|
the harvest
|
|
The Intermediate State - by Henry Grew
CONTENTS
|
CHAPTER TWELVEOBJECTIONS CONSIDERED
HE common belief of the immortality of the human soul, cherished with a peculiar tenacity, is, I think, the chief barrier to the perception of revealed truth on the subject. I affirm, however, that it is inconsistent with both reason and revelation to suppose that Immortality is a necessary attribute of any created being. God “ONLY hath Immortality.” 1Ti 6:16. To suppose that the soul is necessarily immortal, is to suppose that it is independent of its Creator, for its continued existence. In the bible, man in the general, is declared to be MORTAL; Job 4:17. Not in a single instance is man, in the general, declared to be immortal. On the contrary, we are plainly taught that Immortality is to be sought for by faith in Jesus Christ, and patient continuance in well doing. Ro 2:7. “The wages of sin is DEATH.” Ro 6:23. “He that believeth not the Son, shall not see LIFE.” Joh 3:36.
It is also affirmed that thought and reason cannot be attributed to matter, that these are evidences of an immaterial substance which survives the body. It appears to me that Heb 4:12, contradicts this theory. “Shall I be told (says W. Lawrence) that thought is inconsistent with matter; that we cannot conceive how medullary substance can perceive, remember, judge, reason? I acknowledge that we are entirely ignorant how the parts of the brain accomplish these purposes-as we are how the liver secretes bile, how the muscles contract, or how any other living purpose is effected-as we are how heavy bodies are attracted to the earth, how iron is drawn to the magnet or how two salts decompose each other. NOTE: The following editorial comments were added by a previous editor and not that of the Harvest Herald [Editor: I caution the reader who may dismiss these writings as antiquated, that while this monograph was written in 1855, and while science has probed into these mysteries for some 150 years, uncovering many of the secrets still hidden in Br. Grew’s day, yet his discussion of the properties of the human soul, and its demise at death, has withstood the test of time, and still remains biblically true today.] “Let us survey the natural history of the human mind-its rise, progress, various fates, and decay; and then judge whether these accord best with the hypothesis of an immaterial agent, or with the plain dictates of common sense, and the analogy of every other organ and function throughout the boundless extent of living beings. The senses and brain begin to be exercised as soon as the child is born; and a faint glimmering of mind is dimly perceived in the course of the first months of existence: but it is weak and infantile as the body. As the senses acquire their powers, and the cerebral jelly becomes firmer, the mind gradually strengthens; slowly advances with the body, through childhood to puberty; and becomes adult when the development of the frame is complete. In the perfect period of organization, the mind is seen in the plenitude of its powers; but this state of full vigor is short in duration, both for the intellect and the corporeal fabric. The wear and tear of the latter is evidenced in its mental movements: with the decline of organization the mind decays; it becomes decrepit with the body; and both are at the same time extinguished by death. |
“What do we infer from this succession of phenomena? The existence and action of a principle entirely distinct from the body? Or a close analogy to the history of all other organs and functions?
“The number and kind of the intellectual phenomena in different animals, correspond closely to the degree of the development of the brain. The graduation of organization and of mind passes through the monkey, dog, elephant, horse, to other quadrupeds; thence to birds, reptiles, and fishes, and so on to the lowest links of the animal chain. In ascending the steps of our ladder, following in regular succession at equal intervals, where shall we find the boundary of unassisted organization? Where place the beginning of the immaterial adjunct? In that view which assimilates the functions of the brain to other organic parts, this case has no difficulty. As the structure of the brain is more perfect, exquisite and complex, its functions ought to be proportionally so. It is no slight proof of the doctrine now enforced, that the fact is actually thus: that the mental powers of brutes, so far as we can see, are proportional to their organization.
“If the intellectual phenomena of man require an immaterial principle superadded to the brain, we must equally concede it to those more rational animals which exhibit manifestations differing from some of the human only in degree. If we grant it to these, we cannot refuse it to the next in order, and so on, in succession, to the whole series-to the oyster, the sea-anemone, the polyp, the microscopic animalcules. Is any one prepared to admit the existence of immaterial principles in all these cases? If not, he must equally reject it in man.
