http://www.creationismonline.com/TSK/Immortality.html
As Taught in Scripture.
LONDON:
ELLIOT STOCK, 62, PATERNOSTER ROW.
1868.
THIS little volume is presented to the
attention of thoughtful Christian men. The subject is one of inexpressible
importance, and it is an immense relief to discover that the awful doctrine
here controverted has not a shadow of support from the Bible. The idea of
endless suffering, on the part of any creature, is such a terrible libel on the
character of the blessed GOD, that all who love Him should protest against it.
As Taught in Scripture.
THE advent of Christ is an event of mighty
magnitude; the consummation of the grand plan of salvation is suspended on it;
for if Christ never comes, the dead will never be raised, and if the dead are
never raised, they can never be judged; and if never judged, they can never be
rewarded; and never inherit the kingdom: for Christ is not only designated as
the future Judge, but the time when He shall officiate in this capacity is said
to be "at His appearing." Nor is this a new item of theology; for
Enoch, the seventh from Adam, connected the judgment scene with the coming of
Christ, saying, " Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of His
saints, to execute judgment," etc. Not only did Enoch preach the advent of
Christ, but he connected that event with the judgment. But to be more precise,
we will look at various features of the Advent faith, and thus learn whether
"Adventism " is really in harmony with the Bible or not.
MANY think so. Is it a revealed truth, or
is it an error? Is the coming of Christ to be a literal or spiritual event What
say the Scriptures? Paul thus speaks to his Thessalonian brethren: "Ye
turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God, and to wait for His
Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus" (1 Thess. 1. 9,
10). Who were they waiting for? God's Son. Where from? " From
heaven." What Son of God were they waiting for from heaven? The very One
"whom He raised from the dead." Then God has a Son in heaven, has He
not? Yes. And that Son was once dead, was He not? Yes. And God raised Him from
the dead, did He not? Yes. And that is the very Personage we are to wait for
from heaven, is it not? Certainly.
This agrees with the Savior's own
testimony to the seer of Patmos, after His ascension: " I am He that lived,
and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore" (Rev. 1. 18). This is
the very Personage of whom the heavenly messengers declared, " This same
Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come IN LIKE MANNER as
ye have seen Him go into heaven" (Acts 1. 11). The " same Jesus"
who once died, and was raised, went up to heaven, and is still in heaven; this
"same Jesus" is to come from heaven, not spiritually, but " in
like manner as " the disciples saw Him ascend. Before taking His departure
from earth, Jesus affirmed, " I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go
and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto
Myself" (John 14. 3). Christ literally went away and He will literally
return: " Behold, He cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see Him, and
they also that pierced Him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of
Him " (Rev. 1. 7). This event cannot be counterfeited; "all"
will "see" the Savior come in the "clouds" of heaven, and
sinners will "wail."
It will be no spiritual affair, like
coming in the "clouds of events," as some explain the matter; for
" the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven WITH A SHOUT, with the voice
of the Archangel, and with THE TRUMP OF GOD; and the DEAD IN CHRIST SHALL RISE
" (1 Thess. 4. 16). Thus the coming of Christ is connected with the
sounding of the trump of God, which arouses the slumbering dead from their
tombs; and moreover, the Apostle adds, " Then we which are alive and
remain, shall be caught up together with them [the raised saints] in the
clouds, to meet the Lord in the air." This cannot be spiritualized. Christ
will return literally, and the raised saints, together with the living saints,
changed to an immortal state, will rise to "meet Him" in the air, and
thenceforward "forever be with the Lord." With this fact in mind,
well might Paul affirm, " Unto them that look for Him shall He appear the
SECOND time, without sin [or a sin offering'] unto salvation" (Heb. 9. 28).
Not only is this event designated the
"second" coming of Christ (thus proving it as truly literal as the
first; as the second is a repetition of the first, and of the same order, else
it would simply be the first of one order, and the first of another, instead of
being a "second" of any one order; and as all admit that the first
was the advent of a literal personage, it must be conceded that the second must
also be): but, moreover, this second advent is to bring "salvation"
to the saints. And while this event shall bring salvation to God's people, it
will, at the same time, bring destruction to the impenitent; thus it will be
like the "pillar" that cast light on Israel and darkness on the
Egyptians; for " the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His
mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and
that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with
everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of
His power; when He shall come to be glorified in His saints, and to be admired
in all them that believe" (2 Thess. 1. 7-10).
Since the " salvation" of
saints, and the " destruction " and " punishment " of
sinners is connected with Christ's coming, if we spiritualize a part, we must
the whole; thus we must either deny a literal salvation to the saints, and a
literal punishment to the sinner, or admit a literal coming of Christ in the
future. He once came in an humble garb, but now He comes in the glory of all
heaven—the same Person in different clothing—once appearing in "swaddling
clothes," but now in a cloud of glory. Once He came to be numbered with
the dead, but now to end death's long reign. Once He came to weep, but now to
wipe away all tears. Once He came as the " Man of Sorrows," but now
to make an end of sorrow among His people. How changed the scene! Then He was
ridiculed, scourged, bound and crucified by wicked men; but now " shall
all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in
the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He shall send His angels
with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together His elect from
the four winds " (Matt. 24. 30, 31). This is one feature of the doctrine,
styled "Adventism." It proclaims a "second" personal
mission of Jesus Christ to our globe.
WE meet with many who endorse the doctrine
of the future personal coming of Christ; yet they can see no necessity for this
event. They have imbibed a theory which makes Christ's coming a needless event.
But when we learn for what purpose Christ is to come, we shall not only recognize
this event as a needful item in the Divine plan, but as an absolutely
indispensable pre-requisite to our entrance into the kingdom of God. But why so?
1. Because Christ has been "ordained
of God to be the Judge of quick and dead" (Acts 10. 42), and Paul affirms
that He " shall judge the quick and the dead at His APPEARING" (2
Tim. 4. 1). Hence, it follows, if neither the living nor the dead are to be judged
till Christ's " appearing," none can receive their reward at any
earlier date: for judgment is for the express purpose of deciding who are
worthy; and judgment includes both the decision and its execution: and it is
not possible to have a decision executed before it is passed. But provided the
saints enter glory at death, that would be the execution of the decision in
their favor, and the decision must have preceded its execution; then what
becomes of the work which Paul says Christ is to do "at His appearing?"
It is then all done before His appearing, and God's plan is set aside. Can that
theory be right which would overthrow the plan of Heaven? If Paul's location of
the judgment is correct, the theory of rewards prior to Christ's coming is
opposed to Heaven's arrangement.
Let us learn whether Paul is in harmony
with other inspired witnesses on this point; for if he is, it will be apparent
to all that there can be no judgment till Christ comes, and no reward till the
judgment arrives: hence, Christ must come before the saints can get their
reward.
Daniel gives the same chronological place
for the judgment scene. After describing the rise of " four great
beasts," which the angel explained as symbols of four great earthly
governments to arise on the stream of time; after describing the ten horns on
the head of the fourth beast, which the angel interpreted as symbols of ten
divisions of the fourth and last universal earthly kingdom; and after
describing the rise of "another" horn, subsequent to the ten, having
"eyes and mouth like a man," which the angel explains as a symbol of
a blasphemous and persecuting power, to prevail till the judgment, he adds:—"
I beheld till the thrones [of these horns] were cast down [or overthrown], and
the Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of
His head like the pure wool: His throne was like the fiery flame, and His
wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him:
thousand thousands ministered unto Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand
stood before Him: THE JUDGMENT WAS SET, AND THE BOOKS WERE OPENED" (Dan.
7. 9, 10). Here the judgment is placed down at the end of the history of
Gentile monarchy: and if this arrangement is right, there can be no reward
before the end of the last section of earthly history that shall precede the
judgment: for judgment comes before reward, else there is no use in having a
judgment: and who will be presumptuous enough to charge God with folly in
planning a " judgment to come," and appointing " a day in the
which He will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom He hath
ordained," and "raised Him from the dead?"
John gives the same location of the
judgment scene: “And I saw a great white throne, and Him that sat on it, from
whose face the earth and the heavens fled away; and there was no place found
for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God: and the books
were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the
dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according
to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and
hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged every man
according to their works" (Rev. 20.11-13)
When the great white throne and its
majestic occupant shall appear, then comes the judgment of the
"dead," and not till then; nor can the dead be rewarded before being
judged.
Jesus, also, specifies the time when men
are to be judged: " I came not to judge the world [at His first advent],
but to save the world. He that rejects Me, and receives not My words, hath one
that judges him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the
last day" (John 12. 47, 48). Here Christ Himself definitely locates the
work of judgment " IN THE LAST DAY." Then let this arrangement stand,
and let no one presume to affirm that we can get our reward as well without the
judgment as with it; thus rendering it a useless affair.
Finally, the Apostle locates the judgment
under the sounding of the seventh angel, and also connects the reward of the
ancient prophets, and the various saints of different ages with this judgment
to come: "And the seventh angel sounded: and there were great voices in
heaven. saying, the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdom of our Lord
and His Christ; . . . . thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead that THEY
SHOULD BE JUDGED, and that thou shouldest give reward unto Thy servants THE
PROPHETS, and to the saints, and them that fear Thy name, small and great"
(Rev. 11. 15-18).
Here the judgment scene is clearly
connected with the sounding of the seventh trumpet, and the truth is proclaimed
that even the prophets are to get their "reward" subsequent to this
epoch. This must forever settle the question that "reward" is the
result of judgment, and is received after judgment; and, also, that the
judgment is not begun till the sounding of the seventh angel.
From the foregoing evidence we learn (1)
that the judgment takes place at Christ's "appearing; " (2) at the
end of the various sections of earthly history represented by the different
beasts and horns in Daniel's vision; (3) at the time the great white throne and
its heavenly occupant appear; (4) "in the last day;" and (5) under
the sounding of the seventh angel. Now, as Christ is to be the Judge, and is
not to officiate till His "APPEARING," or till the "last
day," or till the seventh trumpet sounds, and as the old "prophets
" as well as the modern saints must go without their reward till Christ
shall appear, certainly His coming is an event of some consequence; nay, of the
greatest consequence: and this judgment cannot come till Christ comes.
2. Another answer to the question—"
For what purpose is Christ coming?" is this: He is coming to set up His
kingdom on earth. Christ's own testimony is, " When the Son of Man shall
come in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then shall He sit upon the
throne of Ills glory: and before Him shall be gathered all nations; and He
shall separate them one from another as a shepherd divides his sheep from the
goats: He shall set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.
Then shall the King say unto them on His right hand, Come, ye blessed of My
Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the
world" (Matt. 25. 31-34). Thus when Christ is escorted from heaven to
earth, by "all the holy angels," " then shall He sit upon the
throne of His glory;" and " Then shall the King say unto them on His
right hand, Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom." When is
this invitation to be given to the saints? The Savior’s answer is, " When
the Son of Man shall come in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him."
Thus the kingdom referred to is one that the saints do not inherit till Christ
shall return from heaven in His kingly grandeur.
But what kingdom is alluded to? Not a
kingdom that preceded the formation of our globe, but simply, " The
kingdom prepared [for the faithful] from the foundation of the world;"
once placed under the supervision of the first Adam, who fell, and brought a
curse on the fair inheritance, under which it has been groaning for many centuries;
but God has promised a " restitution" under a great heir of David, a
personage who should be not only of human, but also of Divine origin,
constituting Him both the "root and the of-siring of David," of whom
it is said " David calleth Him Lord." This remarkable Personage, who
was both the Heir and Lord of David, appeared among the children of men over
eighteen hundred years ago, not to begin His reign, but to suffer as the
"Lamb of God."
But the contemplation of His reign so
engaged the attention of His followers that His death was firstly overlooked;
and in their haste they looked for His kingdom without His death. The early
disciples were so absorbed with this thought, that they entirely overlooked the
death of the Messiah, and fixed their attention wholly upon His reign. Their
hearts were animated with the hope of a kingdom to come, under the supervision
of the Messiah. And this hope was right, though they looked for its realization
too soon, and also overlooked the death of the Messiah, which was to precede
His reign. This hope of a coming kingdom was so thoroughly implanted in their
minds, and so confirmed by remarkable miracles, that "Jesus perceived that
they would come and take Him by force to make Him a king" (John 6. 15);
but He eluded their grasp, knowing that the time had not come for Him to take
the reins of government.
But the query arises, Why were they
looking for Jesus to become a king? Was this expectation a groundless
conjecture, or was it derived from the Word of God? We answer, provided the
disciples were right in recognizing Jesus as the true Messiah, they were also
right in looking for Him to become a king at some stage of His history: for the
same prophets who had so clearly predicted the coming of the Messiah, had with
equal clearness foretold His reign. The prophet Isaiah had spoken on this wise:
" Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the GOVERNMENT
shall be upon His shoulder: and His name shall be called . . . The Mighty
God" (chap. 9. 6). The disciples knew if Jesus was really this "Son,"
who should be called " The Mighty God "—" God with us
"—that He would certainly stand at the head of the government sooner or later,
for inspiration had clearly stated, " THE GOVERNMENT SHALL BE UPON HIS
SHOULDER . . . . of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no
end, upon the throne of David, and upon His kingdom to order it, and to
establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever."
They were not mistaken in supposing that
this predicted heir of David was destined to be a king: and when they called to
mind the remarkable scenes interwoven with the history of Jesus, they could not
doubt that He was this heir of David; for (1) before His birth the angel
Gabriel had positively affirmed, " The Lord God shall give unto HIM the
throne of His father David;" (2) at His birth an angel also affirmed,
"Unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is
Christ," or Messiah, and "suddenly there was with the angel a
multitude of the heavenly host praising God; " (3) at His baptism
"the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descended upon Him; "
(4) at His transfiguration " a bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold
a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well
pleased: " and (5) they had witnessed His remarkable miracles in restoring
sight to the blind, in healing the sick, in casting out devils, and in raising
the dead; with these facts fresh in memory, how could they doubt that He was
this heir of David, who should be called " the Mighty God? " And if
He was really that Personage, they knew that the " government "
"should be upon His shoulder," and He should occupy David's throne.
But they, overlooking the fact that the
Messiah must suffer and die prior to the commencement of His reign, were
looking for His reign to begin at too early a point of time; and in consequence
of this premature expectation they were involved in a bitter disappointment.
They were looking for the kingdom before the cross. " They thought that
the kingdom of God should immediately appear " (Luke 19. 11); and animated
with this delightful expectation, the anxious mother of two disciples came to
Jesus, saying, " Grant that these my two sons may sit the one on Thy right
hand, and the other on Thy left hand in Thy kingdom:" and upon one
occasion, as Jesus was riding into Jerusalem, " they spread their clothes
in the way," and "the whole multitude of the disciples began to
rejoice and praise God with a loud voice . . . . saying, Blessed be the KING
that cometh in the name of the Lord " (Luke 19. 36-38). Their minds were
fixed upon the right personage as the long-foretold king, but they were looking
for His elevation to the throne at too early a date.
Presently their hope was put to the test,
and entirely blighted for a time. A band of wicked men laid hands on their prospective
king—Jesus becomes a prisoner—and in mockery of His claim to the kingship, they
invest Him with a "crown of thorns," and insultingly salute Him,
" Hail, King of the Jews." In His trial He is charged with seeking to
make Himself a king. Thus His enemies and His friends were agreed in the
supposition that Jesus contemplated the immediate establishment of His kingdom.
