NATURE AND DESTINY OF MAN.
By N. V. Hull
DISCUSSION BETWEEN ELD. N. V. HULL, SEVENTH-DAY BAPTIST, AND ELD. R. F. COTTRELL, SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST.
Elder Hull's Third Article.—Part II.
V. You admit that I make a fair argument on Matt. x, 28, and to those who choose such sentiments, it may be sufficient. Shall I understand you, then, to say, that it is not "satisfactory" to you, because your "prepossessions" and "prejudices" disincline you thereto? Ah! I fear so! But, being affected as I suppose by your choice, you proceed to say, "But those who can bring their minds to a thorough and impartial investigation of the whole tenor of the Bible teaching on this subject," (how like the talk of the Spiritualist,) "will find that your exposition of this text is out of harmony with the Scriptures." Your effort to free yourself from the force of my argument on this important verse, is confined to the meaning of the term soul. Of course I am glad to see this, as it is a clear yielding to the force of the logic employed, so that if I can sustain myself here, I may consider the question settled. My reason for regarding the term soul in the light in which I have considered it in this text, is that the ideas involved in the passage demand it. I have in another place given the rule for determining the meaning of words, namely, it is to be obtained from the connection in which they are found. This rule has, so far as I am informed, forced all commentators to the same view I have taken of the passage. Any other sense makes it meaningless. You refer to what Dr. Clarke says on the translation of the word psuche by the term soul, in Matt. xvi, 26, when in the 25th verse it is translated life, whereon the doctor says that in both instances it means life. But how does the doctor come to such a conclusion, seeing that in both instances the word is psuche (soul) and not zoe, the Greek word for life? Simply by translating the word by the sense of the passage, according to the rule I have indicated above. But what is his opinion on Matt. x, 28? Does he here give the sense of zoe to psuche? Not at all! Hear him. "Verse 28—Fear them not which kill the body—those who slay with acts of cruelty, alluding probably to the cruelties persecutors should exercise on his followers in their martyrdom. But are not able to kill the soul. Hence we find that the body and the soul are distinct principles, for the body may be slain, and the soul escape, and, secondly, that the soul is immaterial, for the murderers of the body are not able—have it not in their power—to injure it." Thus you see that the doctor is strongly against you on this important verse. And if his testimony as a translator and commentator is good in one instance, why not in the other, especially when he follows the same rule of translation in both instances; for certainly, if he is right in the first case, he is also in the latter. Mr. Barnes says on this text, "That is, men who have no power to injure the soul, the immortal part." Boothroyd says, "There is such an opposition between the soul and the body, as clearly proves the former to be immaterial—what does not and cannot perish with the body." The soul exists separate from the body, and must be conscious of that existence, else the soul would be as properly killed as the body. The latter clause proves that the soul may perish by being subject to future misery, but it does not cease to exist. But I will not multiply these quotations, although it could be easily done to almost any length; but will call your attention to the fact, that in several instances in the Old Testament, the Hebrew terms nephesh (soul) and ruahh (spirit) are used in precisely the same senses as are the Greek terms psuche (soul) and pneuma (spirit) in the New Testament, and that too when pneuma (spirit) has its highest signification. Gen. xxxv, 18—"And it came to pass, as her soul (Hebrew nephesh, Greek psuche,) was in departing." Eccles. xii, 7—"And the spirit (Hebrew ruahh, Greek pneuma,) shall return to God who gave it." Psa. lxxxviii, 4—"My soul (Hebrew nephesh, Greek psuche,) is full of troubles." Job xxi, 4—"Why should not my spirit (Hebrew ruahh) be troubled." Psa. cxix, 28—"My soul (ruahh) is overwhelmed." Mr. Bush says, "What assignable difference can be suggested in the import of these two words in this connection?" But he continues and says, "The case is rendered still more striking where the same Hebrew term (ruahh) is rendered variously in the Greek, as Gen. xli, 8—"And it came to pass that his spirit (Hebrew ruahh, Greek psuche) was troubled." Isa. ix, 3—"And the spirit (Hebrew ruahh, Greek psuche) of Egypt was troubled." A similar diversity obtains in the Greek of the New Testament, as follows: John xii, 27—"Now is my soul (psuche) troubled." John xiii, 21—"Having said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit (pneumati). How, moreover it may be asked, is anguish of soul (Hebrew nephesh, Greek psuche,) Gen. xli, 21, to be distinguished from anguish of spirit (Hebrew ruahh, Greek pneuma,) Ex. vi, 9? or "bitterness of soul," Job xxi, 25, from bitterness of spirit, Gen. xxvi, 35?" I have been thus lengthy, that I might put beyond reasonable doubt the correctness of my interpretation of Matt. x, 28, and to show you that you have great need to consider your statement of the import of psuche, in its bearing upon this question; and I trust every appreciative mind will concede, that the task has been performed with fairness, as well as with thoroughness; and if so, then, according to your own admission, the question in dispute is certainly put at rest. There is one thing further on this point, to which I should pay a passing notice. You rightfully take advantage of an unguarded expression of mine, where I use the words destroy and kill in the same sense. This of course is incorrect, as the words are not synonymous in their signification, nor is the word kill applied to the soul (or spirit) as descriptive of its future punishment in a single instance, as I now recollect. VI. You briefly return to the question of the "inward man," 2 Cor. iv, 16, and make, as it seems to me, a feeble and unsuccessful effort to sustain your former interpretation. Indeed your position is so utterly untenable, that the wonder is, you do not at once and openly abandon it! Let me quote a few passages, to show how plainly the case is against you. I begin with the text under consideration, 2 Cor. iv, 16—"For which cause we faint not, but though our outward man perish, our inward man is renewed