still in their graves awaiting the resurrection.
@jin: Wow! What an argument from silence, and or supposition! And King David will never ascend! But David’s “spirit” (in/from death) is even now with God, (Ecc. 12: 7). But David is even now spiritually conscious, as were and are both Moses and Elijah! “the spirits of just men made perfect.” (Heb. 12: 23)
Wow…
What part of “For David is not ascended into the heavens” do you NOT understand??
I’m just speechless…
In Acts 2: 25, we can see that in this whole section, he (David) is talking about Christ! I will quote from the NIV for clarity or ease: David from Pslam 16 in Acts… “I saw the Lord always before me. Because he is at my right hand. I will not be shaken. Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will live in hope, because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay…Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patiarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would see one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay.” (Acts 2: 25-31, etc.)
So what is your point? I think we ALL know that David was talking about Christ.
Peter was explaining that even though David himself did not ascend to heaven, he (David) knew that one of his descendants (Christ) would be sitting on the right hand of God.
In explaining this, Peter makes it very clear that King David did not ascend yet!
“Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, “ ‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” ’ (Acts 2:29, 30, 34, 35 NIV)
Where in this whole section and Text, do you get the idea that David “himself” is going to “ascend” at all? (His soul & spirit went to God at death! Ecc.12:7) His “body” awaits the Resurrection. Certainly verses 34-35 of Acts 2 don’t say anything about David’s so-called ascension! It is only one and of his “descendants”, that will ascend, and be enthroned in the Glory!
So now it’s the “body” that has not ascended. Lets think this through then…
Why would Peter need to tell us that David’s body didn’t ascend to let us know that David believed God’s oath to him? What does David’s physical body have to do with Christ sitting on the right hand of God? Why would Peter need to emphasize that David’s body did not ascend to tell us that David believed in Christ?
Also, if its just the physical body that resurrects, then the only difference between Jesus’ glorious resurrection and ours is just the physical body?!?
Seems to me that this immediate ascension doctrine belittles the glorious resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.
@jin: This ad hoc that you have with a called “immediate ascension” is simply YOUR myth! You are in grave need of so proper biblical and even church doctrine & theology! (Acts 2:42)
Fr. Robert,
Whatever you guys call the state of the dead is just a church doctrine and theology. And, it is NOT Biblical. It does not matter what the proper name of the so-called intermediate place you think the “soul” goes to. It is just a human made church doctrine.
Wouldn’t it have been easier if Peter would have just plainly said that King David had not ascended to heaven yet because he was at some intermediate place for the physically dead “souls”? But, Peter did not. In fact, Peter plainly stated that David was still buried and sill in his grave.
In addition, why do you make such a big deal about our physical bodies? Isn’t the Bible pretty clear throughout that our physical and earthly possessions are worthless and meaningless? In your doctrine (whatever that may be) you suggest that Christ has to return to earth JUST to resurrect our physical bodies so that we can be reunited with our “souls”. And then…get new heavenly bodies?!?Is this correct? Then, what a waste of time and such ceremony for our worthless, depraved, diseased, and corruptible bodies! Your doctrine does not make sense at all. It is NOT Biblical.
Please…do NOT read into verses and assume things because of your doctrines. Take the scriptures as it is plainly given to you.
jin: Yes us or “you guys” is most certainly the historical church: Catholic, Reformational/Lutheran, Reformed.. all see and believe that the Holy Scripture teaches the Intermediate State, for both believers, Luke 23:43, and unbelievers…as Jesus said in Luke 16: 19-31. As too Peter, (1 Pet. 3: 18-19, etc.)
Sadly, you are not presenting either Holy Scripture, or the belief of the historical Church, (1 Tim. 3:15)!
Btw, the physical body of the redeemed is very important! We can see this in Jude 9, with the archangel Michael contending with the devil about the body of Moses.
Jin, the reason Peter emphasized David’s physical body was to prove that David was not referring to himself in this passage. Since David’s body DID see decay in the grave, David must have been speaking of someone else whose body would NOT see decay. Peter goes on to declare that this person is Jesus, the Christ, who did not see decay bacause He was raised from the grave.
Also, I think our physical bodies are quite important. Paul says that our resurrected bodies will be like His (Jesus’) glorious body, emphasizing that the glory of Jesus is seen (visibly) in His body, just as His glory was seen on the mountaintop by a change in His physical appearance. Our spirits aren’t “glorified” per say, because they have already been born again.
While I appreciate your explanation, I have to disagree. Please note that in verse 34, it says that “David did not ascend into the heavens…”. I think we can clearly see and even safely say that Peter meant both the physical body and spirit when he says just “David”.
I must point out that the “heavens” is NOT a physical place. Heaven is a spiritual place. We do not need our physical bodies in heaven. Paul specifically stated that we would be receiving “spiritual bodies” in 1 Corinthians 15:44.
So when Peter is talking David not being ascended into heaven yet, it is pretty clear that he is talking not only about David’s physical body, but also the spirit.
It is amazing to me how your doctrine can ignore the scores of verses that point out that the state of the dead is sleep.
1 Corinthians 11:30, 15:6, 18, 51
1 Thessalonians 4:13-16
Acts 7:60
I think this verse from Psalms says it all
3Consider and hear me, O Lord my God;
Enlighten my eyes,
Lest I sleep the sleep of death; Psalms 13
Last point: But I am sure this will stir up more controversy.
I submit to you that the reason why the OT saints do not write about the a separate intermediate place of the dead is because they did not believe in such a place. They knew it was a state of sleep and therefore, did not bother to mention it, expound upon it, or explain it. Please note that all of their contemporaries such as the Egyptians and the Babylonians all believed in a separate state of the dead. Notice how the Egyptians and others wrote scores and scores of texts explaining the state of the dead and in the meanwhile, the Israelites are silent. This should be a clear loud voice of evidence that the OT saints did not believe in a separate state of the dead.
By the way if you really look into the history of the early church, their view of the “dead” and other Biblical doctrines started to change as Paganism crept into the church through the newly converted Romans.
I am always amazed how many so-called Christians (fudamentalists really), that reject historical theology! (This was a weakness even in the great Anglican, E.W. Bullinger!) But true Christianity can never reject history, both the canonical, and the history or the historical of the Church, itself! Even Luke-Acts was written with both in mind. So much more is involved here than any idea of soul-sleep, but how we believe and trust in the authority of the Word of God, and the church’s place therein! Sadly the latter is rarely understood, for the Church itself is as Paul wrote, “which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.” (1 Tim. 3: 15)
For example, Eusebius’s: The History of the Church, is the only surviving historical account and record of the Church during its first crucial 300 years. It is surely not of course infallible, but non-the-less still important in the life of the historical church. Eusebius (a Greek Christian) was Bishop in Caesarea in Palestine, (A.D. 260-339). He is often called the ‘Father of Ecclesiastical History’.