Although it was in His power to call legions of angels to aid Him in escaping
from His foes, Jesus submits, and dies On the CROSS-THE "EXPECTED KING OF
ISRAEL" DIES—and the disciples are robbed of their sweet hope: their happy
dreams of a coming kingdom under the scepter of Jesus had faded away, and gloom
enveloped and enshrouded them like a thick mantle. Their hope was blighted by
this unexpected blow, as they had overlooked all the allusions Jesus had made
to His death and resurrection, having had the minds so fully absorbed with the
contemplation of His reign that they could see nothing else; and after Jesus
had slept in the sepulcher three days, "AS YET THEY KNEW NOT THE SCRIPTURE
THAT HE MUST RISE AGAIN FROM THE DEAD " (John 20. 9). Destitute of the
understanding that He was to rise again, the blow that laid Jesus in the grave
obliterated their hope, and bitter disappointment was the portion of the cup
that they drank to its dregs.
Certain women, not knowing that Jesus was
destined to rise again, came to anoint him three days after His crucifixion;
but to their astonishment, instead of finding Jesus in the sepulcher, they are
told by a " vision of angels " that Jesus " is RISEN." Oh!
rapturous thought! Jesus was really alive again! The same day He appeared to
two disciples on their way to Emmaus, and after listening to their rehearsal of
a blighted hope, " We had trusted that it had been He which should have
redeemed Israel," He replied, "O fools, and slow of heart to believe
ALL that the prophets have spoken: ought not Christ to have suffered these
things, and to enter into His glory?" (Luke 24. 25, 26.)
Now there is a change in the feelings of
the disciples; their hope revives; their expected king is no longer dead, but
really alive, and now all is plain: there is still a chance for Him to become
King; and moreover, they can now locate the prophecies relating to His death
and resurrection, which they had previously overlooked, and can clearly see
that if the Messiah was ever to die in fulfilment of prophecy, it would be
reasonable as well as scriptural to have His death precede His reign: because
(1) it would not look well to have His death occur after the establishment of
His kingdom, and thus throw the entire kingdom into mourning; and (2) it would
clash with prophecy which represents His reign as being endless. By having His
death precede His reign, they were furnished with a fresh proof of His
Messiahship, because prophecy affirmed that the true Messiah should be
"cut off," and enter the "grave;" and now in confirmation
of His claim to the Messiahship here, and the Kingship hereafter, they could
not only refer to Gabriel's statement before His birth, to the announcement of
an angel at His birth, to the scene at His baptism, to the announcement made at
His transfiguration, and to His miracles, as Divine sanctions of His claim, but
they could now add a new proof to the list—His death and resurrection.
They were now begotten anew to the hope of
a kingdom under the Messiah, "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the
dead." Their expected King was again alive, and being the true claimant to
the throne of David, they still confidently looked for Him to begin His reign
at an early date; hence, forty days after the resurrection, they inquire:
" Lord, wilt Thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? "
They were still looking for the kingdom too early. Jesus said to them, "
It is not [now] for you to know the times and seasons which the Father hath put
in His own power; but ye shall receive power after that the Holy Spirit is come
upon you " (Acts 1. 6-8. Jesus did not then see fit to tell them how long
it would be before the introduction of the kingdom, but assured them that after
the outpouring of the Holy Spirit they should receive power to know more about
it; and while making this statement, He was taken from their midst, and "
received up into heaven." But two angels stood by to make the affirmation,
"This same Jesus " shall return: so their expectation of the
establishment of His kingdom was not cut off by His departure; their hope was
not again blighted. Jesus will come back—this thought gladdened their hearts
—Jesus will return and set up His kingdom. Perhaps for a time they fancied that
He would be gone but a few weeks or months, preparatory to establishing His
kingdom. But after the Holy Spirit fell upon them, on the day of Pentecost,
they clearly saw that Christ must officiate as the antitypical High Priest till
the time should come for Him to " judge the quick and the dead at His
APPEARING." Subsequently, in the "revelation of Jesus Christ, which
God gave unto Him, to show unto His servants things which must shortly come to
pass," the different sections of earth's history to precede the
introduction of Messiah's kingdom were clearly marked off, thus enabling the
Church to determine when the kingdom will come. For instance, in the chain of
seven trumpets, the establishment of the kingdom is located under the seventh
trumpet: "And the seventh angel sounded, and there were great voices in
heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdom of our Lord
and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever" (Rev. 11. 1.5).
Under the sounding of the same trumpet comes " THE TIME OF THE DEAD THAT
THEY SHOULD BE JUDGED " (5. 18), and Christ "shall judge the quick
and the dead at His appearing and kingdom; " so the reign of Christ begins
not till the resurrection
.
When Christ appears it will be (1) to
raise the dead; (2) to judge the dead; and (3) to reward the dead. The kingdom
of the Messiah will include not only those saints who are found alive at its
introduction, but likewise all the saints that are now dead, who will then be
made to live again, and have their once "vile bodies changed, and
fashioned like unto Christ's glorious body."
There is one point of difference between
the faith of the disciples in the early part of their history, and the present
faith of the Church. The disciples were " slow of heart to believe what
the prophets had spoken " about the death of Christ, and could see nothing
but the reign of Christ; but now the Church has rushed to the opposite extreme,
and are " slow of heart to believe what the prophets have spoken "
about Messiah's reign, and can see nothing but His death. Christ demands that
we should believe ALL that the prophets have spoken—not only what relates to
His death, but likewise what pertains to His reign.
The theory which ignores the future
kingdom of Messiah on earth, or seeks to substitute a sky-kingdom in its stead,
is subversive of the Divine plan. Christ must yet reign on " David's
throne," even " in Mount Zion; " and "of His kingdom there
shall be no end." The saints of every age will be there, all " equal
to the angels." Glorious era! Soon may it dawn in fadeless beauty and
matchless splendor! Hail thou once thorned-crowned Messiah! Come and wear the
kingly crown of glory. Soon claim Thy throne, and gather Thy jewels. "
Even so, come, Lord Jesus."
IT is neither reasonable nor Scriptural to
suppose that the reign of Messiah could begin prior to the judgment; and having
now learned that the judgment cannot come till the future " appearing
" of Christ, His reign cannot be looked for before that appearing. It
would not be reasonable to expect His reign before the arrival of the judgment,
as it could not previously be determined who were entitled to a seat in His
kingdom: and it would not be scriptural to look for the kingdom before the
judgment arrives; as Christ " shall judge the quick and the dead at His
appearing and His kingdom (2 Tim. 4. 1). Here the Apostle suspends both the
judgment and the "kingdom" on the appearing of Christ; hence, not
until Christ appears will the judgment come, and not until the judgment arrives
will the kingdom come. This, then, is Heaven's order: (1) the appearing of
Christ; (2) the judgment scene; (3) the kingdom.
Many modern theologians insist that Christ
cannot come till all the inhabitants of earth have been Christianized, and
shall have enjoyed a millennium of blessedness; and that this state of felicity
and Christian triumph over all the powers of darkness will constitute the
kingdom of Christ. But this theory clashes with two invulnerable truths. It
presents the kingdom before the judgment comes, and before the slumbering
saints of previous ages are called from their dark beds of death to enjoy it;
which would be contrary to the inspired program. Furthermore, the theory of evangelizing
the world as a whole, prior to the coming of Christ, is opposed to the teaching
of Inspiration, which clearly presents the fact that evil will not only
continue to exist even down to the end of the history of humanity in mortality,
but that it will really predominate just prior to the coming of Christ: hence,
the theory which flatters men that Christ cannot come till all the world is
Christianized, is but a snare of the enemy to keep them from seeing the great
truth of our nearness to this grand event.
Jesus represents the sowing of good seed,
or " wheat " in a certain "field," and also the sowing of
" tares " in the same field by an " enemy; " and both kinds
of seed sprang up, and were allowed to grow and ripen "together." And
Jesus' own explanation of the matter (after saying, "Let them grow
together until the harvest ") is as follows: " The field is the world;
the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children
of the wicked one: the enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest IS THE
END OF THE AGE; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are
gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this age"
(Matt. 13. 30 38, 40). Here we are distinctly taught that the righteous and
wicked will remain together in this world [kosmos, or material globe] till
"the end of the world [aion, or age]," when the tares, or the wicked,
shall be "burned in the fire."
What can be plainer? Does this look like
having all the world converted? or like having all the tares changed into wheat
before the end comes? Far from it. It is an irresistible veto on that theory.
Moreover, when Christ comes, the world will be as in " the days of Noah
" (Matt. 24. 37); " also as it was in the days of Lot: they did eat,
they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built but the same day
that Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and
destroyed them all: EVEN THUS SHALL IT BE IN THE DAY WHEN THE SON OF MAN IS
REVEALED." This looks quite unlike a converted world. Then two shall be in
the bed, two in the mill, and two in the field—" one shall be taken, and
the other left; " or, in other words, one shall be saved, and the other be
lost.
The " spirits of devils, working
miracles," are to figure conspicuously upon the human stage just before
Christ shall " come as a thief" (Rev. 16. 14, 15). The symbolic
"beast" that was to slaughter God's saints for forty-two months is to
continue in existence, with the "false prophet," till the coming of
the "King of kings, and Lord of lords" (Rev. 19. 1-21). Also the
little horn on Daniel's fourth beast must continue " till the Ancient of
Days should come, and judgment be given to the saints of the Most High"
(Dan. 7. 21). If these corrupt powers continue till the coming of Christ, there
is no place for a millennium of bliss prior to His coming. We are not to look
for such events to precede the Savior’s return to reign.
All who have carefully perused the
Scriptures concede the fact that there are numerous declarations pertaining to
a coming kingdom, or predictions concerning the establishment of the kingdom of
God on earth. There is no dispute among theologians concerning this fact. But
with regard to its nature, and the time of its establishment, there are
diversities of opinion—some maintaining that it is a spiritual kingdom, instead
of being literal, and that it was set up 1,80o years ago. The only ground for
this theory is the fact that the component elements of this kingdom—such as the
king, territory, and subjects—are sometimes denominated the kingdom, on the
principle of putting a part for the whole, as in the following instances:
" For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country
" (Matt. 25. 14). Here Christ, one component element of the kingdom, is
spoken of as the " kingdom." Again: " They shall gather out of
His kingdom all things that offend" (Matt. 13. 41). Here another
element—the territory—is spoken of as the kingdom. Also, we read: " Then
shall the kingdom of heaven be likened to ten virgins" (Matt. 25. 1).
Still another element —the Church, or prospective subjects—are spoken of as the
kingdom, on the same principle of putting a part for the whole. But these
component elements are in an unorganized state at present, and must be organized
in order to be a kingdom complete. Without the organization of these elements,
there can be no setting up of the kingdom. The prospective King is now in a far
country, and must return. The territory is now in a dilapidated state, and must
be cleansed. The prospective subjects, in part, are dead, and must be raised;
and a part are living in a mortal state, and must be changed to immortality.
All this is requisite to the organization of these component elements of the kingdom,
which work involves the advent of Christ, and the resurrection of the dead:
hence, the setting up of the kingdom cannot precede the coming of Christ—no
matter how often these unfinished parts may be called by the name of the whole.
All of the parts, in their perfected state, are requisite to the formation of
the glorious whole. But we inquire:
A. What is the nature of His kingdom?
Our negative answer is, It is not
spiritual.
1. We may be met with the declaration that
the kingdom of God is "righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy
Spirit." This is characteristic of that kingdom, and, consequently, we
must be recipients of this element in order to dwell there, as counter-elements
can never enter it: but to insist that this element alone constitutes the
kingdom, would be to exclude both the King and the subjects, and make man the
territory: and instead of allowing it to be true that man is to "enter
into the kingdom," it would so change the arrangement as to have the
kingdom enter into man: besides, if this element constitutes a kingdom, its
inauguration could not have been future when the prophet Daniel said—" In
the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom " (Dan.
2. 44), for this element dwelt in the hearts of saints before Daniel's time,
because " holy men of old spoke as they were moved by the Holy
Spirit." When we read, " God is love," no one thinks of coming
to the conclusion that love is God. Why, then, should men conclude, when they
read that the kingdom of God is " righteousness, peace, and joy in the
Holy Spirit," that therefore " righteousness, peace, and joy "
is the kingdom of God? The first text gives the prominent characteristic of the
Deity, and the second gives the characteristic of the celestial kingdom. If the
first text does not prove that love is God, neither does the second prove that
"righteousness, peace, and joy " is a kingdom. One conclusion is as
logical as the other.
2. We may be reminded that Christ said,
"The kingdom of God is within you." So He did to the Pharisees, but
not to His disciples; therefore He could not have meant within the heart, but
as in the margin, "within your midst," or "among you,"
which was true of one element of the kingdom—the prospective King—a part being
put for the whole, as in other instances. But the subjects still remained in
their mortal state, and the territory, also, continued under the curse, and
even He soon took His departure " into a far country to receive for
Himself a kingdom " (Luke 19. 12), all of which proves the organization of
the kingdom then future.
3. We may be told that Jesus affirmed,
" The kingdom of heaven suffered violence, and the violent take it by
force." So He did: and while this could never be true of a spiritual
kingdom in the heart, it was true of Christ, one element of the future kingdom.
Christ suffered violence in this world, and was taken by force. So it has often
been with His saints. The theological idea of holy violence is simply
ridiculous.
To the question, What is the nature of this
kingdom? we reply affirmatively, It is literal.
1. Its component elements are all literal.
Jesus, the prospective King, is a literal Being. The raised saints, who are
destined to be the subjects, are literal beings. The territorial " kingdom
prepared from the foundation of the world," is, also, literal. With a
literal King, literal subjects, and a literal territory, we must have a literal
kingdom. Yet it will be unlike literal earthly kingdoms in one essential
particular—it will be established on the basis of immortality: the King and
subjects will live eternally, devoid of pain or sickness, "and the kingdom
shall not be left to other people," and it shall have " no end."
2. It is presented as the fifth of a
series of universal kingdoms on earth, in the second and seventh chapters of
Daniel—four of which kingdoms have been literal, leaving the principle upon
which the greater part of the prophecy has already been fulfilled as a
guarantee of the literal fulfilment of the balance. When God foretells the rise
of five universal kingdoms, and we see four of them rise as literal kingdoms,
can we query whether the fifth will be literal?
B. Its chronological place.
Its establishment cannot be in the past.
1. Because it was not to exist cotemporary
with the kingdoms of earth, but to succeed them: the " stone,"
representing the kingdom of God, was not to " fill the whole earth "
till the image was "broken to pieces," and " carried away "
as by an irresistible tornado, " that no place was found for them."
This is not in the past.
2. It is still a matter of
"promise" and not of actual possession; and the saints are yet only
"heirs " td it, and not possessors: "Hearken, my beloved
brethren, hath not God chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith, and heirs
of the kingdom which He hath promised to them that love Him? " As long as
the saints are "heirs" to it, it cannot be in their possession—cannot
be in the past.
It is still future.
1. Because after Christ had enumerated a
long chain of events to precede His second coming, He adds: " When ye see
these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at
hand." (Luke 21. 31). These events span the Gospel age, reaching nearly to
the revelation of the Savior: hence, the establishment of the kingdom is subsequent
to this age—agreeing with Christ's statement at His trial, "My kingdom is
not from hence"—not from that time.
2. The seer of Patmos places it after the
sounding of the seventh angel: "And the seventh angel sounded; .... the
kingdoms of this world are become the kingdom of our Lord and His Christ, and
He shall reign forever and ever" (Rev. 11. 5). The resurrection of the
dead being connected with the sounding of this trumpet, shows it a future
scene, and, consequently, proves the ushering in of the kingdom still future.
3. Daniel locates it not only after the
ten divisions of the " fourth kingdom," but, also, subsequent to the
history of the horn, which was to rise after these divisions, and continue to
exist till the coming of the Ancient of Days (Dan. 7. 21). These conspicuous
facts cannot be obliterated.
C. Its geographical place.
Is it to be in heaven or on earth? Not in
heaven, for there has been order there for ages past, and it does not need to
be superseded by a better arrangement; indeed, such a claim would virtually
cast reflections on the former government of Jehovah. But this long-foretold
kingdom is to be inaugurated in a realm where disorder and evil have long
predominated, and where such a change would be a blessing, namely, in the
earth. The proof is abundant.
