Signs of the Times, Vol. 1, No. 38. (7/29/1875)

Signs of the Times

Jul 29, 1875

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, Cal. · Jul 29, 1875

The Sermon.

By J. H. Waggoner

THE LAW OF GOD.—No. 9.

BY J. H. WAGGONER.

TWO LAWS—MORAL AND CEREMONIAL.

ONE of the most common methods of trying to evade the claims of the fourth commandment is to deny the distinction between moral and ceremonial, or positive, law, and to include the ten commandments in “the law of Moses,” or “the handwriting of ordinances,” which is done away. And while it is one of the most common, it is one of the most unreasonable and inexcusable.

Would it not be a truly singular fact that God should give a law as a rule whereby moral agents were to develop their characters, so unfitted for the end for which it was given, that he was obliged to send his Son to die and release us from the obligation to keep it? This is not only making God such an one as themselves, but it is bringing him, unchangable as he has declared himself to be, far below our sense of right and justice. But there is no such thing found in the word of God. “Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures.” Sin existed before the Levitical law. To say that Christ died to abolish the law of Moses, is like saying that the traveler pursues his journey expressly to pass the mile-stones. He travels to reach a certain destination, and the mile-stones must necessarily be left behind. That was a system of types and shadows—when the substance is reached we follow the shadow no further. But there must be a substance before a shadow can be cast. Christ was as a lamb “slain from the foundation of the world.”

Rev. 13:8. He did not come to die, merely because that system of types was instituted, and needed to be removed; but that was instituted because he was coming to die. The objection reverses the true order of things, by placing the cause for the effect; and must arise from taking a very superficial and false view of the work of our Saviour.

In connection with this, it has been said that the law which governed men under the former dispensation was faulty, and Christ came to take it away and introduce a better. This objection is raised from a perversion of Heb. 8, in making the “first covenant,” read first law. We have before shown that the term covenant is used in different senses, and the remarks of the apostle on the two covenants forbid the idea that any candid searcher for truth should be so mistaken. Before his death, the Saviour prayed, “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.” But it was not possible. He drank the cup prepared and embittered by our sins. But if our sins were the transgressions of an imperfect, faulty law, all must admit that the law might have been set aside, and the transgressor freed from its yoke, without the death of the Son of God. And, indeed, it admits of a query, whether the transgression of a faulty, good-for-nothing law is morally wrong. In such a case the fault need not be reckoned on the part of the transgressor, but on the part of the law-giver. If God gave man a faulty, imperfect law, which had a curse necessarily attached to it, as some claim, and man failed to develop a perfect moral character under it, and was thereby lost, where would the blame rest? And would not God, under such circumstances, be unrighteous in taking vengeance? Rom. 3:5. They who raise such objections cannot consider, so as to be aware of the dishonor they put upon the government of God. They need to pray in the words of David, “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.”

That the law of moral precepts, the transgression of which occasioned the death of the Son of God, is distinct from that law of types and shadows which was instituted in view of his death, is so plainly revealed in the Scriptures, that it would seem impossible for any candid Bible student to deny it. Said the Lord to Moses, “Come up to me into the mount, and be there; and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments, which I have written.” Ex. 24:12. “The law” here referred to which God had written on the tables of stone comprised the ten commandments—neither more nor less—which God spoke with his own voice. It was thus distinguished from all other laws, by being spoken by the voice of God, and written with his own hand, and it was separated from all others by being put into the ark over which atonement was made for sin. It was also distinguished by express statement as in the following text:—

“Behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but have rejected it. To what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me.” Jer. 6:19, 20.

This shows that the offerings of sacrifices was distinct from keeping the law. He wrote the law on tables of stone, but there was no more than the ten commandments on the tables of stone. Also he spoke the law with his own voice, but he spoke only the ten commandments with his own voice in the hearing of all the people. Of this distinction the Lord himself has spoken as follows:—

“For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice.” Jer. 7:22, 23. When they heard his voice, they heard only the ten commandments—he said nothing about offerings nor sacrifices. Thus plainly has the Lord separated between his law and all secondary matters.

