Editor’s Preface

This article was written in response to a direct request from someone in our Bible study for a Scripture-first roadmap through several disputed topics: biblical anthropology, the intermediate state (including Hades, Paradise, torment, the Abyss, and Tartarus), the resurrection sequence, the rapture, and final judgment.

The goal is not to pressure anyone into a conclusion, but to lay out the relevant biblical passages in a coherent sequence so the reader can examine the text and decide for themselves. Where Scripture speaks clearly, this paper speaks clearly. Where Scripture leaves tensions, this paper names those tensions rather than smoothing them over.

This study argues for a primary view while also presenting alternative interpretations and explaining why disagreement persists. It does not claim final certainty; it aims for faithful alignment to Scripture, with tradition treated as informative but not decisive. Appendix A is included as a complete Scripture index for readers who want to verify every passage directly.

If you disagree with sections of this paper, that is expected—my request is simply that you read the cited passages in context and test every claim against Scripture.

---

How to use this paper: read the main article first without chasing references, then use Appendix A to look up every passage in context

Introduction

Christian theology affirms the authority of Scripture while often diverging sharply on questions of human constitution, death, the intermediate state, resurrection, the rapture, and final judgment. These disagreements rarely arise from disbelief. More often, they reflect differing judgments about how Scripture interprets itself across time, genre, covenantal development, as well as presupposition and the support of tradition and denominationalism.

This article argues for a trichotomic anthropology, a conscious intermediate state, a future bodily resurrection, a non-imminent mid-tribulation / pre-wrath rapture, and a single final judgment. It further examines whether certain prophetic texts—most notably Ezekiel 37—may legitimately bear more eschatological weight than is traditionally assigned, while clearly distinguishing between strict exegesis and Spirit-guided canonical synthesis. Throughout, the views of Michael S. Heiser, Chuck Missler, and Amir Tsarfati are engaged, not as authorities over Scripture, but as representative voices within modern interpretive discussion, alongside the testimony of the early Church.¹

Methodologically, this study affirms grammatical-historical exegesis as foundational but not exhaustive. Scripture is permitted to interpret Scripture across the canon, with later revelation clarifying earlier texts where warranted. Distinctions are maintained between what is explicitly stated, what is reasonably inferred, and what is offered as probabilistic synthesis rather than dogmatic conclusion.

---

Biblical Anthropology: Body, Soul, and Spirit

Scripture presents the human being as a unified whole composed of distinct elements. Genesis 2:7 depicts humanity as formed from the dust, animated by divine breath, resulting in a living being. Paul prays that believers be preserved “spirit, soul, and body” (1 Thessalonians 5:23), and Hebrews distinguishes soul and spirit (Hebrews 4:12). At death, the soul departs (Genesis 35:18), and the spirit is entrusted to God (Luke 23:46; Acts 7:59).²

These passages support a trichotomic framework not as speculative metaphysics but as a descriptive biblical pattern. Death is consistently portrayed as separation, and redemption, therefore, requires restoration rather than mere survival. Resurrection is necessary because salvation concerns the whole person, not an immaterial fragment. Scripture does not linger on precise metaphysical definitions, prioritizing destiny and restoration over analytical taxonomy.

The early Church overwhelmingly affirmed bodily resurrection and personal continuity after death, even while expressing diversity in how soul and spirit were discussed. The shared conviction was not anthropological precision, but resurrection hope.³

---

Death and the Intermediate State

Death in Scripture is separation, not extinction (James 2:26). The dead are portrayed as conscious, awaiting resurrection and judgment. Jesus’ account of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31) depicts awareness, memory, moral distinction, and irreversible separation prior to final judgment. Revelation portrays martyrs as conscious and expectant (Revelation 6:9–11).⁴ Jesus’ promise to the thief—“Today you will be with Me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43)—indicates immediate post-mortem presence rather than unconscious suspension.⁵