1. Daniel informs us that it shall be
" under the whole heaven" (Dan. 7. 27). This is explicit.
2. The Apostle informs us that it will be
composed of the " kingdoms of this world," minus their unholy inhabitants,
whom God will "destroy."
3. Christ informs us that it is to include
the territorial " kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world "
(Matt. 25. 34).
4, At the " end of this world "
Christ " shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of His
kingdom all things that offend " (Matt. 13. 41). The wicked are to be
disinherited preparatory to giving it to the raised saints. Then the "
meek shall inherit," and forever " reign on the earth."
THAT the dead saints are too literally
live again is a truth clearly set forth in the Scriptures, despite modern
efforts to spiritualize the doctrine of the resurrection. Isaiah could affirm
with confidence, " Thy dead men shall LIVE, together with my dead body shall
they ARISE; AWAKE and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of
herbs, and the earth shall cast out the DEAD " (Isa. 26. 19). Here is a
resurrection promised which takes hold of "dead men," even the
"dead BODY," and not of an undying entity that is to be raised from
the body at its death, as one class of theologians now teach. This resurrection
takes hold of the very matter that has been deposited in the earth; " for
the earth shall cast out the dead." In this resurrection the dead saints
are to "awake," and "arise," and "live." As the
dews of spring put new life into the dead herbage, so the dew of Jehovah's
power, after the winter of death has ended, and the resurrection spring-time
has come, shall come in contact with the lifeless forms of God's children, and
infuse new life into them, and the "dead body" of every saint will
both "arise" and "live."
In sweet contemplation of this grand
event, "our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Savior,
the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned
like unto His glorious body" (Phil. 3. 20, 21). Thus we discover that,
when "the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the
voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God, and the dead in Christ shall
rise first," not only will the dead saints be made alive, but, by virtue
of a special change, the once " vile body" will be fashioned like
unto Christ's glorious body, of whom it is affirmed, " Christ, being
raised from the dead, dies no more; death hath no more dominion over Him"
(Rom. 6. 9). So when the saints are raised and "changed," death will
have no more dominion over them; and well might Jesus affirm, "They that
shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the
dead, . . . . neither can they die any more, for they are equal to the angels,
and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection "
(Luke 20. 36).
Those who share in this resurrection once
could die, as the saying, " Neither can they die anymore," clearly
proves; but this could not be said of a deathless entity, that had escaped from
the body at death. In view of a literal resurrection, Paul could say, " If
the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that
raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken [make alive] YOUR MORTAL
BODIES by His Spirit that dwelleth in you" (Rom. 8. 11); and immediately
after this statement he adds, " Ourselves also, which have the first
fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the
adoption, to wit, THE REDEMPTION OF OUR BODY " (ver. 23). Here reference
is made to "mortal bodies;" and after asserting that Jesus was raised
up " from the dead " by the Spirit, we are told that the same Spirit
shall " also make alive our mortal bodies." As " that which thou
sowed is not quickened except it die," the quickening here referred to
relates to something that had died, as well as to " mortal bodies;"
that is, reference is made to " mortal bodies " that had died; as
that which is not dead cannot be quickened, or made alive; and that which is
already alive cannot be made alive; so this making alive of dead " mortal
bodies " cannot be spiritualized away.
In connection with this thought comes
" the redemption of our body;" and certainly death does not redeem
the body, but drags it into a firmer bondage, and will hold it till a literal
resurrection shall liberate it; and without a literal resurrection " the redemption
of the body" cannot be realized, except in the act of translation at the
coming of Christ.
The advocates of a spiritual resurrection
inform us that the material man passes through a total change once in seven
years, and assert that the man who is seventy years old has had ten different
bodies, and then ask, Which one of the ten is to be raised? If this
seven-year-change theory is unqualifiedly correct, the human body is never over
seven years of age; consequently the man who is seventy years old should have
been a grey-headed man ten times, as the tenth body is not a day older than the
first one in the series. Then why is not the first body as infirm as the tenth?
Why should not the first body as really wear grey hairs as the tenth? Why is
not the human face covered with wrinkles at the age of seven, seeing the body
is never any older? Certainly, if this theory is correct, the first body, being
as old as the tenth, should be mature, grey-headed, wrinkled-face, and infirm;
for it certainly cannot be claimed that the soul produces these results;
causing one body, at the age of seven years, to bloom with health and vigor,
and another body of the same age to be infirm and grey! If this theory is a
reliable argument against a literal resurrection, why is it that the person who
is once afflicted with the small-pox or measles can never take the same disease
again? Why may not a man have the smallpox every seven years, if he has a body
entirely new so often? It cannot be said that the small-pox is a malady that
afflicts an immortal soul within the material man, as well as the man of dust,
and that the continued residence of this same soul in several successive bodies
is the reason why only one of these seven-year bodies can be afflicted with
this disease. Hence, if this theory is really a valid argument against a
literal resurrection, no good reason can be given why the small-pox may not be
ten times experienced in the history of the man who lives to be seventy years
old. And yet all know this is not a possible thing.
This theory, carried out, would endlessly
perpetuate human life, except when disease or accident Might cut it short; for,
if the first seven-year body could wind up its history in health and vigor,
unless prevented by some disease or accident, so might the tenth, the
twentieth, the fiftieth, the hundredth, and so on endlessly. But facts deny the
possibility of this, even if all accidents and diseases could be warded off.
If this is a valid argument against a
literal resurrection, it can be used with equal force in favor of several
absurdities. For instance, a man and woman are married, and thus the woman
" is bound by the law to her husband so long as he lives " (Rom. 7. 2);
but, at the end of seven years, the wife can claim that she is not the woman
that entered into the marriage contract with that man; there not being a
particle of matter in her system which helped to make her body seven years
before, when the marriage took place. Thus, if this theory is good for anything
against a literal resurrection, it liberates people from their marriage
covenants once in seven years, and charges every one with adultery who will not
then marry anew, or dissolve their family relation. Should the objector say,
" They have the same souls that they had at their marriage." I ask,
Are deathless souls married to each other "so long as they live?" If
so, it would not only carry the marriage covenant into the "spirit
world," but it would also involve the ridiculous idea that the man who had
married several wives here would have several spirit-wives there; and the man
who had married a widow here, would have to contest his claim there with her
former husband! Besides, what if the spirit-wife should be saved, and the
spirit-husband should be damned? Would the marriage contract stand?
Who believes that people are released from
the marriage covenant every seven years? It is so if this argument disproves a
literal resurrection, unless it should be claimed that the soul is married to
the soul; and then, who is willing to accept the inevitable but revolting
conclusion that the marriage covenant extends into the much-talked-of
"spirit world," with its plurality of spirit-wives, and the scene of
strife in deciding which spirit-man shall claim the spirit-widow who had been married
several times? This is the legitimate result of this theory which is used to
disprove the possibility of a literal resurrection.
Again: The murderer, who, for seven years.
has eluded the grasp of the pursuing officer, is finally captured, tried, and
taken to the gallows to be hung till he is " dead." But, adopting
this theology, he insists that he is not the man who committed the murder,
claiming that there is not a particle of the matter in his system that helped
to make up the body of the murderer. Now, if this theory really obliterates the
doctrine of a literal resurrection, that man is entitled to his release. But
will it be said that he has the same soul that dwelt in the murderer? Well, can
you inflict the penalty upon a soul which you say is immortal—hang it till it
is " dead, dead, DEAD?" If you could do this impossibility, would you
be justified in killing an innocent body with it? If you could not, would it be
right to murder an innocent body, when by so doing you could not expect to kill
the guilty soul? Will men use an argument to disprove a real resurrection which
will just as clearly sanction such monstrous absurdities?
Yet this theory has just enough truth
about it to deceive many. It has been scientifically determined that in the human
system there are a variety of "life-cells," which are the receivers
of nourishment in one of its stages and are capable of contraction or
expansion; and thus the human system is replenished; and, as there is a gradual
passing off of substances received into the life-cells, the system is at times
diminished: thus a man is at one time heavier, and at another time lighter; and
this passing off of matter thus received into the system has been unjustly
construed into the claim that the entire man undergoes a change.
In addition to the claim that a literal
resurrection is impossible, we are told there is no need of raising the
material man if the spirit-man continues to live after the body-man dies. That
"if" is well employed; for, although we believe man has a spirit, we
are not warranted in believing that it is a personality, either in the body or
out of it, as we shall show elsewhere. But we inquire if the so-called
spirit-man has no necessary connection with the body-man, and can live, think,
and act without it, why did God make a body-man to put the spirit-man into? If
the spirit-man does not need the body-man after death, did it need it before
death? If the body-man is only a prison-house
for the spirit-man to live in, why was it
first imprisoned there? If the body-man has always been a detriment, a clog, a
shackle to the spirit-man, was it not a mistake to make a body-man, seeing the
spirit-man would have been so much better off without it? If the body-man forever
passes into oblivion at death, and has only been a hindrance to the spirit-man
during its existence, why was it ever made?
In the light of this theory, seeing no
need of a resurrection of the material body, the conclusion has been that only
the soul is to participate in the resurrection glory; that there is no
resurrection OF the dead, but merely a resurrection FROM the dead; a mere
resurrection, or rising up of the internal living man from the external dead
man, at the hour of death, forgetting that inspiration has affirmed that
"the earth shall cast out the dead," and that "dead men shall
live" (Isa. 26. 19).
Those who deny a resurrection of the body
render themselves obnoxious to the charge which the Savior thundered in the
ears of the Sadducees, who also denied a resurrection: "Ye do greatly err,
not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God." God's power to raise the
dead should not be limited or questioned. When He speaks let us believe, even
if it clashes with "vain philosophy." Said Job—"Though after my
skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God " (chap. 19.
26), He here makes a thrust at modern skepticism, which claims that the body
cannot be reanimated after having become food for worms. Job forestalls the
sceptic, and admits that worms might eat up his body, and then affirms that, notwithstanding
this, he should, in his flesh, see God, " at the latter day," when
his Redeemer should come.
The nature of the future resurrection is
clearly foreshadowed by the resurrection of Christ, who was raised as the
" first fruits " of the great resurrection harvest of holy ones, or,
in other words, as the sample or specimen (1 Cor. 15. 20, 23). The harvest must
be like the " first-fruits," or specimen. Therefore, if Christ's
resurrection consisted merely in the rising of the soul from the body at the
hour of death, then may our resurrection be of the same character. After
Christ's resurrection He affirms, "I am He that lives and was dead"
(Rev. 1. 18). That part of Christ which shared in the resurrection had once
been " dead." Thus that part of the saint which is "dead"
must rise, as the harvest must resemble the "first fruits." "It
is sown a natural BODY, It is raised a spiritual BODY " —not a spirit.
" There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body: and so it is
written, The first man, Adam, was made a living soul [a natural body]: the last
Adam was made [by the resurrection] a quickening spirit [or spiritual body].
Howbeit that was not first which was spiritual, but that which is natural; and
afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy [the
natural body]; the second man is the Lord from heaven [the spiritual body] . .
. . And as we have borne the image of the earthy [body], we shall also bear the
image of the heavenly" (1 Cor. 15. 44-49). Thus the Apostle argues that
our mortal body is the " natural body," and the resurrection body is
to be the spiritual body; and the raised body of Christ is pointed to as a sample
of the " spiritual body," with the assurance that the natural body is
"first," and the spiritual body " afterward;" hence the
statement " we shall also “bear the image of the heavenly," or have
our bodies "fashioned like Christ's glorious body." Paul never
represents the " natural body " and the " spiritual body "
as existing contemporaneously; but the "natural" is
"first," and the " spiritual " is " afterward;"
Christ, " the first fruits," being mentioned as having already
received the spiritual body.
We are reminded that Paul in speaking of
the resurrection illustrates it by the practice of sowing grain, and then we
are told that there is a "germ" in the grain that does not die. It is
true that Paul uses the custom of sowing grain to illustrate our present naked
or unclothed condition, in contrast with our clothed condition at the
resurrection, when we shall be "clothed upon, that mortality might be
swallowed up of life;" and this he does by using the "bare," or
unclothed grain, to represent us in our mortal state; its own species in the
harvest, ripe and clothed, to represent our clothed state at the resurrection
harvest. But Paul says not a word about a " germ;" and we should not
make more of his illustration than he used it for. However, if theologians will
crowd upon us the question of the germ, which Paul never hinted at, we inquire,
Does the farmer separate the germ from the grain when he sows it? or does he
sow the germ with the grain? Does he carry the germ up chamber, and leave the
grain to rot in the ground? or is the germ thus separated for a time, and
afterward connected with the grain to make it sprout? Then why insist that a
spirit-germ, as a personality, is disconnected from the body? Let germ and body
go together, or be silent about the "germ." But Paul settles the
whole question by telling us, " This mortal must put on immortality"
(v. 53). This blots out the theory of a spiritual resurrection for the
saints—the "mortal" part must rise.
THE doctrine of a future literal
resurrection is believed by many who see no need of having the dead live again.
They have imbibed the idea that death is a great liberator and glorious
benefactor to the saints of God, instead of being an "enemy," as Paul
affirms; and that death will open the door of glory for them, and usher them
into the rapturous Paradise of God, the home of the angels. And if death really
accomplishes all this for the saints, what could a resurrection add to their
felicity? If all this can be gained without a resurrection, well may the
question be asked, What need of a resurrection? But when we learn that the
resurrection is a prerequisite to judgment, and must therefore precede the
judgment, and that there is no such thing as entering the kingdom of God
previous to the judgment, we can see the need of the resurrection.
When we discover that there must be a
resurrection before there can be a judgment, and that there must be a judgment
before men can enter the celestial kingdom, the resurrection at once appears
needful. And this very truth is taught in the Scriptures:
"And death and hades DELIVERED UP the
dead that were in them: and THEY WERE JUDGED every man according to their
works" (Rev. 20. 13).
Christ comes with "the keys of hades
and death," and the "dead" are then "delivered up" to
be "judged." Thus the " dead" remain unjudged till they are
" delivered up;" and there is no way for death to deliver up the dead
except by having them live again; for death holds them just as long as they remain
dead: but the dead ones must come out of death's dark prison before being
" judged," and they must be judged before being rewarded; for reward
is the result of judgment.
When we consider the fact that death
merely shuts the saints up in its dark prison, instead of transporting them to
glory, the necessity of a resurrection is made still more apparent. Look at the
saints of Bible-times, as they have approached the dying hour, and learn
whether they regarded death as the door to glory, or to the land of the enemy.
When God sent the prophet Isaiah to read a death-warrant to Hezekiah, who had
" a perfect heart," *saying to him, "Thou shalt die and not live
" (Isa. 38. 1), how did it affect him? Did it fill him with enthusiastic
joy? It certainly would have produced this effect, seeing he had a "
perfect heart," if he had looked upon death as the door to a realm of
felicity. But was this a cheering message to him? No: "Hezekiah wept
sore." Would a saint, having a " perfect heart," thus weep if
told that the time had come for him to enter the kingdom of glory? Would the
opening of a door into glory cause a saint to weep? But this is not all:
Hezekiah fervently prays to have death deferred. But was that prayer a petition
for the privilege of staying out of glory a little while longer? Who will take
this position? And yet it amounts to that if death is the door to Paradise. But
in answer to his prayer, God " added to his days fifteen years." Was
this merely a permit for him to stay out of glory fifteen years longer? Was it
not rather a permit for him to stay out of death's dark prison a little longer?
So Hezekiah understood it; for immediately after his recovery, he remarks:
" Thou halt in love to my soul delivered it from the pit of
corruption" (v. 17).