The ten commandments are a moral law, which is the will of God, covering all our moral relations. There was a ceremonial law in the past dispensations, as there are positive laws in this.

The moral law existed before sin entered into the world, for where no law is there is no transgression; Rom. 4:15; the ceremonial law was enacted because sin had been committed, as it was entirely remedial.

There is one law to which the carnal mind is not subject, because the law is based on love, and the carnal mind is enmity; Rom. 8:7. But the other law is itself called the enmity; Eph. 2:15.

One law is spiritual; Rom. 7:14. The other was carnal; Heb. 7:16.

One law was magnified and made honorable by the Saviour; Isa. 42:21. The other he blotted out; Col. 2:14.

One law he came not to destroy; Matt. 5:17. The other he disannulled; Heb. 7:18.

One law is holy, just, and good; Rom. 7:12. The other was not good; Eze. 20:25.

One is perfect, containing the whole duty of man; Psa. 19:7; Eccl. 12:13. The other had only a shadow of good things to come; Heb. 10:1.

One law in which the godly delight; Rom. 7:22; Ps. 119:24, 92, 97; Isa. 58:13. The other, called the law of Moses, a yoke which they could not bear; Acts 15:5, 10.

One, in the keeping of which there is great reward; Ps. 19:11. The other was weak and unprofitable; Heb. 7:18.

One which was established forever; Ps. 119:152, 160. The other was imposed on them till the time of reformation; Heb. 9:10.

One law is not made void, but established, by faith; Rom. 3:31. The other is abolished; Eph. 2:15.

In Matt. 5:19, the Saviour says that they who do and teach the commandments of the law shall be great in the kingdom of Heaven, while they who break them and teach men so, shall not; and in Acts 15:24, the apostles taught that the law need not be kept.

If one and the same law is spoken of in all these passages, then we may despair of ever arriving at correct conclusions from such contradictory statements. The Saviour spoke of the moral law—the law of universal and perpetual obligation, which is not made void; while we are explicitly informed that the apostles were speaking of “the law of Moses.”

If, as the opposers of the law say, Christ came to introduce a better law than that given in the Old Testament, then we may safely say his mission was a complete failure, for no such law is found in the teachings of Christ or his apostles. We are free to make the assertion that no new principle of morality is taught in the New Testament. It cannot be true that he altered or relaxed the law of God in any particular. But if that was abolished, what became of the first commandment? The answer to this question, as an opposer gave it, was, that only the ceremonial part of the law (the fourth precept) was abolished, and the remainder greatly enlarged—that the principle of the first commandment could be discovered in the writings of the apostles. Then in the former dispensation, it was fully declared in definite terms; in the present, we must endeavor to trace the principle in the writings of the apostles, who do not make any particular mention of it. An enlargement truly from definite to indefinite! Part of a perfect law abolished—other parts obscured, and thus it is incomparably better than it was before! But inasmuch as that is the only moral code ever given, and the New Testament brings to light no new principles of morality, but only ratifies and establishes those taught in the Old (see Matt. 5:17–19; Rom. 3:31; 2 Tim. 3:15–17), can those who say that the law was for the Jews only, show that any moral law was ever given to the Gentiles. Can they prove that the Gentile world was ever designed to be placed under moral restraint? And if the offense of the Jews, as has been shown from the Scriptures, was the transgression of that law, why are they not restored to the favor of God, if that law is abolished?

But if it could be shown that another law had been given in the New Testament, why should it be called a better law than that given on Mount Sinai? Could it be more just in its nature? That was perfect. Could it be more replete with moral obligations? That embraced the whole duty of man. Could its observance tend to better results? That was ordained to life. Rom. 7:10; Lev. 18:5; Eze. 20:11; Matt. 19:17. Is it contended that that produced the death of the transgressor (Rom. 6:23), insomuch that it is even called death (2 Cor. 3:7), because all have transgressed it? Rom. 3:23. We would then inquire, Has God ever promised life to the disobedient, even in the New Testament? Does the gospel justify all, without distinction of character? Our opponents boast of the gospel of Christ as though it was impossible for the most incorrigible sinner to die, since the ushering in of the present dispensation! But can they show that the law would ever curse those who obeyed it, or that the gospel will save those who disobey it? 2 Thess. 1:7, 8. The light of the gospel results in the condemnation of those who reject it. John 3:19. Jesus said, “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no cloak for their sin.” John 15:22. Could not the Jews, therefore, claim, with equal propriety, that the gospel of Christ was a curse unto them? Again, Paul says of himself and fellow-laborers in the gospel (2 Cor. 2:15, 16), that they are unto God a sweet savor of Christ in them that perish—even the savor of death unto death. Why do not our opponents reject the gospel for all these things? On their line of reasoning we could prove the gospel to be faulty, because it will not save those who reject it.