Jesus’ descent “into the lower parts of the earth” (Ephesians 4:9) and Peter’s proclamation that He was not abandoned to Hades (Acts 2:27, 31) locate the intermediate realm within creation itself rather than in an abstract spiritual state.⁹

Hades, the Abyss, and Tartarus

Scripture presents Hades (Hádēs, corresponding to Sheol) as the temporary realm of the dead prior to resurrection and judgment (Acts 2:27; Revelation 20:13–14). It is consistently described as a realm of descent and confinement. The Abyss (ábyssos) is portrayed as a place of restraint for hostile spiritual beings and as Satan’s temporary prison (Luke 8:31; Revelation 9; Revelation 20:1–3).⁶

The safest conclusion is that Hades and the Abyss are distinct but related underworld realities, both temporary and judicial, yet there is sufficient biblical and Second Temple evidence to allow that these terms may at times function synonymously when describing the realm of the dead under restraint prior to final judgment.

Within this realm, Scripture presents differentiation. Luke 16 depicts two conditions—torment and comfort—separated by an unbridgeable chasm. Abraham’s statement that Lazarus “is being comforted” (Luke 16:25) is the only explicit description Scripture gives of the righteous condition in Paradise. The language of torment (basanos / basanizō) used of the rich man is the same word family used when hostile spirits ask Jesus whether He has come to torment them “before the time” (Matthew 8:29), reinforcing the judicial character of the intermediate state and its anticipation of a future, appointed judgment.⁸

Tartarus (2 Peter 2:4) is described as the lowest and most severe region of confinement, specifically associated with certain fallen angels who transgressed in the days of Noah (Genesis 6).⁷ These beings are distinguished from other hostile spiritual entities who continue to operate with greater freedom, such as the angels cast down with Satan after the war in heaven (Revelation 12:7–9). Demons may plausibly be understood as the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim following their destruction in the Flood, a view consistent with Second Temple Jewish literature and some early Christian writers, though Scripture itself does not define this explicitly. Scripture also locates Satan’s future binding within this same realm for the duration of the thousand years (Revelation 20:1–3), reinforcing its function as a temporary holding place rather than a final destination.

---

Resurrection: Nature and Sequence

Resurrection in Scripture is bodily, future, and necessary. Daniel 12:2, Isaiah 26:19, John 5:28–29, and 1 Corinthians 15 all affirm resurrection as a return to embodied life. Resurrection is not identical with immortality or glorification; it restores life that was lost in death, while transformation perfects and immortalizes that life.¹⁰

Scripture clearly identifies the first resurrection (Revelation 20:5–6), the first death, and the second death (Revelation 20:14; 21:8). It does not explicitly label the Church’s resurrection as “the first resurrection.” The resurrection of the Church (1 Thessalonians 4; 1 Corinthians 15) is described without numerical designation, leaving open the possibility of multiple resurrection events provided they ultimately culminate in the final judgment.¹¹

Resurrection does not itself require immediate judgment. Lazarus was raised without judgment, and the Church is resurrected and transformed without judgment. Judgment is consistently presented as a later, universal event.

---

Ezekiel 37 and the Question of Israel’s Resurrection

Ezekiel 37 presents one of the most vivid prophetic visions in Scripture: a valley of dry bones reassembled, re-fleshed, and reanimated by divine breath until they stand as an exceedingly great army (Ezekiel 37:1–10). God then interprets the vision, identifying the bones as “the whole house of Israel” and explaining their condition as one of despair, exclusion, and lost hope (Ezekiel 37:11–14).⁶

The phrase “whole house of Israel” is often treated as corporate or covenantal language referring to Israel as a people. However, the underlying Hebrew term kol does not itself restrict the phrase to representative or governmental identity. Linguistically, the expression is capable of bearing numerical totality. Preference for a non-arithmetical reading therefore arises from contextual and systemic considerations rather than lexical necessity.⁷

