An Examination of the Scripture Testimony Concerning Man's Present Condition and his Future Reward or Punishment.
BY J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.
[Continued.]
p. It is still urged, Paul must have believed that man was in possession of a soul, that would rise in triumphant victory over the wreck of nature, when the body sunk to the tomb. He says, [2 Cor. iv, 16,] "For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day." The inward man must be something that is not affected by the decay of the body; for while the body is decaying, the inward man is renewed day by day.
It is claimed, that the inward man, or man proper, is a distinct nature from the outward man, or rather the house in which the inner man is said to live. All the movements of the body, the developement of the mind, and functions of life, are claimed to be but the outward manifestations of this embryo angel man, that dwells in the house of clay. Paul said, "I delight in the law of God after the inward man." Rom. vii, 22. If the above claim in regard to the inward man be true, that it is an immortal soul, all men are in possession of it, then all men should delight in the law of God; for it is after (by following the mind of) the inward man, that men obey the law of God. Those who advocate the immortality of the soul, claim that the souls of all men inspire in them a disposition to worship something, and many of them carry it out in worshiping stocks and stones. See Pure Gold, by Holmes. But Paul testifies that the inward man led his mind to the law of God, not to idolatry.
But we now inquire, What is the inward man? What saith the Scriptures? What is Paul's testimony in regard to it? We will examine a few texts, which we think will set this matter in its true light. The text under consideration states that the inward man is renewed day by day. We shall claim that the inward man is the new man, for that is said to be renewed. Col. iii, 9, 10. "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new man which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him." This new man is not the soul; for it is something we are said to put on. Paul says, [Eph. iv, 22-24,] "That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; and be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness."
Here the new man is said to be put on. How? By being renewed in the spirit of our minds. That is, instead of yielding ourselves servants of sin, and being led by the spirit of the Devil; we "yield ourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and our members as instruments of righteousness unto God." Then the spirit of our mind is led by the Spirit of the living God. But in Eph. iii, 16, 17, Paul tells us in plain language what the inner man is. "That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith." Then the inner man instead of being a soul, of a nature contrary to matter, is Christ in us the hope of glory.
q. It is said, Paul spoke of death in such a manner as to give us to understand, that then men go to heaven. Phil. i, 23. "Having a desire to depart and be with Christ." We feel quite positive, that the departing spoken of in the above text is not death, but we will examine it with the connection and see what Paul is teaching.
Verses 18-20. "What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence or in truth, CHRIST is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice. For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the spirit of Jesus Christ. According to my earnest expectation, and my hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also, CHRIST shall be MAGNIFIED in my body, whether it be by LIFE, or by DEATH." We find the sentiment Paul is teaching is, that still it should be with him as it had been. See verse 12. "But I would ye should understand brethren, that the things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the FURTHERANCE of the gospel," whatever might befall him it should be for the FURTHERANCE of the gospel. Verse 21. "For me to live is Christ." According to the sentiment above, for him to live would MAGNIFY Christ. "And to die is gain." Not to Paul, but to the cause of CHRIST. Paul is not weighing the matter here to see what would be the greatest advantage to him, but he has told us already that whatever happens to him is to FURTHER THE GOSPEL. In another part of this work, we shall show that Paul did not look on death as a blessing, or that from which he was to receive any benefit.
Verse 22. "But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labor: (to MAGNIFY Christ and FURTHER the gospel;) yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ; which is far better." The strait in which Paul is placed the candid reader will see is betwixt living and dying. If left to make a choice there, he knew not which he should choose; he wished to lie passive in the hands of Christ, and let the event come, life or death, that would tend most to further the gospel.
But he had a desire—for what? To live? No. To die? No; but "to DEPART and be with Christ." Well, say you, that was death. No, it was something far better than living in the flesh, in a mortal body, or dying. If he continued in the flesh, "bonds and afflictions" were his portion. If he died, ("the dead know not anything,") he would not be in a condition to receive a reward, but would only rest in hope; but there was something he did desire, that was worth obtaining, "to depart and be with Christ," not by death but bodily.