“Thought, it is positively and dogmatically asserted, cannot be an act of matter. Yet no feelings, no thought, no intellectual operation has ever been seen, except in conjunction with a brain; and living matter is acknowledged by most persons to be capable of what makes the nearest possible approach to thinking. The strongest advocates of immaterialism seeks no further than the body, for his explanation of all the vital processes, of muscular contraction, nutrition, secretion, &c. -operations quite as different from any affection of inorganic substance, as reasoning or thought; he will even allow the brain to be capable of sensation.
“Who knows the capabilities of matter so perfectly, as to be able to say that it can see, hear, smell, taste and feel, but cannot possibly reflect, imagine, judge? If the mental processes be not the function of the brain, what is its office? In animals which possess only a small share of the human cerebral structure, sensation exists, and, in many cases, is more acute than in man. What employment shall we find for all that man possesses over and above this portion, for the large and prodigiously developed human hemispheres? Are we to believe that these serve only to round the figure of the organ or to fill the cranium?”
Lu 16:19-31. It must be admitted that a part of our Lord’s representation of the state of the rich man and Lazarus, seems to favor the opinion of conscious happiness and misery immediately after death, especially the request of the former, that Lazarus should be sent to his father’s house. The entire representation, however, is far from sustaining such an opinion. So that the parable could not be considered as clearly teaching the popular theory, even if there was no opposing testimony.
By what process of reasoning do we infer the conscious misery of a disembodied spirit, from the declaration that a man “lifted up HIS EYES” in hell, and felt HIS “TONGUE” tormented in the flame? Is not our Lord’s representation strong proof, that man has no soul which is capable of suffering without the body? If such an opinion is true, was not this the very occasion to teach it? Would the faithful witness of the truth teach that the bodily members were actually tormented, when if fact they were as dead as a stone in the grave? Does not such a representation oblige us to understand our Lord as anticipating that state, when the body, or the man, raised from the grave, should be capable of the suffering and enjoyment which he describes? Even that part of the parable which refers to the rich man’s concern for his brethren, contains some proof that there is no conscious spirit separate from the body, for the representation is, that Lazarus could not make the desired communication, except he “rose from the dead.”
Moreover, Jesus Christ in Mt 25th chap. and in other passages teaches us, that judgment will precede future punishment. But the judgment will not be until the harvest, which “is the end of the world,” or present state, when the Son of man will come in his glory. He plainly teaches us that the wicked are not to be cast into the furnace or lake of fire, (where, it appears, the rich man is represented as being tormented) until the end of the world. See Mt 13:39-42.
Whatever view we take of this part of our Lord’s instruction-whether we admit or deny that it is a parable, and whatever construction we give it, one things is undeniable, viz., it is not all literally true. Therefore, it is totally inconsistent with the acknowledged correct rules of interpreting the oracles of God, to give it a construction which contradicts the plain and positive declarations of divine truth, that “the dead know not anything;” that their “thoughts perish,” and that their hatred and love is lost. Compare Isa 14:9-24 Eze 32:21-32; where the dead are represented as speaking in the grave.
2Co 5:1-10. I have never been more impressed with a sense of the importance of examining scripture in its connection, than when critically reviewing the sixth and eighth verses of this chapter, which I have long considered as proof of the doctrine I am now obliged to oppose.
Before examining these verses in their connection, the reader is requested to consider whether, even separately considered, these verses prove that Paul expected at death to be immediately with the Lord, any more than the first verse proves that he expected immediately at death, to be clothed with the immortal body?