But if that law was perfect, embracing in its requirements the whole duty of man (and so it must have been, or the Scriptures are not true), then every principle of morality that could arise out of our relation to God or to our fellow-men must have been embraced in it. To suppose otherwise were to suppose that God did not require holiness under the past dispensation; but this supposition is contradicted by his word. Lev. 11:44. If all the moral duties growing out of our relation to God and to our fellow-creatures were included in that, then none remained to be added thereafter; and if that be abolished, and another substituted, the one so substituted must be as extensive in its requirements as that was, or else it would not include the whole duty of man, and hence would be imperfect; but such a law (an imperfect one) will not be contended for. Therefore we will consider it granted that the new law must be as comprehensive as the old one. But it is not possible to even imagine how such a thing can be, unless the two laws are exactly alike! We can no more comprehend the existence of two complete, perfect rules of moral action, both embracing the whole duty of man, yet different, than we can comprehend the existence of two supreme deities, both essentially holy in their natures, yet not alike. And we hazard nothing in saying that it is impossible for God to create two different complete rules of moral action. The requirement to be holy is based upon the holiness of God himself; for he said, “Be ye holy, for I am holy.” Therefore it is as impossible to create two different rules of holiness, for the perfection of the characters of moral agents, as it is to duplicate the attributes of Deity. A careful examination of this subject must convince any one that this declaration is correct.

It has been shown that we are required to be holy, because God is holy, and we are to be like him. So the Saviour said: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect.” Matt. 5:48. And this is not an unreasonable requirement—only equivalent to that of loving God with all the heart. It is an acknowledged law of the human mind that man is assimilated to the object of his worship. If he worships a being of depraved character, the more he contemplates the character of that being—the more he loves it—the more degraded and depraved he becomes. Witness the heathen nations, who worship monstrous beings of various kinds, and themselves become monsters of depravity. On the other hand, if the object of his worship is possessed of a pure and lovely character, the more worshipful and devoted he is, the more lovely he will become in temper and disposition. An intelligent being, possessed of creative power—in other words, being supreme—must have the right to command the worship of his creatures; and if so, to prescribe also the form of worship (without which the command would be a nullity); his own character being an index to the form of worship prescribed. The character of God is declared in the passage referred to—he is holy; and also in 1 John 4:8, “God is love.” These declarations of the character of God are a sufficient guarantee that a system or form of worship, or rule of action, required by him, would be perfect, holy like his own character, the embodiment of love. For such a being to require the creature to love and adore him, is only to provide for the creature’s own best good—to point out the way whereby the created being may be like his Creator—pure, lovely, holy, and of course, happy. The idea of obedience of right laws tending to the happiness of the moral agent, has been beautifully illustrated by a late writer:—

“Happiness depends on the state of our minds, and the feelings which are prevalent there. Now the law of God prescribes exactly that class of affections, and that only, which invariably and necessarily produces enjoyment in the existence and exercise of them—love. ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength; and thy neighbor as thyself.’ And so ‘love is the fulfilling of the law.’

“Allow the imagination to bring such a state of mind before you as your own; just try the experiment of imagining how you would feel, if every selfish, unlovely emotion, had become utterly extinct, leaving no trace behind, and pure love to all beings animated your breast; the heart filled with holy love and reverence for God, so that you exulted in your relation to him, and delighted in all his will; love to God supremely, and to all his creatures subordinately—why, your cup would be full to overflowing, and you would be ready to shout aloud for joy. Thus admirably is God’s law adapted to secure the perfect happiness of every one that observes it. Thanks be to God for such a law!”—Dobney, pp. 46, 47.

