161. I. Question Of An Intermediate Place.

I. Question Of An Intermediate Place. This is the question whether the souls of the dead go at once to the places of final destiny, or to a place distinct therefrom, where they remain until the resurrection.

1. In the View of the Scriptures.—We find no clear light upon this subject in the Old Testament. Therein the place of the dead is usually designated by the term שְאוׄל—sheol, rendered άδης—hades—in the Septuagint. Hades is used in the New Testament in much the same sense as sheol in the Old. In our version of the Scriptures both words are mostly rendered hell. Sheol means a dark under-world. In the popular thought of the Jews it was located somewhere in or under the earth, and was the common receptacle of the dead without respect to any distinction of character, but divided into two compartments: one, a place of happiness for the good; the other, a place of misery for the evil. It is not clear that in the popular thought of the Jews, particularly in their earlier history, there was any other place of future destiny. However, such a fact could have no doctrinal significance, for they were not an inspired people, and hence could err just as Christian people do, and even more readily, as they had a less perfect revelation. It need not be questioned that the Old Testament contains the idea of a higher place of destiny for the good than sheol represents, nor that some minds attained to this idea; but such a fact is entirely consistent with an intermediate place, and therefore means nothing against it. It is apparent in the New Testament, and quite clear in the words of Josephus,^[847] that in the time of our Lord the Jews, many of them at least, believed in the resurrection and the judgment, but they might still believe, or believe not, that the dead remained in an intermediate place until they went to the places of final destiny. Hence nothing yet appears that is at all clear or decisive respecting the real question of an intermediate place.

^[847]Discourse on Hades.

Even in the eschatology of the New Testament we find nothing decisive on this question. Most that we notice herein has respect to the good. That there is for them a higher place of destiny than either sheol or hades represents is most certain; but this fact is entirely consistent with an intermediate place, and therefore decides nothing. The case of Lazarus seems to favor the view of an intermediate place, as we can hardly think the bosom of Abraham, to which he was taken, is the true heaven of the good (Luke 16:22). The same is true of the words of our Lord to the dying thief: “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). In some of its uses paradise has a lower meaning than the true heaven; besides, Christ did not ascend to the latter on that day. Other texts, however, seem to favor the opposite view; that is, that the good go at once to the true heaven. In his dying vision Stephen saw heaven open, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God; and he died, calling upon God, and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:55-60). The answer to this prayer seems to mean his immediate reception into the true heaven. In the view of Paul, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8); that is, when the good die they go at once to be with Christ. And as he is surely in the true heaven, seemingly these words oppose the view of an intermediate place for the good. We have thus presented the two sides of the question; and so we leave it without any concern for the result; for it is without practical interest.

2. In the Faith of the Church.—In the earlier history of the Church the doctrine of an intermediate place was widely held. This was very natural to the circumstances. On the other hand, the minds of both Jewish and Gentile converts were very fully prepossessed with the idea of the under-world as the place of disembodied spirits; on the other, it was clear to them that the Scriptures reveal a higher and more glorious world as the place of blessedness after the resurrection. The doctrine of an intermediate place was the natural result of these facts. In later times the Romanist doctrine of purgatory strongly supported the same view. But the Churches of the Reformation rejected it; and their strong revolt from the doctrine of purgatory probably had some influence in the determination of their action. Since then the Protestant Churches have mostly rejected the doctrine of an intermediate place.