“For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle, (i.e., our body) were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens,” i.e., an IMMORTAL BODY. -“For in this we groan earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: (i.e., our immortal body.) If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened {see Ro 8:23} not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon (how?) that mortality might be swallowed up of life, ( i.e., by the possession of the immortal body as verse 2 proves. See also 1Co 15:54) “Now he that hath wrought us for the self same thing is God.” What “self same thing?” certainly, for the possession of this house from heaven which is the immortal body. “Who also hath given us the earnest (i.e., of the self same thing) of the spirit.” Thus far the premises, now for the conclusion. “Therefore,” i.e., because God hath wrought us for this self same thing of giving us an immortal body, “ we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, (i.e., our mortal body) we are absent from the Lord; (for we walk by faith not by sight.) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body (i.e., this mortal body) that (in our immortal body) we may be present with the Lord.” According to the common opinion, Paul and his brethren might have been confident of their being present with the Lord, if God never had wrought them for that self same thing, viz., the immortal body. The unbiased reader will perceive that the common construction of the sixth and eighth verses destroys all connection between the apostle’s premises and conclusion. It makes him reason most absurdly. What sense is there in the following argument? Because God has promised us the immortal body, therefore we are confident and desire to have no body at all. It is evident that the apostle had in his mind, “the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body” from the grave, throughout this connected chain of premises and conclusion; which is further proved by his reference to our appearing before the judgment seat of Christ, which certainly will not be till he comes in glory and raises the dead. See Mt 25:31-46 1Th 4:16.
It is evident from the first four verses of this very chapter, that Paul’s hope of being present with the Lord, was founded on the doctrine of the resurrection.
It may be said that according to the view advocated, the saints never will be absent from the body. I reply that the dissolution of our body is sufficient to justify such an expression. “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” It is in the incorruptible and immortal body only that we can be present with the Lord. If the believer is present with the Lord in a disembodied state as many suppose, he would then see him as he is and be like him, but this is not to be until he appears. See 1Jo 3:2 Php 1:23. “For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and be with Christ; which is far better.” The apostle does not affirm that he expected to be with Christ immediately on his departure; though such would be a fair construction of his words, if it were not a violation of the general tenor of divine truth on this subject. It will indeed appear to Paul that he is with his Savior immediately on his departure, for of the intervening period he has no consciousness. Compare this passage with 2Co 5:1. To deny that a release from his toils and sufferings was an adequate cause for his desiring to depart, is to deny the word of the Lord which declares that such are blessed because “they rest from their labors,” Re 14:13. The wise man “praised the dead-more than the living, not because of their being in a state of conscious felicity, but because of their deliverance from oppression, Ec 4:1,2. In the grave “the wicked cease from troubling and the weary are at rest.” The righteous are taken away from the evil to come. Isa 57:1 Lu 23:43. “And Jesus said unto him, verily I say unto thee, to-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.”
In the “Improved Version” of the New Testament this passage is marked as doubtful. Neither of the other evangelists record it. If it is genuine, the Greek does not require the pointing of our version. In the margin, though not in the text Griesbach has the comma after to-day. We may understand our Lord as saying, “Verily, verily I say unto thee to-day,”&c. What was the request of the dying thief? “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” Our Lord has not yet entered into his kingdom, nor will he, until the seventh angel hath sounded, see Re 11:15. Then, the penitent thief, who will have part in the first resurrection, will be with him in paradise, which will be in the new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness. Then the promise, given him on the day of our Lord’s crucifixion will be fulfilled.
Is it reasonable to suppose, that Jesus Christ, who assured his disciples “all things that I have heard of my Father, I have made known unto you,” although he spoke to them of death and of the resurrection would never say a word to them on this subject, if it were true? -Moreover, how could our Savior be in paradise that day, when, on the third day after, he told Mary, “I am not yet ascended to my Father?” Such a supposition subverts the great truth that, on that day Jehovah made “HIS SOUL AN OFFERING FOR SIN,” Isa 53:10; and that, for us, he “poured out HIS SOUL unto death,” see Mt 26:38 Ps 16:10. Is hades or sheol paradise or heaven? Never. If his soul was in paradise, or in heaven, that day, then his soul was not poured out unto death. It did not die at all. The separation from the body, of a soul which still exists in a conscious state, is not death but life. It is the very opposite of death. We know from Ps 16:10, that Jesus Christ’s SOUL was in sheol from his death to his resurrection; and from Ec 9:10, we know that “there is no work, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in sheol.” &c. According to the common theory, God never gave HIS OWN SON to die for us. He gave only a human body to DIE for the sin of the world! Where then is the love of God which the inspired writers delighted to celebrate, as manifested in the fact that God gave that very Son, who was with him before the world was, TO DIE FOR us? Where is that efficacy of the atoning sacrifice which is to give us confidence before God? Alas! how have the corrupt theories of that wisdom, which is foolishness with God, eclipsed the true wisdom and glory of redeeming love!