If death were really the door into the
world of bliss, would it not have been cruel for Jesus to have wrought that
miracle on Lazarus, thus calling him out of glory after he had " four days
" enjoyed the society of angels, with harp and palm and crown in his possession?
Did Christ work a miracle to call a saint out of glory? Who will affirm it? Was
it not rather to call him out of the prison of death? (John 11. 44).
Epaphroditus "was sick nigh unto
death: but God had mercy on him" (Phil. 2. 27) in healing him. Provided
death were the door to glory, and a saint were already "nigh " that
door, would it not be a strange kind of "mercy" to close the door
against him, and keep him out? Is it really an act of " mercy " to
prevent saints from entering glory? Who will say it is? Is it not rather an act
of mercy to keep the saint from being shut up in death's dark prison?
Was Paul fearful of entering glory, when
his life was at stake, and he was " let down in a basket " (Acts 9. 25),
thus making his escape, either from the door to death's gloomy prison, or from
the door to glory—which?
Anciently to preach that " the
resurrection is past already " had a tendency to " overthrow the
faith of some," which could not be the case if death were the door to
glory.
HAVING learned that the "dead in
Christ shall rise" when " the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven
with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God,"
we wish to find out where these raised saints are to live. When called from
their graves as literal beings, really alive, never more to die, they must have
some home in which to live. In what region will they dwell? Christ, in carrying
us down to the time when the resurrection will take place, says: " When
the Son of Man shall come in His glory, . . . then shall the King say unto them
on His right hand, Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared
for you from the foundation of the world" (Matt. 25. 31-34). God's
original plan was correct, and will yet be carried out. When He created the
world, " He formed it to be inhabited" by man, in a state of holiness;
and He created man to dwell in it as his home, even forever, provided he would
be obedient; and man was put on probation for endless life, "the tree of
life" being placed before him, that at the end of his term of trial he
might "eat and live forever" in the very world that God had made on
purpose for him to dwell in. And while on probation, man was commanded to
" be fruitful and multiply " (Gen. 1. 28). Thus it is evident that it
was God's original plan to have the earth populated with a race of holy and
deathless human beings to all eternity. But before man had reached the close of
his term of probation, sin was introduced: so God shut man away from the tree
of life, "lest he should put forth his hand, and eat and live forever
" in a sinful state.
Thus man was cut off from endless life,
while in his fallen condition. Now God gives man another probation; and this
time He places him on trial for holiness, as well as for eternal life. Before,
man already possessed the Divine favor, and was merely on trial for endless
life; but now, having lost the favor of God, as well as the offer of endless
life, he is placed on probation with the conditional offer of the Divine favor,
and the conditional offer of eternal life—the Divine favor to be secured
through faith in Christ; and eternal life to be secured by union to Him, and to
be obtained " in the world to come."
After man had sinned, his home, in which
he might have lived forever, free from sorrow, falls under the curse:
"Cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the
days of thy life " (Gen. 3. 18). The curse still rests on the earth; but
the time is coming when this sin-cursed and dilapidated earth shall be
restored. God once washed it with a flood of water, blotting out a rebellious
race, and commencing the world anew: but wickedness soon overspread the earth
again; and now God purposes to deluge the earth with " fire," which
will both sweep off the wicked, and purge the polluted globe. "The heavens
and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto
FIRE against the day of judgment, and perdition of ungodly men, . . . in the
which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, . . . wherein the heavens
being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent
heat. Nevertheless, we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a
new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness" (2 Pet. 3. 7, 10, 12, 13).
This same great " change " of
the present heavens and earth into new heavens and a new earth, after having
perished in the coming deluge of fire, is mentioned by the Psalmist: " Of
old hast Thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of
Thy hands. They shall perish [in the coming deluge of fire], but thou shalt
endure; yea, all of them ' shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt
thou CHANGE them, and they shall be changed" (Ps. 102. 25, 26). Thus earth
and the surrounding atmospheric heavens are not only to "perish," hut
they are also to be "changed," instead of being annihilated; and in
their changed condition, after the great conflagration, they are styled the
" new heavens and new earth." And there the righteous will dwell; for
the seer of Patmos speaks, concerning the same new earth-home of the redeemed,
as follows: "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven
and the first earth were passed away, and there was no more sea. And I John saw
the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a
bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven, saying,
Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with then, and
they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them and be their God.
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more
death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for
the former things are passed away. And He that sat upon the throne said,
Behold, I make all things new " (Rev. 21. 1-5). " New " heavens,
" new" earth, " new" city, and " new " people,
with a " new " King, constituting a " new " kingdom, and a
" new " Paradise.
This new earth-home is to be a sinless,
tearless, graveless, sorrowless, painless, and deathless realm.
But when is this new earth-Paradise to be
enjoyed by the saints? Peter introduces it after the deluge of fire; and John
also gives it the same chronological place; for, just before mentioning the
introduction of the new earth, he had carried us down to the resurrection, the
judgment, and the punishment of the wicked, in the following language:
"And I saw a great white throne, and Him that sat on it, from whose face
the earth and the heavens fled away; and there was no place found for them. And
I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened:
and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were
judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their
works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hades
delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man
according to their works. And death and hades were cast into the lake of fire.
This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of
life was cast into the lake of fire " (Rev. 20.1-15). The very next
statement, after this description of the resurrection, the judgment, and the
casting out of the wicked into the "lake of fire," is this:
"And I saw a new heaven and a new
earth." The subject has been unwisely obscured by beginning a new chapter
in the middle of the subject. So we now discover that John brings to view the
resurrection, the judgment, the final disposal of the wicked, or "
perdition of ungodly men " in the future deluge of fire, and next in order
he introduces the new earth-home of the saved.
But where are the raised saints to be
while the wicked are being destroyed, and the earth is passing through its
fiery baptism? Paul tells us that the saints are to be " caught up" when
the resurrection takes place: " The dead in Christ shall rise first: then
we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the
clouds' to meet the Lord in the air" t Thess. 4. i6, i7). The prophet
Isaiah also affirms: "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body
shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the
dew of herbs: and the earth shall cast out the dead. [What next?] Come, my
people, enter thou into thy chambers, shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself
as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast. For behold,
the Lord cometh out of His place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for
their iniquity " (Isa. 26. 19-21).
Thus the raised saints and the changed
living saints are to be caught up to meet the Lord, and dwell in their
celestial chambers till the " indignation " ends: for while the
saints are thus housed away, the Lord is to "punish the inhabitants of the
earth for their iniquity;" and this "perdition of ungodly men"
is to be in the "fire" unto which the earth is " reserved,"
or in the " lake of fire " which will be formed by the out gushing of
the sea of fire now in the bowels of the earth, so frequently showing
indisputable proof of its present smothered existence through those volcanoes
that vomit out floods of fire and lava. But let it be remembered that the
saints are to remain above only "till the indignation be overpast;"
then the saints and the city shall " come down from God out of heaven;"
and then " the tabernacle of God shall be with men," and then "
there shall be no more death," in consideration of the fact that "
the former things are passed away."
Then will God's plan in creating this
globe be carried out, and the "very kingdom prepared from the foundation
of the world " be given to the saints in its renovated condition, well
adapted to their immortal state. Then will Paradise bloom on earth under the
" second Adam," who has already stood His trial successfully, more gloriously
than it bloomed while the first Adam was on trial. Then the saints will dwell
where once sin predominated, and evil-doers flourished " like the green
bay tree;" but this will be after " the redemption of the purchased
possession after its redemption from the power of Satan and his emissaries, and
also from the curse.
Jesus testifies (Matt. 8. 11, 12)
concerning the future home of the saints as follows: " I say unto you,
That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham,
and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven; but the children of the kingdom
shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of
teeth."
Here we learn that the previous possessors
of the very kingdom which the saints are finally to sit down in are to be
disinherited. In another discourse Christ remarks: " As therefore the
tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so shall it be in the end of this
world. The Son of Man shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of
His kingdom ALL THINGS THAT OFFEND, and THEM WHICH DO INIQUITY; and shall cast
them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then
shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.
"(Matt. 13. 40-43). Here we learn that the former occupants of the kingdom
which the saints are hereafter to " shine forth " in are to be
dispossessed preparatory to giving it to the saints; and also learn that
evil-doers once possessed it. But there is to be a mighty revolution in human
affairs when Jesus comes. Sin will end, and righteousness fill the earth.
THE testimony of inspired witnesses on
this point is abundant and clear. Let us look at a little of the strong
evidence bearing upon the question.
Said Jesus: " Behold, I come quickly:
and My reward is with Me, to give every Man according as his work shall be
" (Rev. 22. 12). " For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of His
Father with His angels; and then He shall reward every man according to his
works " (Matt. 16. 27). " Thou shalt be recompensed at the
resurrection of the just " (Luke 14. 14). "Thy wrath is come, and the
time of the dead that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give
reward unto Thy servants the prophets, and to the saints" (Rev. 11. 18).
Could testimony be plainer? Does it not connect the Christian's reward with the
coming of Christ at the resurrection of the just? And does it not also place
the reward of the prophets at the same point of time? In view of this fact,
well might Paul say: " When Christ who is our life shall appear, THEN
shall ye also appear with Him in glory " (Col. 3. 4). And in consideration
of this truth, Christ could say: " I will come again, and receive you unto
myself" (John 14. 3).
Thus the truth is clearly stated, that
Christ is to receive the saints unto Himself, and that the saints are to enter
glory at Christ's appearing. Why not enter glory before? Because they cannot
enter glory unjudged, and the judgment is at the coming of Christ. Why does not
Christ receive the saints unto Himself before He comes again? Because He does
not judge them before His coming; and it would be a shocking idea to see unjudged
men entering glory, and subsequently see them all turned out of glory, to
appear before the judgment seat of Christ, to be judged.
Peter informs the faithful that they
should be re- warded with a "crown of glory," and also tells them
when they should get it: " When the Chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall
receive a crown of glory that fades not away " (1 Pet. 5. 4). Paul speaks
to the same effect: " Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of
righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day:
and not to me only, but unto all them also that love His appearing" (2
Tim. 4. 8). This crown is to be given by the " righteous Judge;" and
as Christ is not to "judge" the living and the dead till His
"appearing," the crown cannot be given before the appearing of
Christ.
Job expected to see his Redeemer " at
the latter clay " (Job 19. 25); David expected to be " satisfied
" when he should " awake " from death's slumbers, in the Savior’s
"likeness" (Ps. 17. 15); Isaiah prayed that his Redeemer might
"rend the heavens and come down " (Isa. 64.1); Ezekiel's attention
was fixed upon the time when God should " open the graves " of His
people, and cause them " to come up out of their graves," and "
enter the land of Israel " (Ezek. 37. 12); Jeremiah's mind was directed to
the time when the slaughtered innocents should " come again from the land
of the enemy" (Jer. 31. 15); Daniel records a time to come when "
many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to
everlasting life," and deliverance come to "every one that shall be
found written in the book (Dan. 12. 1); Christ predicts a time when "they
that shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world" to come "and the
resurrection " shall be made " equal to the angels " (Luke 20. 36);
John could affirm, "We know that when He shall appear, we shall be like
Him" (1 John 3. 2); Paul tells us of ancient saints who " died in
faith not having received the promises," affirming that "they without
us should not be made perfect " (Heb. 11. 13, 40); Peter exhorts us to
" hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto us at the
revelation of Jesus Christ" (I Pet. 1. 13); and the beloved disciple could
exclaim: "Even so, come, Lord Jesus."
In fact, all God's inspired saints have
had their eyes fixed upon this glorious event as the time of redemption and
reward.
CERTAINLY not, unless it is rewarded
before the judgment, and that would be a curious notion—one reward for the soul
before the judgment, and another reward for the body after the judgment! This
theology has no existence in the Book of God, and is utterly subversive of the
doctrine of a future judgment-day, so clearly taught in the Bible. Whether the
spirit is to be recognized as a distinct personality, or otherwise, Paul's
desire Was, " that the spirit may be saved IN THE DAY OF THE LORD
JESUS" (1 Cor. 5. 5); and when that day comes the judgment comes, and the
spirit will then be connected with the body: so it will not be saved before the
judgment, nor independent of the body, even if it were a deathless personality.
The Scriptures often speak of man's spirit
and soul; and the inference has been drawn that the spirit is an organized
entity within man, that can exist as a personality independent of the body,
sometimes bearing the name of spirit, and sometimes called soul. But, upon
examination, we find that these terms are never from the same original word,
though used hundreds of times; hence, soul and spirit are not the same; and the
same kind of proof that is used to show that the spirit is a personality within
man would as clearly prove that the soul is a personality also; and that would
prove two entities in one man, as really as one.
To prove that the spirit is an entity
distinct from the body, we are often referred to 1 Thessalonians 5. 23: "
I pray God your spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless." This
simply proves that man has a spirit and soul as well as a body; but if it
proves the spirit an entity distinct from the body, it as clearly proves the
soul an entity distinct from the spirit; agreeing with Hebrews 4. 12: "
Piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit"—showing that
they are not one, whether entities or not! We believe that man has both a
spirit and a soul; but not in the sense of an organized personality within the
person, or an invisible man within the man. We as really read 'of the
"spirit of the beast" (Eccles. 3. 21) as " spirit of the man;
" but are we therefore to conclude that every beast has an invisible organized
beast within that escapes a beastly prison at death! We read of the "
seven spirits of God " (Rev. 3.1): but does this signify seven entities?
or so many elements? Sometimes a class of beings are called spirits; as God,
angels, devils, and men; but whenever the SPIRIT OF A BEING is spoken of, the
term never signifies an entity, but an element, or an influence, residing in,
or proceeding from, the being, as in the examples already cited —" spirit
of the beast "—" spirit of man"—" seven spirits of
God."
MAN possesses a mental spirit—the mind, or
6. some of its passions, often being referred to under the term spirit: but
mind, instead of being an organized personality, or entity, is simply the
result of a well-arranged organism. The character and nature of the mind
clearly proves this, for (1) the mind is feeble in infancy; not a feeble
spirit-entity: (2) mind matures with the body; not a spirit-entity thus
maturing: (3) mind is often affected by disease; and a spirit-entity could not
be thus affected: (4) mind frequently becomes insane; and a spirit-entity could
not get deranged: (5) mind becomes childish in old age; a spirit-entity would
not thus reach maturity and then decline: (6) mind, on a smaller scale, is
developed in the beasts, for " the ox KNOWETH his owner, and the ass his
master's crib" (Isa. 1. 3); but this is not regarded as proof of a
spirit-entity in the beast: (7) mind dies; " In that very day his thoughts
perish" (Ps. 146. 4).
2. Man possesses the "spirit of
life," or " breath of life "—not the breath of air, but the
"breath of LIFE;" an element that produces life alike in man and
beast, and is manifested long prior to birth or before inhaling the breath of
air—not an entity, but an element. This spirit will return to God who gave it;
and " the body without [this] spirit is dead": with it we live,
without it we die. The spirit that returns to God is simply the one that He
"gave:" and the record says that was the " breath of LIFE,"
or " spirit of life " (Gen. 2. 7). We inhale and exhale the breath of
air several hundred times each hour; but never does the "breath of
LIFE," or "spirit of life," leave us till death; and after death
a large amount of air still remains in the lungs; but life is extinct when the
" spirit of life." leaves.
So, while the mental spirit, or mind of
man, may die, the spirit of life cannot properly be said to die, because it
never lived, but simply produced life, or caused man and beast to live. An
element cannot die or live. So while it is true that man has a spirit, it is
never spoken of as masculine, or feminine; but always in the neuter gender; for
it always signifies either the mind, which dies with the body, or "the
spirit of life " —an element that leaves man at death.