Traditionally, the vision has been understood as a metaphor for national restoration from exile. Yet the language of being “cut off” and without hope also coherently maps onto Israel’s later covenantal condition following the rejection of the Messiah. In Pauline theology, Israel’s temporary hardening results in a state of covenantal death, from which restoration is later effected by divine initiative (Romans 11).⁸

A minority reading understands Ezekiel’s corporeal imagery as pointing toward a literal bodily resurrection of Israel to fulfill the “exceedingly great army” language (Ezekiel 37:10). This reading can be paired coherently with Paul’s statement that “all Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:26) and with Zechariah’s prophecy that Israel will look upon the one they pierced and mourn in repentance (Zechariah 12:10). This interpretation is not asserted dogmatically but offered as a probabilistic synthesis that appears to resolve several eschatological tensions more fully than prevailing alternatives. Final confirmation necessarily awaits fulfillment.⁹

At this point, it is important to note why Ezekiel 37 is frequently minimized or treated cautiously within many eschatological systems. Allowing the passage to speak with its full narrative force places Israel back at the center of redemptive history in a way that resists collapsing Israel into the Church or postponing Israel’s significance entirely into the millennium. The vision also introduces resurrection or restoration activity prior to the millennial reign described in Revelation 20, creating pressure on systems that prefer a simplified resurrection framework. Additionally, Ezekiel 37 implies sequence—revival, strengthening, and then security—which complicates strict formulations of imminency that assume no identifiable prophetic developments.¹⁰

Appeals to original historical context as an absolute limiter are further weakened by Scripture’s own interpretive practice. Matthew’s application of Hosea 11:1 (“Out of Egypt I called My son”) demonstrates that the Holy Spirit may legitimately expand a text’s referent beyond the conscious intent of the human author without violating Scripture’s integrity.¹¹

Ezekiel 38–39: The Consequence of Restored Israel

Ezekiel 38–39 follows naturally from the restoration vision of Ezekiel 37 and should be read as part of the same prophetic sequence rather than as an isolated oracle. Whereas Ezekiel 37 addresses Israel’s restoration from death-like exile and despair, Ezekiel 38 presupposes that restoration has already occurred and describes what follows it.¹²

Ezekiel explicitly states that the invasion of Gog occurs after Israel has been restored and regathered: Israel is described as having been “brought back from the sword,” “gathered from many peoples,” and now dwelling securely in the land (Ezekiel 38:8). The population is portrayed as living in “unwalled villages,” at rest and unsuspecting (Ezekiel 38:11), conditions that signal confidence rather than vulnerability. Crucially, this security is not presented as the final, unassailable peace of the messianic kingdom, but as a provisional state that invites hostility.¹³

The attack of Gog is therefore not the cause of Israel’s restoration, but its consequence. Israel’s renewed presence, strength, and visibility provoke a coordinated assault that culminates in direct divine intervention. The result is not merely military victory but theological revelation: God declares that through these events He will vindicate His holiness before the nations and before Israel itself (Ezekiel 38:16; 39:7). The outcome is a decisive shift in Israel’s covenantal awareness, as “the house of Israel shall know that I am the LORD their God from that day forward” (Ezekiel 39:22).¹⁴

The pairing of Ezekiel 37 and 38 challenges interpretations that equate Israel’s dwelling securely with the millennial kingdom. The presence of invasion, death, and divine judgment in Ezekiel 38–39 places these chapters prior to the conditions described in Revelation 20–22. Israel’s security, though real, is temporary; it serves as the stage upon which God publicly demonstrates His sovereignty in history before the final order is established.¹⁵

---

The Rapture

The New Testament describes the resurrection and gathering of the Church in ways that are explicitly tied to an identifiable prophetic sequence. Paul states that the Day of the Lord will not come until certain events occur (2 Thessalonians 2:1–4). Jesus places the gathering of the elect after tribulation signs (Matthew 24:29–31). The resurrection and transformation of believers occur at the “last trumpet” (1 Corinthians 15:52), which Revelation associates with the transfer of earthly authority to Christ (Revelation 11:15).¹⁶

Taken together, these passages support a mid-tribulation or pre-wrath gathering of the Church rather than an imminent, signless event. This view preserves the promise that believers are not appointed to divine wrath (1 Thessalonians 5:9) while allowing for tribulation prior to deliverance.

