THE JUDGMENT DAY by S. S. Griswold

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 12, 1873

THE JUDGMENT DAY.

By S. S. Griswold

BY S. S. GRISWOLD.

Do the Scriptures teach that the Judgment day is some definite day in the future, in which the dead bodies of all mankind will be raised up, and their souls summoned from their abodes of happiness or misery, and made to re-enter those resurrected bodies, and that then, both their souls and bodies, thus reunited, will be adjudged, and sentenced to Heaven or hell?

This is my last proposition, as set forth in my schedule of May 21, 1872, and hence will close the series.

This proposition, as will be seen, does not belong to the Advent theory of the Judgment, exclusively. I refer to what is the popular orthodox theory of eschatology which is, that mankind possess a soul or spirit, that does not die with the body; but that continues to exist after death, separate from the body, and that at death every soul passes to a condition of happiness or misery, where it continues to enjoy or suffer until the final end of this world, at which time, a great white throne will descend from Heaven, on which will be seated the Lord Jesus Christ as Judge with attendant angels. An archangel will then, by the blast of his trumpet, awaken every dead body buried in the earth, and recall every soul from Heaven or hell, and cause each soul to re-enter and reinhabit its former body; then the vast multitude will all be assembled before the throne, and in presence of the Judge; and each one will be re-examined, and rejudged, and resentenced. Each one then will be remanded back to its former condition, either worse or better, that is, to Heaven or hell; and that is to be the final closing up of all probationary condition of things, the world, in the meantime, having been burned up. Such is, I believe, a synopsis of what may be called the popular, or orthodox, view of the subject.

Before proceeding to examine the proposition of this article, it may be well to notice both the agreement and the difference between the popular orthodox view, or theory, and that of the second Adventists as it may lead to more mutual charity for each other's opinion.

First, their agreements:

(1.) They both agree to the supposed fact of the personal coming of Christ in the clouds of heaven.

(2.) They both agree in the resurrection of the bodies of the dead.

(3.) They both agree in the day of Judgment.

(4.) They both agree in the burning up of this world.

(5.) They both agree in the fact of future rewards and punishments.

(6.) They both agree that there is to be a final end of this mundane system.

Secondly, they differ:

(1.) Respecting the intermediate state of the dead. The orthodox believe the dead are conscious, and are happy or miserable, during this intermediate state, from death to the resurrection. The Adventists believe the dead are unconscious, and know nothing after dying until their bodies are resurrected.

(2.) They differ as to the time of Christ's personal coming. The Adventists believe it to be near. The orthodox, that it probably is not.

(3.) They differ respecting the nature of the reward of the future state, especially that of the wicked. The orthodox believe the wicked will exist forever in endless misery, perhaps in a hell of fire and brimstone. The Adventists believe that the wicked will be annihilated, consumed by fire into smoke.

The above are, I believe, the main points of agreement and difference between the orthodox and Adventists. The Sabbatarians, as a body, hold with the orthodox, although there are many Adventists in theory among them. And a question arises, whether that manner of Bible exegesis, by which the orthodox party maintain their theory, does not almost necessarily tend to, if it does not require, the theory of the Adventists. Both are materialistic in their interpretation. Both hold that temporal death was the effect and penalty of sin. Both hold the resurrection of the body, and the bodily, personal coming of Christ, and the final conflagration of this world. Their main difference is the conscious or unconscious state of the soul after death, and the annihilation or endless existence and misery of the wicked.

I am not certain but that consistency of interpretation will not, sooner or later, require the orthodox party, and especially the Seventh-day Baptists, to either embrace in general the views of the Adventists, or recede from their basis of interpretation of the Scriptures on those subjects. And is it not significant that some of the leading, religious journals of the age, and some of the most prominent orthodox ministers, have thought most favorably of the writings of Professor C. F. Hudson. Nor will it, I think, be largely questioned, but that there is quite an under current of eschatology running nearly in the direction of the Advent theories. Few sects have had a more rapid growth than second Adventism. Being resurrected from the graves of ancient Chiliasm, Millenarianism, and fifth Monarchism, by the trumpet voice of William Miller, it came forth with its grave clothes laid aside, and ascending toward its zenith, it now stands in mid-heaven, if not as a star of the first magnitude, yet, as one of noted dimensions.

And I am of the opinion that much of the success of the Seventh-day Adventists, in making converts to the Sabbath, grows out of their mode of Bible exegesis respecting the nature and destiny of man; the literalism of the latter would seem to require the observance of the former. Hence, the first-day Adventists are inconsistent in that respect with this manner of exegesis, and, hence, I think their success in making converts has not equaled their Seventh-day-Adventist brethren.

But I will not pursue this train of thought farther, and but for the importance of the subject, I would not have introduced it.

