Today You will be with Me in Paradise.

You are very welcome , Ben. I am glad it was of help to you. --

 

Peculiar Person,

Since I have some free time today, I thought I would take the time to respond to some of the Scriptures you have cited in support of your own position:

1. Job 17:13 -- I fail to see how this verse proves anything supportive of your point. Compared to walking around in the light of day, the grave is a dark place. Job says that if this is all he has to hope for that he really has no hope (vs14-15a, "Where then is my hope?"). Who would disagree? But then Job goes on to say, "As for my hope, who can see it? Will they go down to the gates of Sheol? Shall we have rest together in the dust?" (vs.15b-16). In other words, Job does have a hope that goes beyond simply being in a dark grave, but the only way for him to prove it to his detractors would be for them to go to Sheol with him. But he gives no indication of what this hope entails or of how it will be brought about. How does this passage really speak clearly for either side of our present debate? It simply isn't trying to address the issue we are discussing.

2. Psalm 6:5 -- You have asserted that this verse teaches that the grave is "a place where all mental activity ceases: 'For in death there is NO REMEMBRANCE of thee[God]; in the grave[sheol] who shall give thee thanks?'(ps. 6:5)".
First, David seems to be thinking of the contrast between this earthy existence in which we are able to give thanks before our enemies for God's deliverance and that of the corpse in the "grave" being unable to do this. His stress on the "grave" ( sheol ) makes this the most likely interpretation. Second, most Christians have held to the concept of progressive revelation, i.e. that there is a progressive developmanet of many doctrines in Scripture as further revelation is given by God. This has been recognized most clearly conerning doctrines such as the Trinity or the fulfilment of the O.T. types in Christ. However, a similar developmant has been argued by those of us who hold to the intermediate state. Thus we are not surprised if David did not have a complete understanding of such a concept. And if the N.T. clearly seems to indicate the existence of an intermediate state, then this should guide us in the way that we understand David's statements, especially since Ps. 6:5 can easily be read as I have suggested. There is simply no real exegetical or contextual evidence in Ps. 6 to indicate that David had any great understanding of what happens to us immediately upon death, let alone that he was intending to teach upon the subject. It is my contention that clearer passages in the N.T. which are intending to speak to the issue should guide us in undertsanding O.T. passages which do not seem to be trying to clearly teach on the subject, but are simply making allusions to the corpse in the grave in order to address a substantially different issue.

3. Psalm 115:16 -- "The dead do not praise the LORD, nor any who go down to silence." Again, I think the Psalmist is not intending to give a clear teaching of the afterlife, but is merely comparing our ability to praise God on "the earth" that "He has given to the children of men" (vs.16) with our ability to do this when in the grave. Who is it that can praise God on the "earth" when he has gone to the grave? None. Compared to our opportunity to praise God on the "earth", the grave is most assuredly a place of "silence". However, the Psalmist makes it clear that this is in reality only the way things appear to be from our earthly perspective, for he goes on to add, "but we will bless the LORD from this time forth and forevermore. Praise the LORD!" (vs.18). If anything, verse 18 seems to go better with a doctrine of an intermediate state in that it sees for the believer an opportunity of unbroken praise to the Lord that goes on forever, but it is probably still best not to take the text as trying to teach specifically about the issue we are discussing. I would only assert that it is in no way in conflict with the position to which I hold or to my understanding of any of the pertinent N.T. passages.

4. Psalm 146:2 -- You have written, " 'While I live I praise the Lord: I will sing praises unto God WHILE I HAVE ANY BEING [Sept., "as long as I exist" - Ps. 146:2] If 'while I live' equals 'as long as I exist,' then conversely, when David ceased to live, he also ceased to exist. David recognized that he had to do all of his praising God BEFORE he died, because there was no praise or remembrance of God in sheol." I must admit to being truly surprised at this interpretation.
First, do we really know that David wrote this psalm? Second, I have never heard anyone seriously try to make the case that death means we will cease to exist as beings. And you don't really seem to think so either because you go on to speak of there being no praise "in sheol", and if you think that the dead are "in sheol", then you must also think that they exist there (regardless of what state this existence may entail, which is of course the issue under debate). Besides, this would create some real difficulties logically for your position , not only because your current discussion of the verse seems inconsistent, but because it would then seem to entail that when we are resurrected it is really not the same persons who are so resurrected (for they have ceased to exist) but some entirly new persons. Is this really consistent with the Bible's teaching on the future resurrection?Third, there is no reason at all in the context not to read this verse as I have suggested with regard to the other such verses under discussion, namely that the Psalmist is speaking from the perspective of this life on earth and our abilty to praise God here in this life or not. There is also no reason why we should have to see the phrase "while I have my being" as synonymous with "while I live". It may, in fact, be a poetic heightening of the language. At any rate, it can easily be taken as I have suggested.

5. Psalm 146:4 -- You have written, " 'His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; IN THAT VERY DAY HIS THOUGHTS PERISH (ps. 146:4). [Please note that 'perish is from the Hebrew word 'abad,' which signifies 'to be lost.' At death a man loses consciousness.]". This is a questionable text upon which to base your argument, for it may just as easily be translated, "His spirit [ ruach ] departs [which is consistent with my own position], in that very day his plans [ eshtonah ]perish"(NKJV). But even if one grants the correctness of the translation you have cited, it can be understood as a reference to a man's thoughts while he lives on this earth perishing. Again, the important issue of interpretation is whether or not we should take a questionable reading of an O.T. text which does not seem interested in giving any sustained or clear teaching about the afterlife and set aside other N.T. texts which seem to be intending to speak more directly to the issue.

6. Eccl. 9:5,10 -- The same kind of arguments I have given above apply to these verses as well. I would only add that citing Ecclesiastes in support of a doctrinal position is especially problematic, for there is a real question as to how much or which parts of the book are the author's own views versus the pagan views of others that he describes in order to discount. In other words, in order to establish your case convincingly from this book, you will first have to establish convincingly an overall understanding of the book. But even if I assume your take that the author is stating his own inpsired view in these verses, I can still make the same kind of arguments for these verses as I have made for those above.

7. 1Tim.6:15-16 -- You rightly make the point that the Lord "alone has immortality". But this does not mean that He cannot or has not given immortality to others. I fail to see how citing this verse in any way disagrees with my own view of the intermediate state. After all, if you mean by this to deny that our spirits may live on apart from our bodies, I would only assert that the verse doesn't say this or require it any more than it would require the idea that none of us will have immortality in Heaven after the resurrection (a point with which I think you would agree).

Pastork

[ November 19, 2002, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: Pastork ]