Mt 10:28. “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”
In some passages, it is positively declared, that men do kill and destroy the soul. See Jos 10:28,30,32,35,37 Jos 11:11. In the passage before us it is affirmed that men are not able to kill the soul. How shall we reconcile these apparent opposite testimonies? By flatly denying the former altogether, which we must do to sustain the common theory? Or by understanding that in one sense men can kill the soul, but not in another? Men can kill the soul temporarily but not eternally. See Lu 12:4,5 1Pe 3:19. “By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison,” Milton says, “literally, in guard, or, as the Syriac version renders it, in sepulchres, in the grave.” The spirit of Christ in Noah, preached to those who were in the grave when Peter wrote. 2Pe 2:5.
The angel in Re 22:8,9, might be Enoch or Elijah.
Re 6:9,10: “I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God-and they cried with a loud voice,”&c.
It would be absurd to give this passage a literal construction. No one can suppose that the souls of the departed are under an altar in heaven. The blood is the life. In the sacrifice under the law, it was poured under the altar. As the blood of Abel cried from the ground for vengeance, so the blood of the martyrs cries for vengeance against their persecutors.
Ac 7:59. “Lord Jesus receive my spirit.”
It is indeed true, that, at death, the dust returns to dust, and the spirit, or life, to God who gave it. But in what sense, is the question? I understand that the dying martyr committed his spirit or life to the care of Him who is the resurrection and the life, and who will restore it, by raising Stephen from the dead when he comes. The passage contains no proof that the spirit or life, is distinct immaterial substance susceptible of consciousness without organization. “Ye are dead, and your life is hid (i.e., concealed, not manifest, secured,) with Christ in God.” What then? Are the saints therefore in a conscious state of felicity previous to the resurrection? The apostle makes no such inference. The consequence of our life being thus hid is plainly stated. “When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, THEN, shall ye also appear with him in glory.” Col 3:3,4.
“The spirits of just men made perfect.”
The proof that verses 22 to 24 are an illusion to the state, after the first resurrection, is as follows-1. The apostle says “ye are come unto the City of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem,”&c. Now we know from Re 21:1-3, that this City will not come down out of heaven to be the residence of the saints until the new earth is established. 2. From Joh 14:3 and 1Jo 3:2, &c., it is evident that the saints will not see their Savior, or be with him, until he comes to reign on the earth. 3. From Php 3:10,11,12,21, it is evident that Paul believed that just men are not “made perfect” until the resurrection. Until then they are in bondage. Ro 8:21. They will not be perfect until “the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.”23d. ver.; 2Co 5:2.
But some exclaim, “What a gloomy doctrine!”
Did the apostles think so? Let us hear them. “But I would not have you to be ignorant brethren, concerning them which are asleep, (not in heaven,) that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. (Why not Paul? Because the departed are now with Christ?) For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. (How?) For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first.” 1Th 4:13-16. Whatever it may be with us, it is manifest that with Paul, the doctrine of the resurrection, with its concomitant glories, was an adequate source of consolation in respect to departed brethren. So Peter’s representation of the incorruptible inheritance, “ready to be revealed in the last time,” even “at the appearing of Jesus Christ,” actually produced in the minds of believers, in their “manifold temptations,” a joy unspeakable and full of glory! Far be it, that we should be found undervaluing such promises.