If you claim that the strait in which Paul is placed, is betwixt living here in the flesh and departing and being with Christ, then you make him contradict himself; for he says of those two betwixt which he is in a strait, "which I shall choose, I wot not," but he did "desire to depart and be with Christ." We consider that an earnest desire amounts to a choice, and that Paul would choose to depart and be with Christ. But as we have before said, that which Paul chose was far better than either of those betwixt which he was straitened. Here is his strait, whether to live here and preach the gospel, or to die a martyr and thus further the gospel. Which he should choose he did not know, but he had a desire for something better than either, "to depart and be with Christ." By death? No; he desired something better—TRANSLATION, and a change to immortality. He had the history, though brief, of good old Enoch, who "walked with God 300 years and was not, for God took him." And of Elijah who "was carried up by a whirlwind into heaven." He desired to be a partaker of this blessing and their joys, "to depart and be with Christ." Paul did not desire to die, or to be unclothed, [2 Cor. v, 4,] but he desired to become immortal. We may learn definitely in regard Paul's desire, by reading 2 Corinthians v, 1-10.
r. As this testimony is brought as an objection to the view that man sleeps in death, we will examine it carefully, commencing with the first verse. "For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." On this verse, it is claimed, that the "earthly house of this tabernacle," is the body, in which the soul tabernacles, or takes up a temporary residence. The dissolving of the tabernacle is claimed to be death, or the turning of man back to dust. What is the house in heaven? Heaven, says the objector. No; Paul says, "we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."
If the house spoken of on earth, is a body tenanted by the soul, consistency would teach us, that a house in heaven for the same soul would be another body. But this brings reasoners on this subject into a close corner, and gives theologians the work of proving that every saint on earth has a body in heaven. Universalists, (one class at least,) admit it, and refer us to Paul's testimony: [1 Cor. xv, 38:] "But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body." On this text they claim that God gives to every seed, or soul, his body. But this is a wrong application of the text. The text simply shows that God has given to every grain, literally just such a body as pleased him, and every seed when grown has its own body that God has given it. If a man sows wheat he need not expect to reap barley.
As there seems to be an opportunity of getting some clue to the earthly house, by a proper understanding of what is meant by the house in heaven, we will raise the inquiry, What is the Bible testimony about the house in heaven? Paul tells us, [Heb. xi, 10,] Abraham "looked for a city which66hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." We believe this city was the Father's house, spoken of by Jesus: [John xiv, 1, 2:] "Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you." Paul was afterwards chosen as one of the apostles of Jesus. He felt that he was an heir to the same promise; he believed the testimony of Jesus concerning the Father's house. He says, "We have a building of God, (the Father's house,) a house not made with hands."
We shall claim from the above testimony, that the house in heaven is the New Jerusalem, described by John in Revelation xxi. This would make "our earthly house of this tabernacle," refer to our temporary residence on earth in this probationary state. The earth itself is but temporary in its present form, and it is to be dissolved. See 2 Pet. iii, 10. When it is dissolved the saints of God will be secure: God is their friend. Amid the destructive fires and awful thunders at the introduction of the day of God, mount Zion, the city of the living God will give them a shelter.
Verses 2-4. "For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: if so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life." If it should still be claimed, that the tabernacle in the above text refers to the body, then we shall find a plurality of souls in each body; for Paul says, "We that are in this tabernacle." But as we have presented arguments above to show that the earthly house is our residence here, we will drop this point at present. In the three verses quoted above, Paul tells us plainly what his desire is: it is not to be unclothed, as would be the case, if an immortal soul then threw off its mortal garb, "but clothed upon: that mortality might be swallowed up of life." His desire was for the time to come when the work would take place he had spoken of in his first epistle: [Chap. xv:] "this mortal shall put on immortality." This was not to take place at death, but when Christ should come, and raise the dead.
Verse 5. "Now he that hath wrought us for the self-same thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit." Here we learn God's purpose in creating man. It is, as expressed by an Apocryphal writer, [see Wisdom ii, 23, 24,] "For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Nevertheless through envy of the Devil came death into the world; and they that do hold of his side do find it."