Then to the proposition. Do the Scriptures teach its affirmation? I think they do not. But that while they do teach a day of Judgment, a resurrection of the dead, they do not set them forth in the manner the affirmative of the proposition would imply; and that the popular orthodox theory on those subjects is in error as to the time and manner in which those events will take place.

First, then, there seems to be a great inconsistency in the popular view of the intermediate state.

If the soul at death enters immediately the world of spirits, conscious, as it is admitted, it must of necessity enter more or less upon the rewards of that state, and hence it must of course be happy or miserable, the incipient state of Heaven or hell. This is admitted. And if the soul is thus in happiness or misery, must it not have been arraigned, tried, and either condemned or justified? Hence, it must have passed its Judgment day, and received its sentence. Such being the case, of what use can another Judgment day be? Why should the souls of the departed, who have (some of them) been in the heavenly or hellish condition, perhaps for ages, be arraigned, and made to undergo another trial and sentence, and then be remanded back to their former Heaven or hell?

Now the Adventists' view seems far more consistent than this, for, according to their theory, the whole man becoming unconscious at death, the reconstruction of his former body is therefore a necessity to his re-living. But not so in the other case, for they strenuously maintain the continued existence of the soul—the man. Hence, if the man can exist and enjoy or suffer during the intermediate state without its former body, why may it not ever afterward? and hence there is no real need of the resurrection, reconstruction of its former body, in order to enjoy or suffer the pains of hell or the joys of Heaven. Having shown in a former article that the Scriptures nowhere teach the resuscitation of our bodies, I need not recapitulate what was there said. I will simply say that, by the resurrection of the dead, the Scriptures invariably mean man's future existence or a continued one of this.

President Dwight, of Yale College, says that the Greek word, anastasis, which we render resurrection, always means man's future existence, and hence does not refer to the resurrection of the body, and that the Greek word, egeiro, which occurs, I think, but once in the New Testament, is the word that would represent the re-living of the body. The scriptural idea, then, of the resurrection is that of man's future existence, a higher and more glorious existence after death.

Hence, then, unless man's probationary state continues after death, which is not generally believed, the judgment of each one is passed at death, and the Judgment day is continuous, and, as the apostle says in Hebrews 6:2, eternal. Such, I apprehend, will be found to be the teachings of Scripture. The popular notion of judgment does not accord with the scriptural one of that word. The scriptural idea seems to be rather of administration than of sentence. Christ says he came not to judge, but to save, and then, “For judgment have I come into the world, that they which see not may see, and that they which see might be made blind.” Again, “Ye judge after the flesh. I judge no man. If any man hear my words and believe not, I judge him not, for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.” “My words shall judge him in the last day.” “Now,” says Christ, “is the judgment of this world.” Paul says, in his sermon on Mars Hill, that “God hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world by that man whom he hath ordained, whereof he hath given assurance to all men, in that he raised him from the dead,” “that God winked at the time past, but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent.” The day here referred to is evidently the gospel day, in which all mankind are to be judged by the gospel truths. That is, the divine government is to be administered by Jesus Christ. Hence, to stand before the judgment-seat of Christ is to have the divine government administered according to the gospel of Christ, and as he says. His words shall judge men in the last days.

As the reign of Christ is to continue until all things are put under him, all nations are to stand before his tribunal, judged by his doctrine. Hence, when he shall sit upon the throne of his glory, or glorious throne, before him shall appear all nations. That is, when Christ shall have fully established his kingdom on the earth, when he shall rule or reign King of kings and Lord of lords, when all nations and kingdoms and peoples shall serve him, then will he sit on the throne of his glory, and before him will have been gathered all nations, who will be separated according to their character. This process of judgment is ever going on.

Therefore, although the Judgment day is spoken of as a particular day (it seems to be so represented in some passages), the substance is this, that, either in this world or the next, or both, there shall be a revelation of God's truth to the soul, so that every soul shall see itself as God sees it—see its own evil or good and so be rewarded or punished by that sight. The Judgment consists in showing to the good that when they did anything good to men, they did it to Christ and God; and in showing to the bad that when they refused anything to their poor brethren in want, they refused it to Christ and God. The Judgment is the making known to each man his real character, and the consequences of such a revelation is that some men go into spiritual happiness, and others into spiritual sufferings. This seems to be the substance of the Christian doctrine of judgment, as taught in the New Testament.

But I have already exceeded the limits allotted me in this article.

In taking leave of this subject, I wish to present my high appreciation of the favor granted me by the editors of the Review. They will please accept my sincere and heartfelt thanks. The Review has shown a liberality in publishing which many other religious journals might well emulate. Differing as we do, and each having made out his case according to his best ability, yet I trust nothing has been said to mar our Christian sympathy or intercourse. I can but respect the sincerity and zeal of my Adventist brethren, a zeal most commendable and worthy of the cause of any truth so important. May the great Head of the church ever guide us all into all truth, is my sincere and earnest prayer.