If man possesses an immortal
spirit-entity, what is its origin? How and when is it connected with the body? (1)
Is it transmitted? Mortality cannot transmit immortality, as the stream cannot
rise higher than the fountain: hence, it cannot be transmitted unless the
spirit propagates its species independent of the body: and if it does, why not
continue to do so after leaving its prison-house of clay, and thus eternally
augment the number of spirit-entities in the spirit land? If we say this
spirit-entity is transmitted, since mortality cannot transmit immortality, it
must be transmitted by spirit-entities, involving the idea of male and female
spirits; furthermore, if spirits propagate their species either in or out of
the body, it involves them in mortality: for that which is transmitted is
divisible, and that which is divisible is destructible, and hence not immortal.
This is plain to all.
(2) If not transmitted, is it created at
birth? If so, it makes God sanction all the whoredom in the land, by imparting
a spirit-entity to every illegitimate child. Is He continually laboring to help
men to transgress His own commandments?
(3) If this spirit-entity is neither
transmitted, nor directly created at birth, is it a pre-existent entity? If so,
why do we not remember our former existence? Could a spirit-entity forget its
former existence by coming into a tabernacle of clay? If so, why do not those
spirits who enter spirit mediums forget the scenes in the spirit land, and even
forget their former existence, and remain in the medium till the death of the
body, instead of giving their history of the spirit-land and departing again?
But if memory is not destroyed by coming into the body, why do we not remember
our former existence, if we ever had such an existence?
We can easily find the origin of man's
spirit of life (an element that causes man to live), and also the origin of his
mental spirit, resulting from his organization; but if man has a spirit-entity
within, give us its origin. To deny that it has an origin is to deny its
existence, unless it is a personal god, and then its memory could not be
blotted out by entering a house of clay, nor would a god shut himself up in
such a prison-house voluntarily, and could not be placed there compulsively.
The Bible asserts that man has a spirit,
but theologians assume in the absence of proof that that spirit is an entity,
and that it its also immortal. The Bible also asserts that the beast has a
spirit—then why do they not claim that that spirit is also an entity, and
likewise immortal? If one is an immortal entity, why not the other? The term
spirit [Heb. ruach, Gr. Pneuma] is applied to different classes of beings, good
and bad; but when the spirit of a being is spoken of, it always represents
either the mind, or some of its passions, or an element in a being, or an
influence from a being.
THIS term never signifies an entity within
man; but it signifies primarily PERSON, as in the following instance: "
The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul" (Gen. 2. 7), or
person. In a secondary sense it signifies life, or the mind. The Hebrew term
nephesh, from which soul is translated, is one hundred and twenty times
rendered life, in the singular and plural; and the Greek term psuche is forty
times translated life. The present life is temporal, but the Christian, through
Christ, secures endless life, which " life is hid with Christ in God;
" for " this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and
THIS LIFE is in His Son " (1 John 5. 11). So the saint has an endless life
deposited in Christ: hence, Christ could say, " Fear not them that kill
the body, but are not able to kill the soul " [psuche], or life; this
future life of the saint is out of the reach of the assassin; but the sinner's
future life [soul, or psuche] will be destroyed with the body in hell, at the
judgment-day (Matt 10. 28). " My soul " sometimes signifies myself,
and sometimes my mind; but we have already seen that mind is not an entity, but
the result of organism, liable to changes, and a victim of death. If the soul
were an immortal entity, it would involve the idea of reward at death, contrary
to Scripture and to the faith of the early Christians and Reformers.
1. Saints are not rewarded at death, but
at the judgment-day (read Luke 14. 14; Rev. 11. 18; 1 Pet. 5. 4; Col. 3. 3; 1
John 3. 2).
2. The soul is not immortal, but dies (Ps.
78. 50; Ezek. 18. 4; Ps. 22. 29; Rev. 16. 3; Ps. 89. 48; 49. 15)
3. The dead are unconscious till the
resurrection. (Eccles. 9. 5; 3. 19; Ps. 115. 17; 6. 5; 146. 4).
4. This is not a new doctrine, but harmonizes
with the views of primitive Christians, from which Christendom has apostatized.
Says Justin Martyr, who was born fifty-six years after the cross, and martyred
at the age of seventy-four: " If therefore you fall in with certain who
are called Christians, who confess not this truth, but dare to blaspheme the
God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in that they say there is no resurrection
of the dead, but that immediate?), when they die their souls are received up into
heaven, avoid them, and esteem them not Christians."
Says Eusebius, in speaking of a class of
Christians in the third century, "These asserted that the human soul, so
long as the present state of the world exists, perished at death, and died with
the body, but that it would be raised again with the body at the time of the
resurrection" (p. 153).
Says Martin Luther, in his Defense (prop.
27): " I permit the Pope to make articles of faith for himself and his
faithful, such as that he is emperor of the world, king of heaven, and God upon
earth—that the SOUL IS IMMORTAL, with all these monstrous opinions to be found
in the Roman dunghill of decretals." Again he says: " All souls lie
and sleep till doomsday."
Duke George, in writing to Duke John,
October 15th, 1521, says: "Some deny the immortality of the soul. . . .
All this comes of Luther's teachings." The Reformers were also charged
with stating: " All which had been said about the immortality of the soul
was invented by Antichrist for the purpose of making the Pope's pot boil."
In a work published in London, in 1772,
entitled An Historical View (p. 348), it is recorded that Luther taught that
souls "lay in a profound sleep, in which opinion he followed many Fathers
of the ancient Church." It adds: " The doctrine was held by the first
Reformers." Also: " Luther died in the faith."
Says William Tyndale, who first translated
the Scriptures into the English language, for which he was martyred: "If
the souls be in heaven, tell me why they be not in as good case as the angels
be? " Again he says: "And ye, in putting them in heaven, hell, and
purgatory, destroy the arguments wherewith Christ and Paul prove the
resurrection. . . . The heathen philosophers did put that the souls did ever
live."
Says John Milton, author of Paradise Lost,
in advocating the unconscious state of the dead: "It is evident that the
saints and believers of old, the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles, without
exception, hold this doctrine."
Says Herodotus, over four hundred years
before Christ: " The Egyptians were the first who asserted the doctrine
that the soul is immortal" (p. 144) Protestants received the doctrine of
the immortality of the soul from the Papists, and the Papists received it from
the Pagans. This doctrine makes of none effect the resurrection, and makes the
future judgment unimportant. How strange that a sentiment that was Pagan in
embryo, and Papal in childhood, should be Protestant in its manhood / Without
this heathen dogma, Catholicism could not exist, and Monometalism would go into
non-entity.
IF so, it must have gone there unjudged,
for judgment is located (1) " in the last day;" (2) at Christ's
" appearing; " (3) when the " great white throne" and its
occupant descends; and (4) when the seventh trumpet sounds—all of which events.
are yet future.
One thing is certain: inasmuch as God's
arrangement does not clash with itself, either the judgment is wrongly located,
or the import of Christ's promise has not been rightly understood. That the
judgment is connected with Christ's "appearing" (2 Tim. 4. 1), is a
clear point, and it is certain that no man can receive his reward prior to the
judgment, else there is no need of a judgment, as the judgment is for the
express purpose of deciding the destiny of the human family, and to carry that
decision into effect: and if this work precedes the judgment, it leaves nothing
to be accomplished at the judgment, and makes the judgment a worthless
arrangement; and also makes the statement untrue that the " dead" are
then to be " judged," as well as the living. Besides this, we are
expressly informed that the "reward" comes at the judgment, and not
before it: " Thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead that they should
be judged, and that Thou shouldest GIVE REWARD unto Thy servants the prophets,
and to the saints, and them that fear Thy name, small and great " (Rev.
11. 18).
The penitent thief is certainly one of the
"saints here mentioned, else Paradise would not have been promised to him
at any point of time; and. if he is one of the saints he is certainly included
in the number who are to get their "reward" at the time the dead are
to be judged; consequently it is not true that he is already enjoying his
reward in Paradise; hence, the Savior’s promise to him has been misunderstood.
These considerations lead us to seek for the true import of the Savior’s
promise on the cross; and this we will do by learning (1) what He did not mean,
and (2) what He did mean.
WHAT HE DID NOT MEAN.
CHRIST did not mean to state that He and
the dying penitent should jointly enter Paradise on the very day of the
crucifixion, because:
1. This position would locate Christ's
" SECOND " coming in the past, and as early as the time of His
resurrection; whereas, Paul located His " second" coming in the
future a long time after Christ's resurrection: " He shall appear the
second time" (Heb. 9. 28). All agree that Christ came once and tabernacled
in flesh over thirty years, and that this constituted His first coming—do they
not? Yes. Now then, if at the crucifixion He left the flesh, and went back to
heaven, and remained there three days, and then came back again, and
tabernacled in flesh some forty days more, would not that make His second
coming? Just as certainly as one and one make two. Let us count. He tabernacled
in flesh over thirty years before leaving the world—did He not? Yes. Does not
that make one coming? Yes. And you say He then left the world and went to
heaven and remained there three days—do you not? Yes. You also claim that He
then came again to this world, and tabernacled in flesh a second time—do you
not? Yes. Well, was not this as really a coming of Christ as in the first case?
Yes. And do not one coming, and another coming, make two comings? Yes. And is
not the next coming after the first the " second?" Yes. Then was not
Paul mistaken many years afterward in telling us, "He shall appear the
SECOND time?"
Rather let me believe that Paul was right,
and that Christ's statement has been misunderstood. Paul and Christ do not
clash when rightly understood, and there can be but one " second "
coming of Christ, and that is yet future; hence, Christ did not go to Paradise,
and return again.
2. After Christ was raised from the dead,
he told Mary in plain terms, " I am NOT YET ascended" (John 20. 17).
Can we set aside this plain statement of the Master? No. Then we have no right
to put a construction on His language on the cross which would make His own
words clash. It is a positive fact from Christ's own statement that He did not
then "ascend," although He had previously predicted His return to
heaven in the following language:—" What and if ye shall see the Son of
Man ascend up where He was before?" As late as the morning of His resurrection,
three days after His remark to the dying penitent, Jesus could truthfully
affirm, " I am not yet ascended." Can we respect Christ's words? Then
never so interpret His promise to the thief as to make His own statements
conflict.
WHAT DID HE MEAN?
CHRIST simply meant to give a plain reply
to the consistent request of the dying penitent—nothing more nor less—and that
request was, " Lord, remember me when thou comes in Thy kingdom." The
thief had the impression that Christ contemplated coming again to establish a
kingdom; and well he might have received this idea: for in the trial of Christ,
He was accused of seeking to make Himself a king, and in mockery of His claim
to the kingship He was crowned with a "crown of thorns;" so Pilate
interrogated Jesus about this matter: " Art thou the king of the Jews?"
(John 18. 33). Jesus remarked: " My kingdom is not of this world [that is,
this world of sin and death]: if My kingdom were of this world, then would My
servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is My
kingdom not from hence " (v. 36); that is, not from henceforth, or from
this time forward. Pilate clearly saw by this reply that Jesus contemplated the
establishment of a kingdom at some future time; so he again puts the question to
Jesus in this form:—"Art thou a king, then?" (v. 37). Jesus replies,
"Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause
came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth " (v.
37), or this truth.
Here Christ confesses to Pilate (1) that
His kingdom was not to be established in this world of death and sin; that His
kingdom was not to commence then, and extend from that time forward: and (2)
another evangelist gives this item in Christ's confession: " Hereafter
shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in
the clouds of heaven." The thief having thus learned that Christ claimed
to have been born to be a king, and that He denied that His kingdom was from
thenceforth, or from that time forward, and claimed that they should finally
see Him "coming in the clouds of heaven," enthroned on "THE
RIGHT HAND OF POWER," or in kingly majesty, knew Jesus' teaching
concerning His kingdom; and the only thing that remained to be decided in his
mind was whether Christ was the true Messiah, or an impostor: and as the sun
refuses to shine, and darkness covers the land, he is convinced that more than
an ordinary man is dying, and concludes that Jesus must be the true Messiah,
and if so, He will come in the clouds of heaven, as He had promised, to set up
His kingdom at the end of this age of sin; and with this impression on his
mind, he recognizes Jesus as " Lord," and offers to Him his heartfelt
petition: " Lord, remember me when thou comes in Thy kingdom."
The immediate reply of Jesus was,
"Amen lego soi semeron met emou ese en to Paradeiso." Let it be
observed, that the first word in the Savior’s reply is " amen," which
signifies " so let it be." The word amen that we use so frequently is
simply a Greek term incorporated into our language, and we well know its
meaning. The translators have rendered it by the term " verily " in
this text, which fails to give the full meaning of the Savior’s reply.
Following an ancient punctuation, a fair rendering of the text would read as
follows, making the request and reply harmonious, and also agreeing with the
truth that reward comes after the judgment:
"Lord, remember me when Thou comes in
Thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, So LET IT BE—I tell thee to-day, Thou shall
be with Me in Paradise."
When?
Just when he requested to be remembered:
for Paradise is as really to bloom in the kingdom of the second Adam, as it did
in the kingdom of the first Adam; for when earth shall be renewed, and the
river of life shall flow, " on either side of the river " will be
" the tree of life which is in the midst of the Paradise of God"
(Rev. 22. 2, 2. 7), so Paradise will bloom on earth again when Christ sets up
His kingdom, and the penitent thief will then be remembered, and that, too, at
the point of time he prayed to be remembered, and thenceforward will be with
Christ in Paradise.
What was the request? " Lord,
remember me when Thou comes in Thy kingdom." What was the reply? "
AMEN "—or, " So LET IT BE: " that is, Let it be according to thy
request—and then to make the matter doubly positive, Jesus adds: " I say
unto thee to-day [despite surrounding circumstances, everything to human
appearance looking as though I should never have a kingdom, yet] thou shalt be
with Me in Paradise," which shall bloom in My kingdom.
The modern exposition destroys the harmony
between the request and the reply, and clashes with the Bible fact that reward
must be given after the judgment-day comes.
IS the soul of Lazarus now in glory, and
the soul of the rich man in the hell of punishment? Certainly not, if heaven
and hell are included in the reward due to saint and sinner, for reward is the
result of judgment, and must therefore come after the judgment, and the
judgment is not in the past.
Inspiration having decided the question
that Christ shall "judge the quick and the dead at His. appearing,"
and also that when the "time of the dead that they shall be judged"
shall arrive, then comes the time that God " should give REWARD unto His
servants the prophets, and to the saints" (Rev. 11. 18), there is no
escape from the conclusions (1) that our reward is after the arrival of the
judgment, instead of being prior to that point; and (2) that the judgment is
connected with Christ's " appearing: " hence, it follows that there
will be .no judgment until Christ shall appear, and no reward till the judgment
arrives.
In the face of this God-given truth, an
effort is made to deduce an opposite theory, from the Parable of the Rich Man
and Lazarus, recorded in Luke 16 as though God's Word would teach one doctrine
in one place, and a conflicting one in another. But we wish to show, in a few
words, that God's Word is in harmony with itself on this subject, and the
unfounded inferences, and unwarranted assumptions of men, have produced all the
confusion and lack of harmony on this question. Let us look at it:
1. We are told that the rich man went to
the hell of punishment at death. I deny it: but the rich man went to hades
(here incorrectly rendered hell), which never means a hell of punishment, but
is simply the depository of the dead, good and bad, till the judgment-day: and
John brings to view the same fact, and shows us that they are to be judged
after coming out of hades (here again wrongly rendered hell): "And death
and hades DELIVERED UP THE DEAD THAT WERE IN THEM: and they were judged every
man according to their works" (Rev. 20. 13). So hades is finally to
deliver up the dead to be " JUDGED," which harmonizes with Peter's
claim that God will "RESERVE THE UNJUST UNTO THE DAY OF JUDGMENT TO BE
PUNISHED " (2 Peter 2. 9). Thus it is evident that though they are in
hades till the judgment, they are not being punished: and this case of the rich
man, which we shall show to be a parable, is the only one in the entire Bible
adduced to conflict with this fact; and when shown to be a parable, it will no
longer be viewed as an exception, as a parable never means what it says, but is
always one thing to represent another.