Let us candidly review this subject, and ask, what is the evidence of the existence of such a distinct spiritual and independent substance as the human soul is supposed to be? The original terms translated soul and spirit, mean no such thing, the most learned being judges. The scriptures of truth reveal no such doctrine. The account of man’s creation is opposed to it. The divine testimony is plain and positive, that when the body dies, the thoughts, affections, purposes, &c., which, it is admitted, pertain to the soul or spirit, perish. No reason or philosophy can prove that it is any more absurd to admit that the Almighty Creator can make the material organization of man to reason, &c., than it is to admit that he can impart mental capacity to the beasts which perish.
Reader, are thou prepared to enter into the kingdom of God? You may profess to believe the Gospel-you may have been baptized and united with the church of Christ-all this Ananias and Sapphira did, yet they perished. All this Simon did, yet he had no part in the kingdom of Christ for his “heart was not right in the sight of God.” So Demas, but alas! he “loved this present world.” The King himself has declared that, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”“ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my father which is in heaven.” “And there shall in no wise enter into it (the holy city) any thing that defileth, neither whosoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie, but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable-shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second death.” Re 21:8,27.
The first scene of the great drama of Jehovah’s wisdom and love in our salvation has been exhibited to an astonished universe-“THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST.” The second, “THE GLORY THAT SHALL FOLLOW,” will soon burst upon us. “He that shall come WILL COME, and will not tarry.” “EVEN SO COME, LORD JESUS.” “Blessing and honor, and glory, and power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne and unto the Lamb forever and ever.
“The number and kind of the intellectual phenomena in different animals, correspond closely to the degree of the development of the brain. The graduation of organization and of mind passes through the monkey, dog, elephant, horse, to other quadrupeds; thence to birds, reptiles, and fishes, and so on to the lowest links of the animal chain. In ascending the steps of our ladder, following in regular succession at equal intervals, where shall we find the boundary of unassisted organization? Where place the beginning of the immaterial adjunct? In that view which assimilates the functions of the brain to other organic parts, this case has no difficulty. As the structure of the brain is more perfect, exquisite and complex, its functions ought to be proportionally so. It is no slight proof of the doctrine now enforced, that the fact is actually thus: that the mental powers of brutes, so far as we can see, are proportional to their organization.
“If the intellectual phenomena of man require an immaterial principle superadded to the brain, we must equally concede it to those more rational animals which exhibit manifestations differing from some of the human only in degree. If we grant it to these, we cannot refuse it to the next in order, and so on, in succession, to the whole series-to the oyster, the sea-anemone, the polyp, the microscopic animalcules. Is any one prepared to admit the existence of immaterial principles in all these cases? If not, he must equally reject it in man.
“Thought, it is positively and dogmatically asserted, cannot be an act of matter. Yet no feelings, no thought, no intellectual operation has ever been seen, except in conjunction with a brain; and living matter is acknowledged by most persons to be capable of what makes the nearest possible approach to thinking. The strongest advocates of immaterialism seeks no further than the body, for his explanation of all the vital processes, of muscular contraction, nutrition, secretion, &c. -operations quite as different from any affection of inorganic substance, as reasoning or thought; he will even allow the brain to be capable of sensation.
“Who knows the capabilities of matter so perfectly, as to be able to say that it can see, hear, smell, taste and feel, but cannot possibly reflect, imagine, judge? If the mental processes be not the function of the brain, what is its office? In animals which possess only a small share of the human cerebral structure, sensation exists, and, in many cases, is more acute than in man. What employment shall we find for all that man possesses over and above this portion, for the large and prodigiously developed human hemispheres? Are we to believe that these serve only to round the figure of the organ or to fill the cranium?”
Lu 16:19-31. It must be admitted that a part of our Lord’s representation of the state of the rich man and Lazarus, seems to favor the opinion of conscious happiness and misery immediately after death, especially the request of the former, that Lazarus should be sent to his father’s house. The entire representation, however, is far from sustaining such an opinion. So that the parable could not be considered as clearly teaching the popular theory, even if there was no opposing testimony.