day by day." Rom. vii, 22—"For I have pleasure in the law of God as to the inward man." Eph. iii, 16—"That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man." Now let me ask you one question, Does Christ in us the hope of glory sense the strengthening influence of grace, or do we sense it in ourselves? If it is us that sense it, then it is us that are "renewed." VII. You now return to the case of Nicodemus, and an attempt to show that he was questioning Christ as to the immediate appearing of his kingdom, and quote Luke xix, 11. But surely the case of the setting up of Christ's kingdom is not the subject of the Saviour's remarks to the noble Pharisee; but rather the necessary conditions of entering into the kingdom? Pray, brother, who ever but one burdened with the weight of a tottering but cherished theory, which he felt bound at every hazard to save, could invent such a theory of interpretation as you have attempted to defend in this case? Indeed, so palpable is your error, that it seems difficult to regard your effort with sobriety. VIII. You now change the method of taking the lead yourself, and concerning the nature of man proceed to lay down the three following propositions: 1. "Man is formed of the dust of the ground." 3. "Man in death has no knowledge." On your first proposition, I have to say, that there is no dispute as to whether man's body was made of the dust of the ground, and that in death the dust returns to its kindred dust. Eccl. xii, 7—"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was." Gen. iii, 19—"For dust thou art, and to dust shalt thou return." Job—"All flesh will perish together, and man will return again to dust." Psa. xc, 3—"Thou turnest man to dust, and sayest, Return, ye children of men." But that this returning to the dust refers to the body, which is therefore called mortal, is most easily seen. Rom. vi, 12—"Let not therefore sin reign in your mortal body." viii, 11—"He who raised Christ from the dead will also quicken your mortal bodies." But that which God breathed into man, when he became a living soul, was not "dust," and therefore cannot return to the dust, but on the death of the body, returns to God. Eccl. xii, 7—"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to God who gave it." So when Jesus speaks of his death, he is careful to confine it to his body. John ii, 21—"But he spake of the temple of his body." Therefore, when he was crucified, his body falling under the dominion of death, he committed his spirit to God. Luke xxiii, 46. So also Stephen, when slain by his enemies, said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Acts vii, 59. Your statement that one of the primary meanings of soul is the whole person, or body, amounts to nothing in this discussion, because that is not the point in dispute. Besides, to quote this text to disprove the words of Jesus, Matt. x, 28, and many other passages of Holy Writ to the same purpose, or to modify their exact and formal statements as to the nature of man, is in violation of every just rule of interpretation. If an exact and formal statement of Jesus, who made man, and certainly knew his nature—a statement made expressly to describe that nature—is to be overborne by a statement of Moses, the object of which was not to describe man's nature, but the process of divine operation in his creation, then is there an end to all effort to know the divine mind through his word! If indeed it were true, that Moses teaches the doctrine you assert, then you have him arrayed against Jesus, which would destroy his testimony, not only on this question but on all others.130To your second proposition, "Man is mortal," I answer, that before, and in this article, I have proved as I think, beyond the power of successful contradiction, that the term "mortal" refers to the body. I know that the statement is made in general terms, and in perfect agreement with the usages of all language, that man is mortal. But when, by competent authority, and in the most abundant manner, that mortality is affirmed of the "flesh" of the "body," it is not difficult to get an understanding of what is meant. Let the reader turn to Rom. vi, 12; viii, 11; 1 Cor. xv, 53; 2 Cor. iv, 11, and all will be plain. To attempt, then, to make Job affirm any more than mortality of man as a creature of the flesh, is to array him against the current testimony of the Scriptures, especially of the New Testament, and also to convict him of a palpable absurdity. Why, man without any revelation from God, other than that which nature affords, have in all past ages had more consistent views of the nature of man than these. It is not only arraying Job against Jesus and his apostles, but convicting him of stupidity; for who does not know, that from all that can be seen, mortality can only be affirmed of the "flesh." Your remarks on Rom. i, 23, are disposed of in my remarks above. I have not asserted that man is not mortal. He is. And the apostle who writes this text tells us, in 1 Cor. 15th, in his argument upon the resurrection of the body, that it (the body) is "sown in corruption, and raised in incorruption." How manifest, then, is its reference to the body. Your third proposition is, that "Man in death has no knowledge;" and your first proof text is, "For the living know that they must die, but the dead know not anything."—Eccl. ix, 5. I will not retort upon you by quoting Job viii, 9—"We are but of yesterday, and know nothing," which, however, I think, would be as pertinent to the subject as yours from Solomon. Now, when the passage you have quoted is considered in its connections, and taken with the drift of thought then being uttered, how plain is it, that the writer is simply stating that the knowledge and the power we have must, in order to benefit us, be used here, as in the grave we have no knowledge, and therefore we cannot correct the mistakes of life after death. Solomon enlarges upon the same thought, and in verse 10th, says, "Whatever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might, for there is no work, nor reason, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave whither thou goest." Mark, this is in the grave where the flesh rests, not the spirit. Your quotation from Psa. vi, 5, also points to the grave, wherein, no one contends, is the spirit of the departed. On account of the length of this article, I have dwelt briefly on the texts you have introduced to prove your propositions, and on the propositions themselves. If need be, at a future time, I will consider them at length, if God please.