NATURE AND DESTINY OF MAN
By N. V. Hull
From the Sabbath Recorder. NATURE AND DESTINY OF MAN.
DISCUSSION BETWEEN ELD. N. V. HULL, SEVENTH-DAY BAPTIST, AND ELD. R. F. COTTRELL, SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST.
(Continued from Review No. 23, Vol. xxvi.) Elder Hull's Ninth Article.
Dear Brother,—Contrary to my expectations, I have, either by ill health or rigorous demands upon my time and strength, been overruled in my purpose, so that a long period of time has elapsed since my last letter to you on the "Nature and Destiny of Man." And even now, I can only snatch a moment in which to notice your argument on Acts xxiii, 8, etc. You say that my view, which makes the resurrection of the dead one thing believed by the Pharisees, and the existence of angels and spirits another, is an absurdity, because the form of expression shows three things believed, upon my hypothesis, while the word "both," in the text, shows only two things believed, namely, the resurrection of the dead, and the existence of angels or spirits, thus making angels and spirits one. If you could make angels and spirits in this verse mean simply angels, I grant the argument I have made from it would fail. But there are several fatal errors in your theory: 1. The text reads, "For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees confess both." Here the resurrection is made one thing believed, and the existence of angels and spirits another. According to this, the word "both" is surely used in a strictly grammatical sense. 2. Your attempt to make angels and spirits mean one and the same thing, is contradicted by the words of the text, which are, nor angels, nor spirits—not angels or spirits, as you write it. 3. Neither Jesus nor Paul affirm the doctrine of the Pharisees as to the condition of these spirits, but only as to their existence. But as to their existence, this they affirm positively. 4. That the Sadducees denied the existence of human spirits after the death of the body, is as much a matter of historic notoriety, as the existence of the sect itself; and as a necessary thought, they denied also the resurrection. One might as well deny the existence of the sect of the Pharisees, as to deny their belief in the existence of human spirits after the death of the body. Just so certainly as they believed in the resurrection, did they believe in this. I maintain, therefore, that any interpretation of Scripture that ignores this fact, is fatally defective. Paul then affirms himself, in so far as the existence of human spirits after the death of the body is concerned, a Pharisee. I claim that a fair interpretation of this passage, taken in connection with Luke xxiv, 37–39, should settle beyond cavil this question. Your attempt to make spirit and life synonymous terms, may be a necessity of your doctrine; but, as it seems to me, should teach you its inconsistency. That in certain instances spirit means life, I grant; but that it is even its general meaning, I deny. I give a few instances to show the reader the absurdity of the position, that spirit and life are convertible terms. Matt. xxvi, 41. "The spirit indeed is willing." Mark viii, 12. "And he sighed deeply in his spirit." Luke x, 21. "In that hour, Jesus rejoiced in spirit." John xi, 33. "He groaned in spirit." Acts xvii, 16. "His spirit was stirred within him." Rom. ii, 29. "Circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit." 1 Cor. ii, 11. "For who among men knows the things of a man, save the spirit of the man which is in him?" This is sufficient to show how impossible it is to make spirit and life to mean one and the same thing. My next letter will be on the destiny of man.
Faithfully yours,