That God designed that his creatures should be holy and happy, none can deny; and that obedience to his law was the appointed means to secure this very desirable state, is equally evident from the reasons and scriptures offered above, and other scriptures declaring that righteousness consists in keeping the law. Deut. 6:25. His law is the transcript of his own divine mind, the revelation of his holy will. The keeping of his law is his own prescribed form of worship; and no worship is acceptable without it. Therefore he says, “He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.” Prov. 28:9; see also, Matt. 15:9.

How can any one become like God—holy—without worshiping him? And how can any one worship him and not keep his commandments? These contain his own prescribed rule or standard of holiness. But if that law was the rule whereby man might become like God, holy, in the former dispensation, can any other rule be followed in this dispensation, and the agent still develop a holy character? Or, in other words, has God’s holiness changed in its nature? or is it the same that it was in times past? Thus we see there is a material point at issue. As God requires his creatures to be holy, he must give them a rule or standard of holiness. But if there are two rules essentially different in the two dispensations, then the holiness attained by the two rules must be essentially different: as it is impossible to arrive at the same point by going in different directions. Thus it is shown that a change of the moral law of God involves a change of the divine perfections, which is a manifest absurdity.

All that has been here said of the perfection of the law, of its completeness, of its being a way of life, a rule of holiness, &c., is, in the Scriptures spoken of the moral law, the ten commandments. But not one sentence of all this can possibly be referred to the ceremonial law, nor to any law of a positive nature. Surely the difference between the two laws is so plain that no one need to err in regard to them.

Thy Comforts Delight My Soul.

By Zion's Herald

I know the fair, green earth is thine, And thine, O Lord, the starry heaven; From thee the blessed light doth shine, By thee the soft, sweet air is given; And dear are all the common things That tell of love from day to day— The bud that blooms, the bird that sings, And tender faces round my way.

'Tis not that any gift from thee Is less than perfect, that I prize The comforts of thy grace to me Above the sights of earth and skies. Thyself supreme, Eternal God, Art more than all thy works disclose, O Lamb of God! Thy sacred blood To me love's deepest secret shows.

From mortal ills I am not free, Nor have I walked an easy road; Yet every step was dear to me, Since by the Man of Sorrow trod. Through all the dark has shown thy face, Thy peace has flowed beneath my pain, Stumbling, I fell in thy embrace, My loss by thee was turned to gain.

And I might tell of hours apart, In lonely path and secret place, When burned and glowed within my heart The wondrous meanings of thy grace; Enough that thou did'st there abide, And break the bread, and call me friend;— Thy comforts, O thou Crucified, Refresh me to my journey's end.

No wonder that my weary feet Grow strong in sight of Calvary; That all thy gifts are passing sweet, Embalmed in love so great and free. Thy perfect beauty dawns more dear, As nearer to thy cross I come; In thee my life is only clear, Thy heart, O Christ, is Heaven and Home. —Zion's Herald.

Hope of the Gospel.

By J. N. Loughborough

HADES AND PARADISE.

But some assert that though the Scriptures do not teach that men are judged, or rewarded, at death, yet still they must be conscious somewhere. John Wesley was of that class, as may be seen by reading his sermon on Dives and Lazarus. He says: “It is indeed very generally supposed that the souls of good men, as soon as they are discharged from the body, go directly to Heaven; but this is contrary to the Scriptures, for Christ said to Mary, three days after his death (at the time of his resurrection), ‘Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father.’”

Probably Wesley’s position on this matter was similar to that of Harbaugh in his Doctrine of a Future Life. He introduces a chapter on this subject with the following verse:—

“Oh see! An awful world is this Where spirits are detained. It’s half a Heaven And half a hell! What horrid mixture here! I see before me and along the edge Of rayless night, on either side, the shade Of spirits move; as yet unjudged, undoomed, Or unrewarded. Some do seem to hope; Some sit in gloom; some walk in dark suspense; Some agonize to change their state. Oh! say, Is all this real, or but a monstrous dream?” —Harbaugh on the Future Life, vol i., p. 106.