Imminency: Expectation, Prerequisites, and Historical Context

The doctrine of imminency is commonly defined as the belief that Christ may return at any moment, with no prophetic prerequisites remaining. This expectation is often drawn from passages exhorting watchfulness and readiness (Matthew 24:42–44; Titus 2:13; James 5:8–9). In the early Church, this sense of nearness was appropriate and theologically active, as the necessary redemptive and covenantal conditions had not yet been clearly resolved.

However, Scripture also presents identifiable prerequisites to certain eschatological events, including the revelation of the man of lawlessness and the presence of a functioning temple context (2 Thessalonians 2:3–4). With the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, the covenantal and cultic framework assumed by these passages ceased to exist. In this sense, strict imminency entered a dormant phase, not because Christ’s return became distant, but because the conditions presupposed by prophetic texts were no longer present.¹⁷

On this reading, imminency is not denied but contextualized. It becomes operative again once the Temple is rebuilt and the necessary prophetic structures are restored. At that point, once the remaining prerequisites are in place, Christ may indeed come at any time. This approach preserves biblical exhortations to readiness while allowing Scripture’s stated conditions to retain their full force.

A common argument against the mid-tribulation view is Jesus’ statement that no one knows when He will return (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32). A careful reading shows that Jesus specifies that no one knows the day or the hour, not the age or prophetic season in which His return may occur. This distinction is reinforced by Jesus’ rebuke of those who could not discern “the signs of the times” (Matthew 16:3) and by apostolic exhortations that believers are not in darkness regarding the Day of the Lord, even though its precise timing remains unknown (1 Thessalonians 5:1–4).¹⁸

---

Judgment

The New Testament consistently affirms that judgment is real, future, and universal, yet interpreters differ on whether Scripture teaches one final judgment event or two distinct judgment events—one for believers (commonly termed the Bēma Seat of Christ) and another for unbelievers at the Great White Throne.

The term bēma refers broadly to a judicial platform or tribunal. Paul employs this term when he writes that “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:10) and again when he states that believers will stand before God’s judgment seat (Romans 14:10–12). Advocates of a two-judgment framework argue that these passages describe a non-condemnatory evaluation of believers’ works for reward, distinct from the Great White Throne judgment of Revelation 20.¹⁹

However, Scripture nowhere explicitly identifies the bēma as an event reserved exclusively for Christians. No passage states that unbelievers are excluded from appearing before the judgment seat of Christ, nor does any text clearly place the bēma temporally before the final judgment. The concept of a distinct, Christian-only Bēma Seat judgment therefore arises from theological synthesis rather than explicit biblical assertion.

Scripture also provides affirmative support for a singular judgment in which the destinies of both the righteous and the wicked are determined together. Jesus’ teaching on the separation of the sheep and the goats presents a single judicial scene in which all nations are gathered, evaluated, and divided based on their response to the King (Matthew 25:31–46). Likewise, Scripture speaks of a universal resurrection in which “those who have done good” are raised to life and “those who have done evil” are raised to condemnation (John 5:28–29; cf. Daniel 12:2).²⁰

Scripture consistently frames judgment as singular: “it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). God judges the world through Christ (Acts 17:31), allowing references to the judgment seat of God and the judgment seat of Christ to be understood as complementary descriptions of the same final assize.

While judgment is universal and decisive, it does not introduce uncertainty regarding salvation. Scripture consistently grounds salvation in Christ’s completed work, while judgment publicly reveals and confirms the reality of that salvation and the justice of God’s verdict.