By what process of reasoning do we infer the conscious misery of a disembodied spirit, from the declaration that a man “lifted up HIS EYES” in hell, and felt HIS “TONGUE” tormented in the flame? Is not our Lord’s representation strong proof, that man has no soul which is capable of suffering without the body? If such an opinion is true, was not this the very occasion to teach it? Would the faithful witness of the truth teach that the bodily members were actually tormented, when if fact they were as dead as a stone in the grave? Does not such a representation oblige us to understand our Lord as anticipating that state, when the body, or the man, raised from the grave, should be capable of the suffering and enjoyment which he describes? Even that part of the parable which refers to the rich man’s concern for his brethren, contains some proof that there is no conscious spirit separate from the body, for the representation is, that Lazarus could not make the desired communication, except he “rose from the dead.”
Moreover, Jesus Christ in Mt 25th chap. and in other passages teaches us, that judgment will precede future punishment. But the judgment will not be until the harvest, which “is the end of the world,” or present state, when the Son of man will come in his glory. He plainly teaches us that the wicked are not to be cast into the furnace or lake of fire, (where, it appears, the rich man is represented as being tormented) until the end of the world. See Mt 13:39-42.
Whatever view we take of this part of our Lord’s instruction-whether we admit or deny that it is a parable, and whatever construction we give it, one things is undeniable, viz., it is not all literally true. Therefore, it is totally inconsistent with the acknowledged correct rules of interpreting the oracles of God, to give it a construction which contradicts the plain and positive declarations of divine truth, that “the dead know not anything;” that their “thoughts perish,” and that their hatred and love is lost. Compare Isa 14:9-24 Eze 32:21-32; where the dead are represented as speaking in the grave.
2Co 5:1-10. I have never been more impressed with a sense of the importance of examining scripture in its connection, than when critically reviewing the sixth and eighth verses of this chapter, which I have long considered as proof of the doctrine I am now obliged to oppose.
Before examining these verses in their connection, the reader is requested to consider whether, even separately considered, these verses prove that Paul expected at death to be immediately with the Lord, any more than the first verse proves that he expected immediately at death, to be clothed with the immortal body?
“For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle, (i.e., our body) were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens,” i.e., an IMMORTAL BODY. -“For in this we groan earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: (i.e., our immortal body.) If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened {see Ro 8:23} not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon (how?) that mortality might be swallowed up of life, ( i.e., by the possession of the immortal body as verse 2 proves. See also 1Co 15:54) “Now he that hath wrought us for the self same thing is God.” What “self same thing?” certainly, for the possession of this house from heaven which is the immortal body. “Who also hath given us the earnest (i.e., of the self same thing) of the spirit.” Thus far the premises, now for the conclusion. “Therefore,” i.e., because God hath wrought us for this self same thing of giving us an immortal body, “ we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, (i.e., our mortal body) we are absent from the Lord; (for we walk by faith not by sight.) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body (i.e., this mortal body) that (in our immortal body) we may be present with the Lord.” According to the common opinion, Paul and his brethren might have been confident of their being present with the Lord, if God never had wrought them for that self same thing, viz., the immortal body. The unbiased reader will perceive that the common construction of the sixth and eighth verses destroys all connection between the apostle’s premises and conclusion. It makes him reason most absurdly. What sense is there in the following argument? Because God has promised us the immortal body, therefore we are confident and desire to have no body at all. It is evident that the apostle had in his mind, “the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body” from the grave, throughout this connected chain of premises and conclusion; which is further proved by his reference to our appearing before the judgment seat of Christ, which certainly will not be till he comes in glory and raises the dead. See Mt 25:31-46 1Th 4:16.
It is evident from the first four verses of this very chapter, that Paul’s hope of being present with the Lord, was founded on the doctrine of the resurrection.