It seems to us most appropriate, at the end of this poetic stretch of fancy, to say, echo says “A MONSTROUS dream.”

We are gravely told by some that the Jews believed the state of the dead to be one in which neither righteous or wicked were receiving reward or punishment, but were, as a minister once stated to me in Ohio, “like a prisoner in Huron County jail, awaiting his trial.” It is said that the Hebrew word sheol, corresponding to the Greek hades, refers to the state of the dead, and that, according to Josephus’ testimony on hades, the Jews believed that it consisted of two appartmentments, one in which were the wicked not receiving their punishment, but with fearful forebodings of the future, and remorse over the past, they were awaiting the Judgment. And that the other apartment of hades was the Paradise of the Bible, in which the righteous are reflecting on the blessings of the past, and with a pleasing prospect of future joys, anticipate the decision of the Judgment upon their cases.

Josephus does not say, as it reads in his history, whether this was the Jewish sentiment or his own sentiment. I have heard it stated, on what seemed like good authority, that the more ancient manuscripts of Josephus do not contain this statement concerning Paradise being a part of hades, &c., and that it crept into his works about the time the Catholic church brought in their doctrine of purgatory. Of course, having never examined ancient MSS. of Josephus, I am not prepared to state whether the Catholics have corrupted his work on that point or not. It is true that the church of Rome have had, as stated by Wm. Reeves, “All the opportunities of time, place, and power, to establish the kingdom of darkness; and that in coining, clipping, and washing, the primitive records to their own liking, they have not been wanting to themselves, is notoriously evident.”

While Wilbur Fiske, a prominent Methodist minister, was in the old countries a few years since, he examined the more ancient MSS. of Josephus and found that several points in Josephus had been tampered with and corrupted by the church of Rome; and it would be nothing strange if they had made Josephus’ history say, on hades, what he never said, and may have never believed. Whether he is corrupted on this point or not, this much will be evident to all, by carefully examining the Scripture statements concerning hades, that the Paradise hades, accords more nearly with Catholic doctrine than with the Bible doctrine concerning sheol or hades.

From a tract called, “The Rich Man and Lazarus,” by J. N. Andrews, published at the Review Office, we make the following extract: “The Hebrew term sheol, as used in the Old Testament, is, therefore, the same in meaning with the Greek word hades as used in the New. In other words, the hades of Christ and the apostles is the sheol of Moses and the prophets.” “The Hebrew word is used in the Old Testament sixty-five times. It is rendered grave thirty-one times, . . . pit, three times. It is also rendered hell in thirty-one instances.

“Hades, the New Testament term for the sheol of the Old Testament, is used eleven times, and in ten of these it is rendered hell. . . . It is once rendered grave. . . . Sheol is the common receptacle of the dead, both righteous and wicked. . . . Though sheol is rendered grave thirty-one times, it is not the word usually so rendered in the Old Testament.”

It is said by our opponents that sheol and hades do “not mean simply the grave, but all that is comprehended in the state of the dead.” Admitted, and we will see what is stated, then, in plain terms in the Scriptures respecting the state of the dead, in its testimonies on hades and sheol.

David says: “In death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave [sheol “state of the dead,“] who shall give thee thanks?” Ps. 6 : 5. Hezekiah, when brought near to death, and restored to health, spake as follows: “I said in the cutting off of my days, I shall go to the gates of the grave [sheol]. I am deprived of the residue of my years. . . Behold for peace I had great bitterness; but Thou hast in love to my soul delivered it from the pit of corruption; for thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back. For the grave [sheol, “state of the dead“] cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth. The living, the living, he shall praise thee as I do this day: the father to the children shall make known thy truth.” Isa. 38 : 10–19. Again, we read in David’s testimony: “The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence“ (sheol). Ps. 115 : 17. So we learn from the statements already examined that the dead do not remember God, nor praise God. If any should claim that it meant the wicked dead do not praise God, the last quoted text is very explicit. “Neither any that go down into [sheol] silence.”