Paul informs us that the saints are to
come from hades at the sound of the last trump, shouting: " O death, where
is thy sting? O hades where is thy victory? " (1 Cor. 15. 55.) Thus the
saints will come from hades at the resurrection; but surely they will not come
from a world of torment, or a hell of punishment, yet they will come from the
very realm that the rich man is said to have gone to—hades. When the hell of
punishment for the wicked is mentioned, another term is employed—Gehenna; and
the wicked are never said to go to that hell till the judgment-day.
2. Lazarus was said to be carried, not to
heaven, but to "Abraham's bosom." Now, if this is a literal case, and
not a parable, then the rich man simply went to hades, instead of going to the
future hell of punishment, and Lazarus merely went to "Abraham's
bosom," instead of going to heaven. But, as the position is assumed,
without proof, and contrary to facts, that hades MEANS hell, and "
Abraham's bosom " MEANS heaven, and that with this amendment to the
subject, it is a literality, and not a parable: we will look at it in this
light for a moment. The rich man and Abraham see each other, and talk together:
so if the one is in heaven and the other is in hell, it follows that hell must
be very near heaven—within sight and hearing —located either just under heaven,
or on a level with heaven, one side or the other, or just above it. With either
location, it would involve the idea of going up to hell, instead of down to
hell; and, if it were just below heaven, every saint would have to fly through
the fire to get from earth to heaven, or sail round the outer edges; so that in
leaving earth for either hell or heaven, we must take the same road a part of
the distance, even if we do come to forks in the road, for the sake of getting
around the fire just under heaven, within speaking distance—say within a
stone's throw —the incessant shrieks of anguish from numberless millions within
hearing of heaven—every shriek, every cry, every groan is within hearing, and
sinners within sight!
If it is not under heaven, but just on one
side of it, then hell is as high up as heaven. Who ever dreamed of going up to
hell?
It can't be located above heaven, as that
would make hell the highest " up," and give sinners a road through
heaven up to hell. But if this is a literal case, there is no escape from the
shocking conclusion that heaven and hell are really within sight and hearing of
each other—hell being either on one side of heaven, or immediately under it,
with its ever-rising fumes of brimstone—a sweet posy for those theologians who
must claim that this is a literal case, and a literal hell, in opposition to
all facts, and contrary to the great fact that reward comes after the judgment.
Who will accept it as a literal case now,
with all of these results? Not one. Then it certainly is a parable, and
parables always bring up one thing to represent another; it may present
something real, or suppose a case that never had an existence, as in Jotham's
parable: "The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king," etc. Now,
let those who urge this parable as an objection against our views prove what it
represents, or it avails them nothing; not assume a meaning for it, but prove
what it represents, or hold their peace.
Let no one lose sight of the fact that a
parable never means what it says, but is simply one thing to represent another.
Wheat never meant wheat, in a parable, but was used to represent something
else; tares never meant tares in a parable, but were used to represent
something else: so, in this parable, a rich man does not mean a rich man, a
Lazarus does not mean a Lazarus, a hell does not mean a hell, a gulf does not
mean a gulf, but these are all used to represent something else.
The Savior, in giving His parables, always
made use of figures that the people were familiar with'. In giving a parable to
the Jews, He would not employ figures that they could not understand, as such
figures would fail to illustrate the fact with which He wished to impress their
minds. The Pharisees, to whom this parable was addressed, had embraced an
unscriptural idea concerning hades (here rendered hell), regarding it as a
" subterranean region" in the bowels of the earth, and believing in
"rewards and punishments under the earth," of a temporary nature—one
part of this " SUBTERRANEAN " hades was for the righteous, called
" Abraham's bosom," and angels escorted the good to this place; while
the other department contained a lake of fire, and the wicked were driven near
this lake, and suffered from the heat of the flames: between these two
departments was a " gulf " which was impassable, yet the two regions
were within sight and hearing of each other.
This is a condensed statement of Josephus'
account of their view of hades. And this is evidently the ground-work of the Savior’s
parable—that is, to illustrate a certain truth, He employed these figures, with
which they were familiar—"hades," " Abraham's bosom," the
"gulf," and the "flames "—not for the purpose of
sanctioning their theory, for He elsewhere cautions us both against the
doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees, the one class having gone to
one extreme, and the other class to the other extreme.
While in captivity, a part of the Jews
imbibed the speculative notions of the heathen concerning life after death, and
coined up this view of hades, as the locality of that future existence; but
another portion of the Jews refused to imbibe these heathen views: so, after
their return from captivity, the class who imbibed these heathen notions, and
mixed them up with the truth of the Bible, were called Pharisees, having a
corrupted faith; but the other class not only repudiated this element of
heathenism (life in death), and insisted that man is totally dead, but in their
over-anxiety to get as far as possible from this heathen notion (life in
death), they blindly rushed to the opposite extreme, and claimed that man was
not only totally dead, but also eternally dead—no resurrection.
Now the Savior neither endorses the corrupted
views of the Pharisees, nor the extreme notion of the Sadducees; but specially
cautions us against the doctrine of both classes (Matt. 16. 6).
So Christ, in selecting figures from the
theology of the Pharisees, out of which to frame a parable for their special
benefit, must not be understood as endorsing their views: because (1) to
endorse their theory, would be to endorse what He had cautioned us against; and
(2) it would conflict with the popular claim that Abraham's bosom represents
heaven above, where Christ is, instead of a subterranean: region in the bowels
of the earth. It would be as fatal to modern theology to insist that Christ
endorsed the Pharisees' view of " hades" and "Abraham's
bosom," as to our view: so we are all agreed that Christ did not endorse
their view, for if He did, that would blot out the popular application of such
statements as these—" Depart, and be with Christ "—"Absent from
the body, and present with the Lord "—"To-day shalt thou be with Me
in Paradise" in "the third heaven"—for Christ is not in the
bowels of the earth, nor is the "third heaven" there.
Yet it remains a fact, that although
Christ did not endorse the Pharisees' view that Abraham's bosom is in the
bowels of the earth, and that the departed dead, both good and bad, dwell in
such an underground world, He did select figures from this received view to
illustrate a certain truth—He did speak of a rich man as going to the
PHARISEES' hades, He did speak of a beggar as going to the other department,
called Abraham's bosom; He did speak of the Pharisees' impassable gulf; He did
speak of the torment of the rich man, and the comfort of the beggar —all to
simply illustrate a certain truth; not to adopt their theology, alike averse to
Scripture, and modern theology.
What truth did Jesus wish to illustrate by
this parable? This we can find out by reading the connection, and learning what
called forth the statement. Jesus had been addressing the Pharisees—a prominent
branch of the nominal Church of God, of whom God had said, " I am married
unto you "—and in this address He charges them with the crime of breaking
their marriage covenant, and being wedded to mammon, and shows them that the
marriage contract of the law is about to expire, and a new arrangement to take
its place; in other words, that this Jewish-law Church to whom the Lord was
married was about to " become dead to the law," and the Gospel
contract about to take place, which would give place to "every man that pressed
into it"—that is, to Gentiles as well as Jews.
In chap. 16. 13, He begins by saying:
" Ye cannot serve God and mammon. And the Pharisees also, who were
covetous, heard all these things: and they derided Him. And He said unto them,
Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knows your hearts: for
that which is highly esteemed among men [mammon] is abomination in the sight of
God.
The law and prophets were [preached] until
John; since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man pressed
into it [or pressed for it]. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass,
than one tittle of the law to fail. Whosoever put away his wife, and marries
another, committed adultery: and whosoever marries her that is put away from
her husband committed adultery." This language immediately precedes the
story or parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Christ makes the following points:
1. If they served mammon they broke their
covenant relation to God: but their covetousness led them to serve mammon.
2. They had thus committed "adultery
" in leaving God, and being wedded to mammon.
3. The Law had been preached till John,
then a new ministry began; and " every man " could then be permitted
to press into the kingdom, Gentiles as well as Jews; and the old Law economy
began to die then, and fully expired at the cross: the Old Covenant Church
virtually died then, and the New Covenant Church then arose; " ye also are
become dead to the law, by the body of Christ; that ye should be MARRIED TO
ANOTHER, even to him who is raised from the dead" (Rom. 7. 4).
Then, to illustrate the death of the Old
Covenant Church, and the reception of the New Covenant Church, He speaks the
following parable: "There was a certain rich man [representing the Old
Covenant Church] which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared
sumptuously every day [possessed of wealth and enjoyment]. And there was a
certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate full of sores, and
desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table:
moreover the dogs came and licked his sores [representing the spiritual poverty
and helplessness of the Gentile race]." The foregoing represents the
condition of the two parties prior to the change in their condition, which is
here represented by death, and a removal to a different region. "And it
came to pass that the beggar died, and was carried by angels into Abraham's bosom:
and the rich man also died, and was buried, and in hades he lifted up his eyes,
being in torments."
The following facts are set forth:
1. A change takes place in the history of
the Gentile race, represented by death; though once destitute of spiritual food
and raiment, and covered with moral pollution, the Gospel angels conduct them
to the faith of Abraham, and by faith they become his children.
2. A change likewise overtakes the rich
Jewish Church, represented by death, and it is plunged into a state of temporal
chastisement or torment. The great gulf of unbelief will allow no alleviation
or remedy to be administered. By hearing Moses and the' prophets, which
proclaim Christ, they might have warded off this torment, from different
branches of the fleshly family of Israel, in different localities, but the
different branches of this family, in other regions, were as unbelieving as the
main branch of Jerusalem, which first felt the fire of temporal judgment: even
a resurrection of dead ones failed to convince them.
Here are the main features of the parable,
in a condensed form. Thus the Old Church, once exalted, apostatized, and is now
being chastised, and has been for 1,800 years. The New Covenant Church receives
into the Abrahamic faith the once polluted Gentile, and rejects the Jewish
claim of blood relationship, which says, "We have Abraham to our
father." The gulf of unbelief is impassable. Those of every polluted tribe
of Gentiles are comforted in Christ; while the mere blood relative of Abraham,
who rejects Jesus as the true Messiah, is tormented. The five brethren, or
different branches of the Jewish family, fared no better than the main branch
of this fraternity (the rich man) at Jerusalem.
PUNISHMENT of some nature awaits the
finally impenitent, to be inflicted upon them at some point of time.
When does this punishment commence? We
answer, Not at death, but at the judgment, for the following reasons:
1. " Every idle word that men shall
speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment" (Matt. 12. 36).
God will never execute a criminal till he has given an account; and as the
sinner is not to give an account at death, but at the judgment-day, it follows
that the unholy will not be punished before the great day of account.
2. " The Lord knows how to deliver
the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of
judgment to be punished" (2 Peter 2. 9). Thus the sinner is not now
receiving his punishment, but is being reserved " unto the day of judgment
to be punished" in hell: hence, if there is a burning hell now in
existence, sinners would not enter it prior to the judgment. But while the
Scriptures describe a hell for the ungodly, a "lake of fire," they do
not teach its present existence.
3. "And they that have done evil
[shall come forth] unto the resurrection of damnation" (John 5. 29). The
"damnation of hell," of which the Savior speaks, is here located on
the other side of the resurrection; hence, the resurrection must precede the
existence of hell.
4. If there were a burning hell now in
existence we might reasonably inquire why the demons are not confined there. If
human sinners are now writhing in a hell of fire, why is not the captain of
sinners with his crew of demons kept there also? But he "goes about as a
roaring lion seeking whom he may devour," and is "walking to and fro
in the earth"—not in hell. Devils were frequently cast out of human beings
by the Savior: thus they are not in hell, as they doubtless would be if it were
now in existence.
5. If the doctrine of the present
existence of hell were true, some sinners would suffer centuries longer than
others who commit a greater amount of crime: for instance, the man of few sins,
who died a thousand years ago, must suffer a thousand years longer than the man
of many sins who dies to-day.
6. If the wicked were now being punished
in hell, a vast amount of speculation might exist among them concerning their
destiny at the judgment. Hopes might be entertained that they would be released
then, seeing that they had been sent thither before being tried.
We will now examine every text of
Scripture in which the term hell is found. By so doing, we shall learn that the
present existence of a burning hell is not taught in the Bible, but that it is
to exist at the judgment. Before commencing this examination, it is proper to
state that the word hell is translated from four original terms, namely: Sheol,
Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna. The first three terms here mentioned never mean a
burning hell, while Gehenna does.
Sheol is translated " hell "
thirty-one times, as follows:
1. " Shall burn unto the lowest
hell" (Deut. 32. 22).
If sheol, here translated hell, signifies
a world of punishment, the above text would prove a plurality of such hells.
Sheol is translated grave just as often as it is hell. It is not the fiery hell
of damnation; for saints go to sheol at death as really as sinners do. Job
prayed, " Oh! that Thou would hide me in sheol" (Job 14. 13). Did he
pray to be hid in a burning hell of fire? Jacob said, " I will go down
into sheol unto my son mourning" (Gen. 37. 35). Did he think of going to a hell of fire?
David said, " God will redeem my soul from the power of sheol" (Psalm
49.15). Did he expect to go to a hell of fire, and then be redeemed therefrom?
God, in speaking through Hosea concerning the resurrection of the saints,
remarks, " I will ransom them from the power of sheol" (Hos. 13. 14).
Thus all of the saints will come from sheol at the resurrection. Sheol is not
the receptacle of ghosts, but of dead men—corporeal men. Said Jacob, "
Then shall ye bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to sheol" (Gen. 42. 38).
That part of man which wears " gray hairs " goes to sheol. Do ghosts
wear gray hairs?
2. " The sorrows of cell compassed me
about " (2 Sam. 22. 6).
3. " Deeper than hell " (Job 11.
8).
Sheol is thirty-one times translated grave:
it always signifies the realm or state of the dead.
4. " Wicked shall be turned into
hell" (Ps. 9. 17).
The state of the dead who experience the
second death is here spoken of—the future state of the wicked.
5. " Thou wilt not leave my soul in
hell " (Ps. 16. 10).
Spoken of Christ. Christ's soul went to
sheol, here translated hell; hence, sheol is not the hell of punishment.
6. " Sorrows of hell compassed me
about" (Ps. 18. 5).
7. " Let them go down quick into hell
" (Ps. 55. 15).
8. " Delivered my soul from the
lowest hell " (Ps. 86. 23).
9. " Pains of hell gat hold upon
me" (Ps. 116. 3).
10. " If I make my bed in hell "
(Ps. 139. 8).
11. " Her steps take hold on hell
" (Prov. 5. 5).
12. " Is the way to hell "
(Prov. 7. 27).
13. "Are in the depths of hell "
(Prov. 9. 18).
14. " Hell and destruction are before
the Lord" (Prov. 15. 11).
15. " That he may depart from hell
beneath " (Prov. 15. 24).
16. " Deliver his soul from
hell" (Prov. 23. 14).
17. " Hell and destruction are never
full " (Prov. 27. 20):
18. " Hell hath enlarged
herself" (Isa. 5. 14).
19. " Hell from beneath is moved for
thee " (Isa. 14. 9).
20. " Thou shalt be brought down to
hell " (Isa. 14. 55).
21. " With hell we are at
agreement" (Isa. 28. 15).
22. " Your agreement with hell shall
not stand " (Isa. 28. 18).
23. " Didst debase thyself, even unto
hell" (Isa. 57. 9).
24. " Hell is naked before him "
(Job 26. 6).
25. " When I cast him down to hell
" (Ezek. 31. r6).
26. "They also went down into hell
with him unto them that be slain " (Ezek. 31. 17).
27. " Shall speak to him out of the
midst of hell " (Ezek. 32. 21).
Nothing to be found in the above texts to
prove that sheol is a lake of fire.