---

Conclusion

Scripture presents a coherent, though complex, eschatological framework. Humanity is constituted as body, soul, and spirit. Death is separation, not extinction. The dead remain conscious while awaiting resurrection. Hades, the Abyss, and Tartarus function as temporary judicial realms within the present order. Resurrection is bodily and future, culminating in a single final judgment. The Church is gathered according to divine sequence rather than abstract imminence. Israel’s restoration remains central to God’s redemptive purposes, and Ezekiel 37–39 may warrant greater eschatological consideration than tradition has typically allowed.

Mystery remains where Scripture is silent, but synthesis is required where Scripture is abundant yet complex. This study does not claim final certainty. It seeks instead to align interpretive conclusions with Scripture’s own patterns, allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture even where inherited frameworks must be reexamined. Where Scripture speaks clearly, it must be obeyed. Where it speaks suggestively, it must be approached with humility, coherence, and expectancy—until fulfillment reveals what interpretation could only anticipate.

---

Endnotes

1. Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm (Lexham Press, 2015); Chuck Missler, Learn the Bible in 24 Hours (Koinonia House); Amir Tsarfati, The Last Hour (Harvest House, 2018).
2. Genesis 2:7; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; Hebrews 4:12.
3. Irenaeus, Against Heresies V; Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh.
4. Darrell Bock, Luke (BECNT).
5. Craig Keener, IVP Bible Background Commentary.
6. Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm.
7. 2 Peter 2:4; 1 Enoch 10; Jubilees 5.
8. 1 Enoch 15–16; Justin Martyr; Athenagoras.
9. Matthew Emerson, He Descended to the Dead.
10. N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God.
11. G.K. Beale, Revelation (NIGTC).
12. Daniel I. Block, Ezekiel 25–48.
13. Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2.
14. Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue.
15. G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation.
16. Marvin Rosenthal, The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church.
17. N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God.
18. R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew.
19. Randy Alcorn, Heaven.
20. George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament.

---

Appendix A: Scriptural Index — Intermediate State, Hades, Paradise, Torment, Abyss, Tartarus

Sheol / Hades (Realm of the Dead, Temporary):

Genesis 37:35, 42:38; Numbers 16:30–33; 1 Samuel 2:6; Job 7:9–10, 14:13; Psalms 6:5, 9:17, 16:10, 49:14–15, 86:13; Ecclesiastes 9:10; Isaiah 14:9–11, 38:10–18; Ezekiel 31:15–17, 32:17–32; Matthew 11:23, 16:18; Luke 10:15, 16:19–31; Acts 2:27, 31; Revelation 1:18, 6:8, 20:13–14.

Paradise / Comfort of the Righteous Dead:

Luke 16:22, 25; Luke 23:43; 2 Corinthians 12:2–4; Revelation 2:7.

Torment Prior to Final Judgment:

Luke 16:23, 28; Matthew 8:29; Mark 5:7; Luke 8:28.

The Abyss / Bottomless Pit:

Luke 8:31; Romans 10:7; Revelation 9:1–11, 11:7, 17:8, 20:1–3.

Tartarus (Lowest Place of Confinement):

2 Peter 2:4.

Christ and the Realm of the Dead:

Acts 2:27–31; Ephesians 4:8–10; 1 Peter 3:18–20; 1 Peter 4:6.

Conscious Existence After Death (Pre-Resurrection):

Ecclesiastes 12:7; Matthew 22:31–32; Luke 20:37–38; Philippians 1:21–23; 2 Corinthians 5:6–8; Hebrews 12:22–24; Revelation 6:9–11.

Resurrection and the End of the Intermediate State:

Daniel 12:2; John 5:28–29; Revelation 20:11–15; Revelation 21:1–4.

Texts Requiring Contextual Caution:

Job 3:11–19; Psalm 115:17; Ecclesiastes 9:5.

---

Related Reading

Some of the theological questions explored in this article—particularly the nature of death, resurrection, judgment, and divine justice—are also explored narratively in my fiction. For readers interested in how these themes can be examined through story rather than study, information about my novels can be found here:

Explore the novels →