These statements concerning the state of dead in sheol, are a logical conclusion from what David has stated in the 146th psalm: “While I live will I praise the Lord: I will sing praises unto my God while I have my being. Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth: in that very day his thoughts perish. Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the Lord his God: which made Heaven, and earth, the sea, and all that therein is: which keepeth the truth forever: which executeth judgment for the oppressed: which giveth food to the hungry. The Lord looseth the prisoners.” Ps. 146 : 2–7. The dead are thus shown to be without thoughts, and are prisoners in the pit—sheol.

It is no wonder that those who die are represented as losing their thoughts, for the sheol—state of the dead—into which they are to pass, is plainly stated to be a state of secrecy, silence, corruption, &c. “So man lieth down, and riseth not; till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep. Oh! that thou wouldest hide me in the grave [sheol], that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me. If a man die, shall he live again? All the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee; thou wilt have a desire to the work of thy hands.” Job 14 : 12–15. He says again: “If I wait, the grave [sheol] is mine house; I have made my bed in the darkness. I have said to corruption, Thou art my father; to the worm, Thou art my mother and my sister. And where is now my hope? As for my hope, who shall see it! They shall go down to the bars of the pit [sheol], when our rest together is in the dust.” Job 17 : 13–16.

But one of the most remarkable testimonies in which this word sheol is used, is found in the writings of Solomon. “For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope; for a living dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward: for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion forever in anything that is done under the sun. . . . Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor devise, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave [sheol] whither thou goest.” Eccl. 9 : 4–6, 10.

Objectors have sometimes said that the above expression, “The dead know not any thing,” simply means that they don’t know anything about the living. The same persons are very careful to tell us that “sheol means more than the grave,” that “it means all that is comprehended in the state of the dead.” Admitting that to be so, it is into sheol—the state of the dead—that people go at death. So “there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the state of the dead.”

It is not true that Paradise is one part of hades. Paradise is up. Paul says, “I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell; God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third Heaven.” This, as you will see by the connection was Paul himself. He was lost in his heavenly vision to all consciousness of things around him, and could not tell whether he went to Heaven bodily or not. This he knew, that he was “caught up to the third Heaven.“ Repeating, he says, “He was caught up into Paradise.” 2 Cor. 12 : 2, 4. This not only shows that Paradise is up, but that it is in the third Heaven. By comparing this with the testimony in Revelation, we shall learn that this third Heaven is the New Jerusalem. “To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God.“ Rev. 2 : 7. By comparing this with chap. 22 : 2, “In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life,“ we learn that Paradise is the New Jerusalem. That “Jerusalem is above.“ Gal. 4 : 26. It is to come “down from God out of Heaven.” Rev. 21 : 2. Paradise cannot, then, be a part of hades (Heb. sheol), for sheol is down. When Jacob was mourning for his son Joseph, supposing he had been devoured by wild beasts, he said, “I will go down into the grave [sheol] unto my son mourning.” Gen. 37 : 35.

If Paradise was an apartment of hades in which the righteous were joyfully anticipating their final reward, how could hades be represented as having had a victory over them? By looking at Paul’s testimony to the brethren in 1 Cor. 15, we shall see that when the saints are raised from the dead they claim a victory over the grave—hades. They shout; “O death, where is thy sting? O grave [hades], where is thy victory?” 1 Cor. 15 : 55. If one apartment of hades is Paradise, and the saints have been in happiness there, it seems strange that it should be recognized as a victory over them; but allowing that hades is a place of inactivity and silence, not of reward, and that, when the saints are delivered from hades, they enter again upon life, and receive their reward, then has death had a victory over them, and they may indeed shout, “O grave [hades], where is thy victory?”

Again we read in Rev. 20 : 13, 14: “And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell [hades] delivered up the dead which were in them; and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell [hades] were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.” If it be true that one apartment of hades is Paradise, then when hades is destroyed in the lake of fire, Paradise will be burned up. How much more clear and consistent is the truth. The heavenly city, the holy Jerusalem, the great metropolitan capital of the new earth, is the Paradise of God, in which his saints will ever dwell.

J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH. (To be Continued.)

Continue reading: An Exposition of Eph. 2 : 14, 15