28. " Are gone down to hell with
their weapons of war "" (Ezek. 32. 27).
Do "weapons of war" ever go to
the hell of punishment?
29. " Though they dig into hell
" (Amos 9. 2).
30. " Out of the belly of hell cried
I" (Jon. 2. 2).
31. " Enlarged his desire as
hell" (Hab. 2. 5).
We can find no proof in the foregoing
texts, that sheol when translated hell signifies a burning realm. Every text in
the Old Testament containing the term hell has been quoted, but none of them
speak of a burning world. Sheol never signifies hell, and should never have been
thus translated.
Hades is translated hell ten times, as
follows:-
1. "Shalt be brought down to
hell" (Matt. 11. 23).
2. " The gates of hell shall not
prevail against it " (Matt. 16. 28).
3. " Shalt be thrust down to hell
" (Luke 10. 15).
4. " In hell he lift up his eyes
" (Luke 16. 23).
5. " Wilt not leave my soul in
hell" (Acts 2. 27).
6. " His soul was not left in hell
" (Acts. 2. 32).
7. "The keys of hell and of
death" (Rev. 1. 18).
8. " And hell followed" (Rev. 6.
8)
9. "Death and hell delivered up the
dead" (Rev. 20. 23).
10. " Death and hell were cast into
the lake of fire " (Rev. 20. 14).
The reader will perceive that Christ is
twice spoken of as not being left in hades, here translated hell, and that
hades is finally to be cast into the " lake of fire; " hence, hades
is not the lake of fire, or hell, in which the wicked will be punished. Aside
from the case of the rich man, there is no intimation that hades is a burning
realm; and that exception occurs in a parable: consequently, in that instance
hades is used figuratively. Should anyone insist that this is a literal
historical narration, let him not shrink from the revolting conclusion that
hell is within sigh! and within speaking distance of heaven, and that the
shrieks and groans of the damned would drown the hallelujahs of the saved; and
that the parents in heaven must be continually in sight and hearing of their
miserable offspring who are writhing in keen anguish, and shrieking in hopeless
agony. Take the consequences, or admit it a parable.
If it is literal history, instead of a
parable, let it be remembered that hades is the only hell here mentioned, and
that within sight and speaking distance of the saved. The opinion is prevalent
that hell is away down somewhere, a great way below the earth, while heaven is
located as far above the earth. This locates hell and heaven twice as far apart
as we now are from either place. Yet these same theologians refer us to the
case of the rich man and Lazarus to prove the disembodied existence of
ghost-men in hell and heaven. If disembodied spirit-men are here brought to
view as having gone to hell and heaven, and if hell and heaven are really such
an immense distance apart, what keen eyesight that rich spirit-man must have
had to have seen a spirit-Lazarus millions of miles away; and what refined
hearing, also, in these two localities, to have understood the conversation of
each other millions of miles apart! or what powerful spirit-lungs to speak in
tones a million times louder than the deafening roar of the largest cannon, in
order to be heard that vast distance. Wonder if it would be pleasant standing
near them, even in heaven, when they speak? Wonder if it would not make "
confusion worse confounded" to have them all speak at once? And more than
all, if they speak so loud as to be heard from hell to heaven, I wonder why we
who live midway between hell and heaven never hear the terrific blast from
spirit-lungs!
Is it good logic to assert that a cannon
report can be heard ten miles, and deny that it can be heard halfway? Our
hearing is good enough to recognize the buzz of the feeblest insect, and who
shall say that we are too deaf to hear a voice that can be plainly heard
millions of miles beyond us? Will the excuse be made that material ears are not
capable of hearing the voices of immaterial lungs? But it will not be contended
that spirit-men are composed of more refined spirit-substance than the angels
are, especially as it is so generally claimed that the departed good become
angels at death, and the departed bad become devils; and it is an authenticated
fact that material ears have often heard the voice of angels; then why may we
not hear the voice of disembodied spirit-men, if they are really speaking in
such trumpet tones?
Those that insist that a disembodied
Lazarus, and a disembodied rich man, and a disembodied Abraham are intended,
and really conversed together, are solemnly obligated to present a genuine solution
of this mystery—one predicated, not upon supposition or conjecture, but upon
invulnerable and discernible facts. Let us know how it is, that while the cries
of the damned are hourly wafted by us, and conveyed far enough beyond us to
salute the ears of the dwellers in heaven, we fail to hear the first sound. But
should this position be changed, so as to make hell nearer heaven than to the
earth, then they should henceforth talk about going up to hell instead of going
down to hell. Would it not be better to seek the truth, and learn that hades,
instead of Gehenna, is the hell here mentioned—not a place of punishment for
dead men?
Paul reasoned concerning a final judgment,
not concerning a judgment now in session, but a "judgment to come."
Judgment includes both the passing and execution of a sentence, either for or
against a person. Hence, a " judgment to come " implies the arrival
of a time when a sentence is to be passed upon saint and sinner; and a sentence
cannot be executed before being passed; and as the sentence in favor of the
saint is his final reward in glory, and the sentence against the sinner is his
reward in hell, it follows that the reward of both saint and sinner is
subsequent to the judgment. Then, as our reward is the result of the decision
made at the judgment, and, consequently, cannot precede the judgment, what is
the chronological location of this " judgment to come?" Christ says:
"The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him [when?] in the last
day" (John 12. 48). Consequently, there is no reward for saint or sinner
prior to "the last day;" therefore all this speculation about a home
of felicity for the saint, or about a home of fire, or state of irrevocable
oblivion, for the sinner, prior to " the last day," is subversive of
the Divine plan. Let God's plan stand. Let the judgment come first, and let the
reward come as the result of the judgment, and let the judgment come at the
right time, namely: "in the last day," and all this talk about
present reward in heaven, hell, or oblivion then would cease.
Modern theology is subversive of the
Scriptural doctrine of a judgment-day; as it represents men as going to heaven
or hell before being judged, involving the idea of a future rally from hell and
heaven to " stand before the judgment-seat of Christ "—which would be
like first hanging a man, and afterward trying his case! Neither the reward of
the righteous, nor the damnation of the sinner can be realized before the
judgment. Jesus never told us that we must give account at death, but "
they shall give account in the day of judgment" (Matt. 12. 36).
Tartarus is translated "hell"
once, as follows: "For God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast
them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved
unto judgment" (2 Pet. 2. 4).
Tartarus, which is here translated hell,
is not spoken of as the place where sinners are to be punished, but merely as
the state of the fallen angels: nor is it the place of their punishment; for
they are to be " reserved unto judgment " to receive their doom:
furthermore, they are among the children of men, and were frequently cast out
of human beings. Tartarus occurs nowhere else in the Scriptures.
WILL the wicked emigrate to some remote
realm to receive their punishment, or will the foretold hell of the impenitent
exist on the earth at the great burning day? Answer.—"The heavens and the
Barth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire
against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men" (2 Pet. 3. 7;
Prov. 11. 31; Matt. 13. 40-42).
Gehenna clearly brings to view the future
hell of the ungodly, but as clearly disproves its present existence. The wicked
are to be destroyed in Gehenna, " both soul and body" (Matt. 10. 28):
and certainly the body does not go to a burning hell at death: therefore the
existence of Gehenna [hell] is on the other side of the " RESURRECTION OF
DAMNATION." Prior to that resurrection there is no damnation or hell for
the ungodly: for God will " RESERVE THE UNJUST UNTO THE DAY OF JUDGMENT TO
BE PUNISHED." Jesus informs us that the whole body will be cast into Gehenna
(Matt 5. 30), of course at the judgment-day!
Gehenna is translated " hell "
twelve times, as follows:
1. "Shall be in danger of hell
fire" (Matt. 5. 22).
Gehenna brings to view a burning hell, but
we shall soon learn that it is not to exist before the judgment.
2. "Thy whole body should be cast
into hell" (Matt. 5. 29).
As the body does not go to a burning hell
at death, it follows that hell [Gehenna] is not in existence.
3. " Whole body should be cast into
hell" (Matt. 5. 30).
Seeing the body does not go into hell-fire
at death, it cannot go there before the judgment-day, when "they that have
done evil [shall come forth] unto the resurrection of damnation;" hence
the hell of punishment will commenee.at the judgment.
4. " Destroy both soul and body in
hell" (Matt. 10. 28). None will claim that " both soul and body"
go to hell at death.
5. " Rather than having two eyes to
be cast into hell-fire" (Matt. 18. 9).
2. " More the child of hell than
yourselves " (Matt. 23. 15).
3. " How can ye escape the damnation
of hell?" (Matt. 23. 33).
4. " Having two hands to go into
hell" (Mark 9. 43).
g. "Having two feet to be cast into
hell" (Mark 9. 45).
10 " Having two eyes to be cast into
hell-fire" (Mark 9. 47).
n " Hath power to cast into
hell" (Luke 12. 5).
12 "Set on fire of hell" (James
3. 6).
When the impenitent are cast into
hell-fire, they are to go there with hands, feet, eyes, and body; and as none
go into the fires of Gehenna at death corporeally, it must be admitted by all
that the existence of hell commences at the judgment-day: therefore, the
present existence of a burning hell is not taught in the Bible. We have quoted
every text in the Bible which speaks of hell.
By reading Proverbs 11. 31, we are taught
that the recompense of the sinner is to be rendered "in the earth."
Again: the sublime prophet testifies (Isa. 24. 21), " It shall come to
pass in that day the Lord shall punish the host of the high ones that are on
high, and the kings of the earth [where?] upon the earth." Allusion is
here made to the doom of the wicked at the judgment, and not to temporal
punishment, as we learn from the three preceding verses: " The windows
from on high are open, and the foundations of the earth do shake. The earth is
utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved
exceedingly. The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be
removed like a cottage: and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it;
and it shall fall, and not rise again. And it shall come to pass in that day,
that the Lord shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the
kings of the earth upon the earth." Thus " the earth" is to be
the place where Jehovah will punish the wicked; or, in other words, hell will
be located in the earth, at the final conflagration. Peter testifies that "
the heavens and earth. . . . are reserved unto fire, against the day of
judgment and perdition of ungodly men " (2 Pet. 3. 7). The "perdition
[apoleia—destruction] of ungodly men" is here connected with the future
deluge of fire. The lake of fire, or hell of fire, in which the ungodly will meet
their awful doom, is to exist upon the earth, amid the fires of the last day.
For successive generations the literality,
as well as the eternity, of hell-fire has been tenaciously maintained by
so-called Orthodox theologians. But recently invulnerable facts are compelling
many of them to recede from their old position. Fire is perpetuated only by
feeding upon fuel of some kind, and when the fuel is consumed the fire is
extinct. Hell-fire must consume something if literal; and if it is eternally to
burn, it must be eternally consuming some kind of fuel: hence God must either
be eternally putting fuel in hell, to keep the fire up, or the wicked must
constitute the fuel upon which the fire feeds; and literal fire would make
rather strange work in feeding upon invisible intangible ghosts. But as literal
fire has an invariable tendency to consume that upon which it preys, though
sometimes at a slow rate, if the wicked are the fuel of hell, they must
ultimately be consumed.
These obvious absurdities are now
compelling many to deny the literality of hell-fire, and inducing them to claim
that conscience is the tormenting element of the damned, represented by the
figure of fire. Well, this is like " jumping out of the frying-pan into
the fire:" for sin benumbs the human conscience, so that the Scriptures
speak of some as "having their consciences seared" by continuance in
sin. Thus if conscience is the only fire that scorches the damned, it follows
that those of many crimes (who have " their consciences seared") will
suffer the least, while those of few sins will suffer the most. To escape the
keen torments of that hell we have only to sin much! Rather let me believe that
the fire of hell is literal, and that it will literally " burn up"
the sinful rubbish of God's universe.
" Behold, the day cometh that shall
burn as an oven; and all the proud, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble:
and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it
shall leave them neither root nor branch" (Mal. 4. 1; Ps. 37. 10; 2 Thess.
1. 9; Obad. 1. 16; Rev. 20. 9).
There is a future hell, or lake of fire,
for the wicked (Rev. 21. 8). The whole man is guilty, and the whole man must be
punished at the same period—not an abstract part at a time! Modern theology
casts reflections upon God's past dealings with men, while it claims that the
soul is the only intelligent part of man, and the body a mere organ through
which the soul operates. For instance, in the Mosaic dispensation, the man who
picked up sticks on the Sabbath must be stoned to death. Here (according to
modern theology) the wicked soul stood behind the curtain, and made a tool of
the innocent body, with which to commit the sin. Then God commands the innocent
body to be stoned to death, and lets the wicked soul escape the penalty. The
truth is, the entire man sins, and the entire man reaps the penalty.
PAUL affirms, "The wages of sin is
death" (Rom. 6. 23). What death? Not temporal death, for the sinless
infant and the holy saint just as really die that death as the impenitent. Not
spiritual death, a death in "trespasses and sin," for that is the
very thing that renders man deserving of punishment, instead' of being the
punishment itself. The penalty death is not visited upon the sinner in this
life, nor at the close of this life. The execution of the penalty cannot
precede the judgment. Said Christ, " The word that I have spoken, the same
shall judge him [not in this life, nor at death, but] in the last day"
(John 12. 48). Paul presents the fact that "it is appointed unto men once
to die, but after this the judgment" (Heb. 9. 27). The penalty death
cannot precede the judgment: and the judgment is "after" death, and
"in the last day; " therefore the penalty death must be visited upon
the sinner " in the last day:" thus agreeing with Peter's teaching,
that God will " reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be
punished" (2 Pet. 2. 9); consequently, the penalty death is not inflicted
upon the sinner either in this life, nor in temporal death, but beyond it, when
"they that have done evil [shall come forth] to the resurrection of
damnation" (John 5. 29). The penalty death, the death to be inflicted
" in the last day," is denominated the "second death," in
contradistinction from a preceding death. The " second death," must
be the second infliction of a death of the same order of itself, otherwise it
would be the first death of this kind, and the first death of that kind—no
second about it. The Bible mentions two kinds of death—literal death and
spiritual death, a death in " trespasses and sin "—and theologians
mention a third kind of death: a " death that never dies;" by which
they mean eternal torment. Hence, the " second death" must be the
second infliction of one of these kinds of death. Let us examine the three
kinds, beginning with the last one mentioned.
1. If the penalty death signifies eternal
misery, then, inasmuch as the penalty death is styled the "second
death," it follows that it is the second eternal misery! Then when and
where was the first eternal misery inflicted? For a "second"
presupposes a first. This would prove Iwo editions of eternal misery; and,
furthermore, as the second edition must succeed the first, if the first is
endless in duration, it leaves no room for the second; if the first is not
endless, then the second will not be. Here the endless misery system can neither
back out nor go forward. Two editions of endless misery, the second not
beginning till the first is over, and yet nobody can find the first, and if it
could be found, it would last so long that it would never allow the second to
begin!
2. If the penalty death signifies a
spiritual death, a death in " trespasses and sin," then, inasmuch as
the penalty death is styled the second death, there must be an end of the first
death of this kind before there can be a second infliction of it: and when the
first death in " trespasses and sin" is ended, the man is free from
sin, and is no longer a sinner; hence, will not be punished. God will not
punish a man that is free from "trespasses and sin." He will not make
them dead in " trespasses and sin" a second time, or make them
sinners again, after they are liberated from a death in " trespasses and
sin."
3. If the penalty is literal death, then
inasmuch as the penalty, death, is styled the " second death," it
must be the second infliction of literal death upon the sinner. Saint and
sinner alike die the first death, and are alike liberated from it: but over the
saint "the second death hath no power," while the sinner must die the
" second death." All are made to live again at the judgment-day, to
be judged; but saints will die no more, while sinners, then judged obnoxious to
the wrath of God, will die the second death; and thence-forward "shall
never see life," but abide beneath the irrevocable stroke of the penalty
death.