It may be said that according to the view advocated, the saints never will be absent from the body. I reply that the dissolution of our body is sufficient to justify such an expression. “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” It is in the incorruptible and immortal body only that we can be present with the Lord. If the believer is present with the Lord in a disembodied state as many suppose, he would then see him as he is and be like him, but this is not to be until he appears. See 1Jo 3:2 Php 1:23. “For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and be with Christ; which is far better.” The apostle does not affirm that he expected to be with Christ immediately on his departure; though such would be a fair construction of his words, if it were not a violation of the general tenor of divine truth on this subject. It will indeed appear to Paul that he is with his Savior immediately on his departure, for of the intervening period he has no consciousness. Compare this passage with 2Co 5:1. To deny that a release from his toils and sufferings was an adequate cause for his desiring to depart, is to deny the word of the Lord which declares that such are blessed because “they rest from their labors,” Re 14:13. The wise man “praised the dead-more than the living, not because of their being in a state of conscious felicity, but because of their deliverance from oppression, Ec 4:1,2. In the grave “the wicked cease from troubling and the weary are at rest.” The righteous are taken away from the evil to come. Isa 57:1 Lu 23:43. “And Jesus said unto him, verily I say unto thee, to-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.”
In the “Improved Version” of the New Testament this passage is marked as doubtful. Neither of the other evangelists record it. If it is genuine, the Greek does not require the pointing of our version. In the margin, though not in the text Griesbach has the comma after to-day. We may understand our Lord as saying, “Verily, verily I say unto thee to-day,”&c. What was the request of the dying thief? “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” Our Lord has not yet entered into his kingdom, nor will he, until the seventh angel hath sounded, see Re 11:15. Then, the penitent thief, who will have part in the first resurrection, will be with him in paradise, which will be in the new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness. Then the promise, given him on the day of our Lord’s crucifixion will be fulfilled.
Is it reasonable to suppose, that Jesus Christ, who assured his disciples “all things that I have heard of my Father, I have made known unto you,” although he spoke to them of death and of the resurrection would never say a word to them on this subject, if it were true? -Moreover, how could our Savior be in paradise that day, when, on the third day after, he told Mary, “I am not yet ascended to my Father?” Such a supposition subverts the great truth that, on that day Jehovah made “HIS SOUL AN OFFERING FOR SIN,” Isa 53:10; and that, for us, he “poured out HIS SOUL unto death,” see Mt 26:38 Ps 16:10. Is hades or sheol paradise or heaven? Never. If his soul was in paradise, or in heaven, that day, then his soul was not poured out unto death. It did not die at all. The separation from the body, of a soul which still exists in a conscious state, is not death but life. It is the very opposite of death. We know from Ps 16:10, that Jesus Christ’s SOUL was in sheol from his death to his resurrection; and from Ec 9:10, we know that “there is no work, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in sheol.” &c. According to the common theory, God never gave HIS OWN SON to die for us. He gave only a human body to DIE for the sin of the world! Where then is the love of God which the inspired writers delighted to celebrate, as manifested in the fact that God gave that very Son, who was with him before the world was, TO DIE FOR us? Where is that efficacy of the atoning sacrifice which is to give us confidence before God? Alas! how have the corrupt theories of that wisdom, which is foolishness with God, eclipsed the true wisdom and glory of redeeming love!
Mt 10:28. “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”
In some passages, it is positively declared, that men do kill and destroy the soul. See Jos 10:28,30,32,35,37 Jos 11:11. In the passage before us it is affirmed that men are not able to kill the soul. How shall we reconcile these apparent opposite testimonies? By flatly denying the former altogether, which we must do to sustain the common theory? Or by understanding that in one sense men can kill the soul, but not in another? Men can kill the soul temporarily but not eternally. See Lu 12:4,5 1Pe 3:19. “By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison,” Milton says, “literally, in guard, or, as the Syriac version renders it, in sepulchres, in the grave.” The spirit of Christ in Noah, preached to those who were in the grave when Peter wrote. 2Pe 2:5.
The angel in Re 22:8,9, might be Enoch or Elijah.
Re 6:9,10: “I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God-and they cried with a loud voice,”&c.
