This paper examines whether biblical descriptions of the intermediate state imply dualism of the sort that rules out physicalism. Certain passages in the Bible seem to describe persons or souls existing without their bodies in an intermediate state between death and resurrection. For this reason, these passages appear to imply a form of dualism. Some Christian physicalists have countered that the passages in question are in fact compatible with physicalism. For it is compatible with physicalism that, although we are necessarily constituted by physical bodies, we can continue to exist without our current bodies in the intermediate state by being constituted by replacement bodies. I argue that broadly Gricean considerations significantly weaken this response. In its place, I propose a new, linguistic objection to the biblical argument for dualism. The linguistic objection says that biblical descriptions of an intermediate state cannot imply dualism in the sense that contradicts physicalism because physicalism is defined by a concept of the physical derived from modern physics, and no term in the biblical languages expresses that concept. I argue that the linguistic objection is less vulnerable to Gricean considerations than the constitution objection. On the other hand the linguistic objection also makes concessions to dualism that some Christian physicalists will find unacceptable. And it may be possible to reinforce the biblical argument for dualism by appeal to recent research on ‘common-sense dualism’. The upshot for Christian physicalists who wish to remain open to the biblical case for an intermediate state is therefore partly good, partly bad. The prospects for a Biblical argument for dualism in the sense that contradicts physicalism are limited but remain open.

本文检验圣经对中间状态的描述是否暗示了排除物理主义的二元论。圣经中的某些段落似乎描述了没有身体而存在于死亡和复活之间的中间状态的人或灵魂。出于这个原因，这些段落似乎暗示了一种二元论形式。一些基督教物理主义者反驳说，所讨论的段落实际上与物理主义相容。因为它与物理主义相容的是，虽然我们必然是由物理的身体构成的，但我们可以继续存在而无需我们当前的身体处于中间状态，而是由替代的身体构成。我认为，广义上的 Gricean 考虑显着削弱了这种反应。取而代之的是，我提出了一种新的语言反对二元论的圣经论点。语言学的反对意见认为，圣经对中间状态的描述不能暗示与物理主义相矛盾的二元论，因为物理主义是由现代物理学派生的物理概念定义的，而圣经语言中没有任何术语表达该概念。我认为语言上的反对比宪法反对更不容易受到格莱斯的考虑。另一方面，语言上的反对也对二元论做出让步，一些基督教物理主义者会认为这是不可接受的。并且有可能通过最近对“常识二元论”的研究来加强圣经对二元论的论证。因此，对于希望对中间状态的圣经案例持开放态度的基督教物理主义者来说，结果是部分好，部分坏。