The inspired apostle assures us that the
impenitent "shall be punished with everlasting destruction" (2 Thess.
1. 9). Destruction never signifies preservation, but just the reverse. This
destruction with which the wicked are to be punished is everlasting; or, this
punishment, which is destruction, is everlasting. Not everlasting in process of
infliction, for then it would not be destruction; but everlasting in its
consequences.
Death, and not life, is threatened to the
sinner as his punishment; hence, we read, "The wages of sin is
death"; and, " Sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."
Not the first death, for both the saint and the sinless infant are victims of
that death; but " on such the second death bath no power," while the
ungodly are its victims. The punishment is death, and the death is everlasting.
The wicked will as really be consumed by everlasting fire as the Sodomites were
by eternal fire (Jude 1.7). Its results will be everlasting.
From the foregoing investigation, we have
learned (1) that the commencement of hell is at the judgment-day, (2) that its
location is to be the earth, at the time of the flood of fire; and (3) that
destruction is the nature of the punishment then and there to be inflicted.
Death is not life, but the opposite—the
extinction of life. The " second death," if there is any power in
language, implies a repetition of the first (otherwise it would be the first of
one kind, and the first of another kind—no "second" about it), and as
the first is a cessation of life, the second must likewise be. The wages of sin,
which is death, will terminate the existence of the wicked—they have no promise
of eternal life—but are destined to be destroyed " both soul and body in
hell" at the judgment-day!
"But the wicked shall perish, and the
enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall CONSUME; into
smoke shall they consume away" (Ps. 37. 20).
" Behold, the day of the Lord cometh,
cruel, both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate; and He shall
destroy the sinners thereof out of it" (Isa. 13. 9).
" For the day of the Lord is near
upon all the heathen; as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee; thy REWARD
shall return upon thine own head. For as ye have drunk upon My holy mountain,
so shall all the heathen drink continually, yea, they shall drink, and they
shall swallow down, and they shall be as though they had not been" (Obad. 1.
15, 16).
" Behold, all souls are Mine; as the
soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is Mine: the soul that sinned
it shall die" (Ezek. 18. 4).
" But the fearful, and the
unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and
sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake
which burns with fire and brimstone: which is the second death" (Rev. 21. 8).
We will now examine the prominent
objections which are raised by our antagonists. The following quotation is
raised as an objection to this view " These shall go away into everlasting
punishment" (Matt. 25. 46). This does not, in the slightest manner,
militate against our position, for we firmly believe the language of the text,
and if it will gratify our opponents, we are willing to have the language made
still stronger, by substituting the phrase ETERNAL punishment. But we claim the
right to inquire into the nature of this punishment. What are they to be
punished with? Modern theologians answer, With endless misery! But this is an
assumption 'Where do we read it in the Bible? Nowhere! But the inquiry again
rises, What is to be their punishment? The answer is obvious—" The wages
of sin." Paul will give us some information in relation to what
constitutes the wages of sin. "The wages of sin is DEATH "—not
eternal life in misery, but death—the extinction of life! Therefore, their
punishment is everlasting or eternal death.
The inquiry again arises, What are the
wicked to be punished with? Let Paul answer. He informs us that they
"shall be PUNISHED with everlasting DESTRUCTION from the presence of the
Lord," etc. (2 Thess. 1. 9). Hence their punishment is not to be endless
torment, or eternal life in misery, but quite the reverse, "everlasting
destruction."
It will avail nothing to conjecture that
the text means that they shall be destroyed from the spiritual presence of the
Lord, as many have never been in possession of His spiritual presence!
The " everlasting punishment "
to which the wicked are doomed, is " everlasting destruction," or
"death I" This punishment will be everlasting in its effects,
consequences, and results, but not in its infliction! We read of "eternal
judgment" (Heb. 6. 2). We do not suppose, however, that the judgment is to
remain eternally in session; but it will be a judgment, the results of which
will be eternal. We also read of " eternal redemption " and "
eternal salvation." Will God be eternally redeeming and saving man? No. It
implies a redemption and a salvation, the effects and results of which will be
eternal, final! So in relation to "everlasting punishment;"
everlasting not in its infliction, but in its effects. It will be final—never
to be recalled! This is the nature of "everlasting punishment," as
plainly set forth in the Bible. The penalty of God's law is DEATH, which is the
sinner's punishment, his inevitable doom!
We now pass to notice another supposed
strong objection. " It is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than,
having two hands, to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9. 43,
44). We view this as strong proof in favor of the destruction of the wicked;
and the Jews, to whom this language was addressed, who understood the origin of
the word Gehenna, which is here translated hell, could not possibly have
understood the Savior as teaching anything but utter destruction of the wicked.
"Gehenna" (the original word from which "hell" is here
translated), is derived from "ge" —valley, and "Hinnom
"—the name of the man who once owned the valley. Say The Polymicrian Greek
Lexicon to the New Testament: "Gehenna, properly the valley of Hinnom,
south of Jerusalem; once celebrated for the horrid worship of Moloch, and
afterwards polluted with every species of filth, as well as the carcasses of
animals and dead bodies of malefactors; to consume which, in order to avert the
pestilence which such a mass of corruption would occasion, constant fires were
kept burning."
Says Parkhurst's Greek and English Lexicon
to the New Testament: "This valley of Hinnom lay near Jerusalem, and had
been the place of those abominable sacrifices in which the idolatrous Jews
burned their children alive to Moloch, Baal, or the Sun. . . . Our Lord seems
to allude to the worms which continually preyed on the dead carcasses which
were cast into the valley of Hinnom [Gehenna], and to the perpetual fire there
kept to consume them."
Now who can fail to see at a single
glance, that the wicked who are to be cast into the antitypical Gehenna [hell]
are to be utterly consumed? The Savior could not have used a term which would
have more effectually conveyed the idea of entire destruction than Gehenna, from
which hell is translated in this instance.
All that was cast into "Gehenna,"
south of Jerusalem, was utterly consumed by the worm, or by the fire which
preyed thereupon—so also will the wicked who are to be cast into hell [Gehenna]
be utterly destroyed "both soul and body," be burned up " root
and branch " at the judgment-day! As sure as the fire is not quenched, and
as sure as the worm does not die, so sure will that upon which they prey be
totally consumed! To illustrate. We gaze upon a barn while on fire, and readily
conclude that, unless the fire is quenched, the barn will be burned up. We walk
out into the corn-field, and discover that a worm is at work upon a blade of
corn, and we at once conclude that unless the worm dies, the corn will be
destroyed.
Now, as the agent which God has chosen to
effect the destruction of the sinner (represented by the undying worm and the
unquenchable fire) is not to be stayed, the sinner must perish! Should the fire
be quenched, and the worm die, the sinner might escape death.
But, says the objector, the undying worm
is the gnawing conscience, or the soul of the sinner. This is an assumption
totally out of harmony with the facts in the case. I might just as consistently
assert that the fire is the soul. Let us go back to old "Gehenna" and
inquire what the "fire " and the "worm" then were. The worm
was not a part of that which was cast into the valley, but an agent which
devoured that which was cast therein. So in the language of Christ, the worm
that "dies not" represents the chosen agent of Jehovah in inflicting
destruction upon the impenitent when cast into hell [Gehenna]. "And they
shall go forth, and look upon the CARCASSES of the men that have transgressed
against me: for THEIR worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be
quenched" (Isa. 66. 24). Who will maintain that those "carcasses
" had consciences, or souls! Yet " their worm [the worm of the
carcasses] dies not." The worm here spoken of is not a part of the "
carcasses," but something that devours them.
It is maintained by some that
"unquenchable fire" implies that the fire must perpetually burn. Let
us examine the Scriptures on this point. In speaking of the sacrifices upon the
Jewish altars, it is said: "The fire shall EVER be burning upon the altar;
it shall never go out" (Lev. 6. 13). Is that fire now burning? Certainly
not! Yet this language would as forcibly prove that this fire was to be
perpetual, as in the case of the wicked. The evident design of the language was
to give the assurance that the fire was destined to burn until the sacrifice
was utterly consumed. So in the case of the sinner's impending doom. Again, the
prophet Jeremiah, in predicting Jerusalem's destruction, declares: " Then
will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of
Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched" (Jer. 17. 27).
Are the "gates " and "
palaces" of Jerusalem now burning? No Why then so tenaciously contend that
the doctrine of perpetually burning the wicked is taught, when similar expressions
constitute your only proof?
Great stress is laid upon such expressions
as these:
The smoke of their torment shall ascend up
forever "—" Shall be tormented day and night forever," etc. But
upon an examination of the Scriptures, we ascertain that the phrase " forever
" is frequently used with a limited signification; therefore, this fact
will militate with force against the idea of a perpetual existence of the
wicked in liquid fire. The phrase "forever" is almost invariably
limited to the duration of the object to which it is applied; therefore, when
applied to that which possesses immortality, it runs parallel with its
existence; but when applied to mortal objects, it terminates with their
expiration; and " they that sow to the flesh, shall of the flesh reap
corruption," and "utterly perish
in their own corruption" (be raised with mortal bodies to the
"resurrection of damnation "); therefore, the Bible does not proffer
eternal existence to lost sinners, as " forever" in their case is
limited.
We will present one instance, out of a
variety, in which "forever" will not bear the popular construction of
no cessation. In speaking of bondmen, which the children of Israel were
permitted to purchase, it is said, "They shall be your bondmen FOR
EVER" (Lev. 25. 46). Now let us see if " forever " imports no
cessation in this case. Suppose a godly man to have existed in the Mosaic
dispensation, who purchased an ungodly wretch for his bondman. The time finally
arrives when the godly master must die, and (according to modern theology) at
death his soul soars to heaven. But his bondman is to be his " bondman forever,"
and if " forever" imports no cessation, of course the wicked bondman
must also go to heaven! Or, if the wicked bondman should die first, his soul
(according to the theology of the day) must go directly down to hell. And as
the master is to have him for a "bondman far ever" (if forever
implies no cessation), the master himself must also go to hell. Thus, in order
to gratify the modern construction put upon the term "forever," we
must either crowd
the righteous into hell, or admit the
wicked into heaven!
Again: suppose the master and the bondman
were both pious men; then (according to modern theology) the souls of both
would fly up to heaven at death: and thus, according to the construction put
upon the term forever, an endless state of slavery would be introduced into
heaven!
The force of the strongest arguments which
are arrayed against our position is suspended upon the assumed import of the
term forever. How exceedingly absurd it is to maintain that the sinner will
live endlessly, while destitute of immortality, and whereas God's Word
declares, "The soul that sinned, it shall die"—" The wages of
sin is death."
In order to prove the present existence of
a hell, it is contended that the Sodomites are now " suffering the
vengeance of eternal fire" (Jude 1.7). But the text does not convey this
idea. They then " suffering the vengeance of eternal fire " are now
" set forth for an example." Who were the victims of this "
eternal fire?" Answer.—Not disembodied souls, but those who gave "
themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh "—not an
abstract part of them—and none will maintain that disembodied souls went "
after strange flesh," and therefore cannot maintain from this text that
such souls are now burning, and all know that those Sodomites were long ago
burned up! " But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire
and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all" (Luke xvii. 29). This
is the only fire spoken of by Jude. Dr. Macknight's translation reads:
"Are set forth an example, having undergone the punishment of an eternal
fire." This does not furnish even a shade of proof in favor of the present
existence of a burning hell, somewhere out of sight, and beyond the knowledge
of mortals! The fire which God rained upon Sodom is styled "eternal
fire," in consequence of its effects; but that fire is not now burning.
for it has long since turned " the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into
ashes"—yet this language is as strongly indicative of perpetual burning as
is ever applied to the sinner!
The modern theory of endless torture has a
direct tendency to bring the character of God into serious disrepute, and has
driven its thousands upon thousands into Universalism and Infidelity! We are
told that if our view is correct, the sinner would be more likely to continue in
sin than he would if threatened with endless torture. Not so; for it sets the
character of God in a justifiable light. If the sinner will not accept the
offers of salvation, God will punish him for his sins, and he shall cease to
live—and God will have an universe cleansed from sin and sinners! We have no
right to threaten the sinner with more than God has threatened him. Threatening
is not the great inducement to repentance. Says the apostle: " We love Him
because He first loved us;" and again: " The goodness of God leadeth
men to repentance." The promise of eternal life is held out as the great
incentive to faith and obedience. Life is desirable. Even our present short
life is valued highly, though it is mixed with sorrow and woe! We are willing
to sacrifice anything to have life prolonged; and though we suffer pain, and
endure trials, yet we prize life above everything else, even in sorrow's cup.
Now if a short life is so desirable, what must "eternal life" be? If
a life mingled with tears, sighs, sickness, sorrow, pain, and mourning is
desirable, what estimate should be put upon a life perpetuated throughout the
endless ages of eternity, amid scenes of surpassing splendor and unfading
delight in a blooming Paradise, where "there shall be no more pain, nor
sickness, neither sorrow nor crying?"
"Eternal life," yes, ETERNAL
life—how sweet the sound! Is any sacrifice of pleasure, or enjoyment of the
fading scenes of earth, too great to make, in order that we may obtain eternal
life? It is the theme of the Gospel! It is that which eclipses the brightest
scenes, and surpasses the greatest pleasures that earth can afford. Sinner,
seek life through the Son of God: "He that hath not the Son of God hath
not life" (1 John 5. 12). "In the world to come eternal life "
(Mark 10. 30).
THE following queries often arise:
1. "Is not immortality the same as
eternal life?" Answer.—Strictly speaking, immortality, instead of being
eternal life, is the BASIS of eternal life, and eternal life is the result of
immortality; so that those who are made immortal will be sure of eternal life,
and those who have eternal life have it because they are immortal: immortality
is the cause, and eternal life the result.
2. "Are not Christians said to
possess eternal life? and are they not therefore immortal? " Answer.—The
Christian has eternal life in prospect, but not in actual possession: "
This is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, AND THIS LIFE IS IN
HIS SON " (1 John 5.11). "This is the promise which He has promised
US, EVEN ETERNAL LIFE " (1 John 2. 25); ' in the world to come eternal
life" (Mark 10. 30); "this mortal shall put on immortality"
"at the last trump."
3. "Are we to suppose that
Christendom has so long been astray on the question of immortality? Answer.—We
are to suppose that what we now find clearly stated in the Bible has been there
for many generations, and if true when first put into the Bible, it is true
still, whether men have believed or disbelieved it. Men were " turned unto
fables " .by departing from truth. The question is, What has God said
about this matter? not, What have men formerly believed? " Let God be
true, and every man a liar." Man is never said to possess immortality till
the resurrection, and then the righteous only. The term immortality is used
only in the five following instances in the Bible: "Who [Christ] hath
abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the
Gospel" (2 Tim. 1. 10). Christ, by the resurrection, " abolished
death " in His own case, and exhibited immortality in His own Person: this
is proclaimed "through the Gospel." " He is the first-fruits."
" God will render . . . . to them,
who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory and honor and
immortality, eternal life" (Rom. 2. 7). Here man is represented as being
in pursuit of immortality; for, as yet, Christ " only hath
immortality" 1 Tim. 6. 16); that is, from among the sons of men: for GOD
is styled "immortal " (1 Tim. 1. 17). But if Christ is the only one
yet made immortal by the immortal Jehovah, and man is in quest of immortality
by the obedience of faith, when will he obtain it? Paul answers: "At the
last trump . . . . this mortal must put on immortality. So when this
corruptible shall have put on . . . . immortality, then shall be brought to
pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory" (1 Cor.
15. 52-54).
The term immortality is found in no other
passage in the Bible; hence, this is the Bible doctrine on that subject—Christ
obtained immortality by a resurrection, and His saints are to obtain it in the
same manner.
THE END.