Verses 6-9. "Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the 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, and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore, we labor, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him." What is the body introduced in the above verses, and what is meant by being absent from the body? Here is really the only objectionable feature in the whole of Paul's testimony in this chapter; and this is easily explained if we keep before us what we have already learned from Paul. We are not certain but Paul had reference to the Church, by the expression "the body." Christ is said to be the head of the body, the Church. The text does not say, "We are willing to be absent" from our bodies, but the body. If the body referred to, is the Church, there is no difficulty about the text. But as the text is commonly understood to apply to our bodies, we will look at it in that light. Taking that view of the subject, there is no difficulty. Paul has told us his desire was "not to be unclothed, (as would be the case, if an immortal soul was absent from the body,) but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life." If we claim the body, to apply to our fleshly bodies, then being at home in the body, would be to remain still in this mortal state, to be absent from the body, and present with the Lord, would be to have mortality swallowed up of life. Then we shall be absent from the mortal body, and present with the Lord. Paul says, "For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." And he also shows in 1 Thess. iv, 16, 17, how we are to be with the Lord. Not by dying. "And 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; and so shall we ever be with the Lord." We do not learn from the above testimony then that Paul expected to be with the Lord by death, but by the resurrection. This testimony proves nothing in favor of consciousness after death without a resurrection.
s. But, says the objector, Peter spoke of his tabernacle, as though it was his body, and that he HIMSELF (the soul) was that which put it off 2 Pet. i, 13, 14. "Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me." On this text it is said, "Peter says, 'I shall put off my tabernacle.'" We shall not dispute but what Peter had reference by the above testimony to his death. He was shortly to put off his tabernacle even as our Lord showed him. We see by reading John xxi, 18, 19, that our Lord had showed him that he must die by the hands of his enemies. It is claimed that the my in this text that puts off the tabernacle, is Peter's soul. Then Peter's soul was to die in the transaction. See verse 15. "Moreover, I will endeavor that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance." We see then that not merely Peter's body, but Peter HIMSELF was expecting to die.
Peter was to put off his tabernacle as Jesus had showed him. See John xxi, 19. "When thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God." This testimony from Peter simply proves that he soon expected to die a martyr.
We will now come to the investigation of what is considered one of the strongest proofs of the immortality of the soul, and the conscious existence of the soul in death.
t. THE THIEF ON THE CROSS. Luke xxiii, 40-43. "But the other answering, rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, 'Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.'" The point in the above scripture that is claimed as proof of the immortality of the soul, is the testimony of Christ to the thief. It is claimed that Christ promised the thief that he should be in paradise, (heaven,) with him that day. But we inquire, What is paradise? Heaven, says the objector. Well where is heaven? Where God is. But you have claimed that God is everywhere; is heaven everywhere? If so, then there was no necessity for either Christ or the thief to die in order to get there. But in noticing the above text we shall first inquire, Where is paradise? We are not disposed to quote the testimony of Josephus, said to be the opinion of the Jews in regard to it. If the Scriptures furnish testimony on the subject, there is no necessity for appealing to either the fathers or the Jews, for testimony to settle this question. Some there are, doubtless, that would first inquire what wise men have believed in regard to paradise. Should we appeal to wise men, we should find their testimony discordant and perplexing. One would tell us that paradise is happiness. If that is so, the promise of Jesus would simply mean that the thief should be with Christ in happiness. But it was possible for them to be happy on the cross.
We inquire, What saith the Scriptures? Where is paradise? With an understanding of one thing, there is no difficulty in determining to what the Scripture writers referred by the word paradise. The Scriptures speak of but one tree of life. It is always when spoken of, defined by the article the, which signifies but one. See Rev. ii, 7. "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh, will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God." From the above we see that the paradise of God is where the tree of life is. Do the Scriptures tell us where the tree of life is? It was once in the garden of Eden. Yes, but where is it now? See Rev. xxii, 1-5. "And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him." In the above testimony we learn [verse 3] that the throne of God is in the New Jerusalem. A river proceeds out of the throne and in the midst of the street of it, and on either side of it the tree of life stands. But, says one, there must be as many as two trees if it is on either side of the river. I choose to believe the testimony of Scripture, which calls it the tree of life. We have in this world the celebrated Banyan tree, (Indian fig,) the branches of which bend down and take root until the tree covers a space of many hundred feet in circumference. So doubtless with the tree of life: it is united in one from either side over the river, forming a beautiful bower. The above testimonies show that paradise is where the throne of God is, (in the New Jerusalem,) out of which the river of life flows, on either side of which is the tree of life. The New Jerusalem is above." Gal. iv, 16. In Rev. xxi, 2, 3, it is called the tabernacle (dwelling place) of God. "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 them."