It would be absurd to give this passage a literal construction. No one can suppose that the souls of the departed are under an altar in heaven. The blood is the life. In the sacrifice under the law, it was poured under the altar. As the blood of Abel cried from the ground for vengeance, so the blood of the martyrs cries for vengeance against their persecutors.
Ac 7:59. “Lord Jesus receive my spirit.”
It is indeed true, that, at death, the dust returns to dust, and the spirit, or life, to God who gave it. But in what sense, is the question? I understand that the dying martyr committed his spirit or life to the care of Him who is the resurrection and the life, and who will restore it, by raising Stephen from the dead when he comes. The passage contains no proof that the spirit or life, is distinct immaterial substance susceptible of consciousness without organization. “Ye are dead, and your life is hid (i.e., concealed, not manifest, secured,) with Christ in God.” What then? Are the saints therefore in a conscious state of felicity previous to the resurrection? The apostle makes no such inference. The consequence of our life being thus hid is plainly stated. “When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, THEN, shall ye also appear with him in glory.” Col 3:3,4.
“The spirits of just men made perfect.”
The proof that verses 22 to 24 are an illusion to the state, after the first resurrection, is as follows-1. The apostle says “ye are come unto the City of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem,”&c. Now we know from Re 21:1-3, that this City will not come down out of heaven to be the residence of the saints until the new earth is established. 2. From Joh 14:3 and 1Jo 3:2, &c., it is evident that the saints will not see their Savior, or be with him, until he comes to reign on the earth. 3. From Php 3:10,11,12,21, it is evident that Paul believed that just men are not “made perfect” until the resurrection. Until then they are in bondage. Ro 8:21. They will not be perfect until “the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.”23d. ver.; 2Co 5:2.
But some exclaim, “What a gloomy doctrine!”
Did the apostles think so? Let us hear them. “But I would not have you to be ignorant brethren, concerning them which are asleep, (not in heaven,) that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. (Why not Paul? Because the departed are now with Christ?) For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. (How?) For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first.” 1Th 4:13-16. Whatever it may be with us, it is manifest that with Paul, the doctrine of the resurrection, with its concomitant glories, was an adequate source of consolation in respect to departed brethren. So Peter’s representation of the incorruptible inheritance, “ready to be revealed in the last time,” even “at the appearing of Jesus Christ,” actually produced in the minds of believers, in their “manifold temptations,” a joy unspeakable and full of glory! Far be it, that we should be found undervaluing such promises.
Let us candidly review this subject, and ask, what is the evidence of the existence of such a distinct spiritual and independent substance as the human soul is supposed to be? The original terms translated soul and spirit, mean no such thing, the most learned being judges. The scriptures of truth reveal no such doctrine. The account of man’s creation is opposed to it. The divine testimony is plain and positive, that when the body dies, the thoughts, affections, purposes, &c., which, it is admitted, pertain to the soul or spirit, perish. No reason or philosophy can prove that it is any more absurd to admit that the Almighty Creator can make the material organization of man to reason, &c., than it is to admit that he can impart mental capacity to the beasts which perish.
Reader, are thou prepared to enter into the kingdom of God? You may profess to believe the Gospel-you may have been baptized and united with the church of Christ-all this Ananias and Sapphira did, yet they perished. All this Simon did, yet he had no part in the kingdom of Christ for his “heart was not right in the sight of God.” So Demas, but alas! he “loved this present world.” The King himself has declared that, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”“ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my father which is in heaven.” “And there shall in no wise enter into it (the holy city) any thing that defileth, neither whosoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie, but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable-shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second death.” Re 21:8,27.
The first scene of the great drama of Jehovah’s wisdom and love in our salvation has been exhibited to an astonished universe-“THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST.” The second, “THE GLORY THAT SHALL FOLLOW,” will soon burst upon us. “He that shall come WILL COME, and will not tarry.” “EVEN SO COME, LORD JESUS.” “Blessing and honor, and glory, and power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne and unto the Lamb forever and ever.
