I see no intermediate state implied there [i.e., Luke 16:19-31].
You ought to see it implied there. I mean, the word
hadēs (ᾅδης) is front and center in the text (v. 23). Regardless of its genre, the passage depicts conscious postmortem existence
prior to final resurrection and judgment. The rich man is dead but not yet resurrected; his brothers are still alive on the earth; the final judgment has not yet occurred. That is, by definition, the intermediate state.
We don't know the progression of fact between death and resurrection.
What does “the progression of fact” mean? That phrase is much too vague to assess.
While it is true that Scripture doesn’t reveal
everything about the state between death and resurrection, it doesn’t need to in order for us to know something truly about it. Or are you suggesting that Scripture doesn’t reveal anything determinate about it? Because those are very different claims.
In Second Temple theology, which Jesus occupied and addressed, “paradise” denoted the abode of the righteous after death (
hadēs), as distinguished from the final state. Paradise is where the righteous enjoy conscious communion with Christ in the presence of God, awaiting the resurrection of the body and the final consummation.
We do know "today you will be with me in Paradise," and similar statements.
And what is it that we know from this, exactly? Whatever your answer, it should take seriously the statement Jesus made to Mary Magdalene: “I have not yet ascended to my Father.” Need I remind you that this was Sunday morning? That is, two days later.
Therefore, the paradise which the thief entered “today” must refer to the intermediate state, not the eternal reward that awaits believers, which is after the resurrection. Believers who die are with Christ immediately in paradise, the blessed intermediate state of the righteous dead—awaiting the resurrection of the body and the renewal of all things.
I can already hear it: “All of this is temporal.” It is. So are we. So are God’s acts in history.
“God’s point of view is different.” True—and irrelevant, for we don’t have or even know his point of view.
The other thread on ECT vs. Annihilationism—in which I was rather excoriated for proposing that neither ECT nor Annihilationism quite addresses the state of hell and its occupants, …
“Excoriated” implies you were harshly censured or treated with unusual severity. In which thread did that happen?
Or did you mean your post was sharply criticized for being unresponsive to the main exegetical dispute? Because “excoriated” implies something worse than “criticized.”
We don't know what Christ suffered—we only know something about it. Words and concepts.
Are you saying “we don’t know” existentially or in ourselves what he suffered? True—but also trivial. We may not know his sufferings as he knew them in the immediacy of his own experience, but we do know them truly, covenantally, and savingly through the inscripturated revelation God has given—revelation that happens to come in “words and concepts.” Let’s not despise or undercut revelation itself, as though it were somehow a thin or inferior medium. God binds us to what he has revealed; it is ours to know truly. As I have said before elsewhere, we can know something truly without knowing it comprehensively (e.g., the Trinity).
If I am right about that subject, then it also fits this one. It's not how long but what Christ did “in the grave.”
Nothing, strictly speaking, except remain dead. The grave was the place of his burial, not a theater in which he performed further redemptive action.
There is a more dramatic tradition, found in some patristic strands, known as the “harrowing of hell.” It speaks of Christ descending to hell (
hadēs) in triumph, proclaiming victory and releasing Old Testament saints. That model has had a long history, but confessional Reformed theology has generally been cautious about building much on it.