The promise of Christ to the thief was, to-day shalt thou be with me in paradise. It is punctuated in King James' version of the text, it reads, "Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise." That is, to-day you shall be with me in the New Jerusalem, where the Father sits on his throne. It is said, "they could not have been in paradise that day bodily, for Christ's body lay in Joseph's new tomb. If the promise to the thief was that he should be with Christ in paradise that day; it must be that Christ and the thief had souls or spirits that would exist after the death of the body, and those spirits were to be together in paradise that day." Did Christ promise the thief that he should be with him in paradise that day? If he did, he failed to fulfill the promise; for he did not go there himself. Three days after his crucifixion, he said to Mary, [John xx, 17,] "Touch me not for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go, to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God." But what are we to do? We are involved in an unanswerable difficulty, if Christ intended to tell the thief that he should be with him in paradise that day; for his testimony to Mary shows that he did not go to paradise. We are not disposed to take the position that Christ contradicted his own testimony.
We now inquire, Did Christ tell the thief that he should be in paradise with him that day? To determine the proper answer to this inquiry, we will notice the request of the thief. "Lord remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom."
The thief does not ask him to take him to heaven with him, neither does he say, Remember me when thou goest into thy kingdom, but Remember me when thou comest. This would seem to indicate that Christ was coming from some other place to the kingdom. But we suppose the request67to have more particular reference to the time when the kingdom is established, which we understand to be at the end of the fourth universal kingdom of Dan. vii. Christ is represented in parable as a nobleman going to some far country to be installed with the right of empire. Luke xix, 11, 12. "And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return." Christ, who is here represented by the nobleman, has gone into the far country (to the Father) to receive the kingdom. He is to return: this is his second coming. At that point he will exercise the office of a king. The territory of his kingdom is the earth. The capital (paradise) is above. See testimonies on the subject of the kingdom on another page of this work.
The thief's request was, to be remembered at the time Christ should come into his kingdom. Says Christ, (in direct accordance with the request,) "Thou shalt be with me in paradise." The thief merely asked to be remembered. But our Saviour gave him the assurance that he should be with him in paradise when he came into his kingdom. But, says the objector, it does not read so. As the text is punctuated in our version of the Bible, it says, "Verily I say unto thee, to-day shalt thou be with me in paradise."
We have already shown that two difficulties will be produced which are unanswerable, if we abide by the present punctuation of the text. 1st. It makes Christ promise the thief that he should be with him in heaven that day; and according to his own testimony three days after, he did not go to heaven that day himself. 2d. If Christ meant to tell the thief that he should be with him in paradise the day they hung on the cross, where is the answer to the thief's request for Christ to remember him when he came into his kingdom? You may perhaps reply, that if we take the Jewish view of paradise, the first difficulty will disappear. It is claimed that they believe paradise is a kind of half way place in which the souls of both righteous and wicked are placed. There they are neither rewarded or punished, but are waiting the resurrection and judgment. If this is true, the thief would have been in paradise that day without any favor from Christ; but he asked a favor: to be remembered of Christ when he should come into his kingdom. Says Christ, (granting his request,) "Verily I say unto thee to-day, shalt thou be with me in paradise." Not in a half-way place, but as we have already shown, in the New Jerusalem, the capital of the kingdom.
Our readers are perhaps aware of the fact that the punctuation of our Bibles in their present form is no inspiration, but merely the work of translators. By changing one mark of punctuation, in the testimony of Christ to the thief, both difficulties named will be settled. Moving the comma from after thee, and placing it after to-day, the text will read, "I say unto thee to-day, shalt thou be with me in paradise." We are told that "the Greek Scriptures were originally written in solid blocks of capital letters, without division into sentences, or stops to mark clauses of sentences, and without even division into words." The text was punctuated about the tenth century. Griesbach, in the margin of his MSS. puts the stop after "to-day," so that the text reads the same as punctuated above.
Well, says one, what sense is there in the text, if it reads, "Verily I say unto thee to-day?" Was Christ afraid that the thief would think he said it to-morrow, or yesterday? No. The term which is here rendered "to-day," is in some portions of the Scriptures rendered this day; and its meaning is equivalent to the word now, which is used in some texts merely to give force to the language. See Mark xiii, 12. For those who may think it a strange idea, that is gained by moving the punctuation in the above text, we will quote a similar instance in Zech. ix, 12. "Turn you to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope: even to-day do I declare that I will render double unto thee."
If we transpose the sentence in this text, (which does not alter the sense,) it would read, "I declare unto you even to-day, I will render double unto thee." This is the very idea that the Lord designed to convey by the above text, as we may learn by examining the context. He declared to them that day that he would render double unto them, when he should accomplish the work mentioned in the verses following. We will now punctuate the above text on the principle that Luke xxiii, 43, is punctuated in our version; namely, because the expression, to-day, is used, the event mentioned in the text must take place that day. "I declare unto you, even to-day will I render double unto thee; when I have bent Judah for me, and filled the bow with Ephraim," &c. Here by giving such a punctuation we should get a positive contradiction in the text itself, making the text declare that an event was to take place that day, and yet not till some future day. As it stands in our version now, it states, I declare to-day, that at some future time, I will render double unto thee. So the case of Christ's reply to the thief, "Verily I say unto thee to-day shalt thou (in the future) be with me in paradise." We are now positive, that the testimony concerning the thief on the cross, proves nothing in favor of consciousness in death.
u. It is said, "Our Lord confirmed the belief that the spirit has a conscious state separate from the body, by saying to his disciples, after the resurrection, 'Handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.'"
Jesus does not say, "The spirit of man 'hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.'" People suppose he must have referred to the spirit of man. Angels are spirits. "Who maketh his angels spirits." Angels have bodies, although they are spiritual: they appeared to Lot in the form of men, and yet the Word says they are spirits. So the testimony of Christ, above quoted, cannot be claimed as any proof of consciousness in death. The spirit spoken of might have been an angel for ought we know.
v. But, says one, "The prayer of Stephen, when he died as a martyr would seem to convey the idea that he believed in the separate existence of the soul or spirit: 'And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.' Acts vii, 59. It has been a matter of considerable dispute with those who have written on the above text, whether this language was that of Stephen, or his persecutors. The sentence, as it is constructed in the common version of the Bible conveys the idea, that "they stoned Stephen," and mockingly called upon God, saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." And this idea is confirmed by the language that follows, "And he kneeled down and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep." If it could be shown that it was Stephen that said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit," this text alone, would furnish no proof of the separate existence of the spirit.
We have already shown, that the Greek word which is rendered spirit is pneuma, and signifies life. So a literal rendering of the text would be, "Lord Jesus, receive my life." Here he was dying a martyr for the cause of Christ. Jesus had said while upon earth, "He that will lose his life for my sake, and the gospel, the same shall keep it unto life eternal." So if the language above quoted was that of Stephen, it would simply show that he was commending his life into the hands of him who could give him life again, even life eternal. If the sentiment advocated so tenaciously at the present time is truth, it gains no help from the text before me. Mark the last clause of the text, "And when he had said this, he fell asleep." What! did not Stephen go to heaven? If he did, Luke (the writer of the Acts of the Apostles) neglected to record it. He says of Stephen, "He fell asleep."
Well says one, if Stephen did not go to heaven, I believe my father and mother are there, for just before they died they heard angels sing, and saw Jesus and angels all about them. How could this be if they did not go immediately into heaven when they died? That would be no proof that they were going to heaven. Read verses 55, 56, and see what Stephen saw. "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God." But all this was no proof that he would exist after death; for a few moments after viewing the glorious scene, "he fell asleep."
Thus we have endeavored to notice briefly the arguments and scripture testimonies that are adduced as proof of man's existence in death. We have found in them no proof that man has a spirit, capable of a conscious existence separated from the body. But the solemn declaration of Scripture still stands forth, saying, "There is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave whither thou goest." Eccl. ix, 10. We have seen in this investigation, that the mourners of Zion go about the streets mourning, not because their friends are in heaven and happiness, but they mourn like Rachel. See Matt. ii, 18.
"In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT."