|
 HE common
belief of the immortality of the human soul, cherished with a
peculiar tenacity, is, I think, the chief barrier to the perception
of revealed truth on the subject. I affirm, however, that it is
inconsistent with both reason and revelation to suppose that
Immortality is a necessary attribute of any created being. God “ONLY
hath Immortality.” 1Ti 6:16. To suppose that the soul is
necessarily immortal, is to suppose that it is independent of its
Creator, for its continued existence. In the bible, man in the
general, is declared to be MORTAL; Job 4:17. Not in a single
instance is man, in the general, declared to be immortal. On the
contrary, we are plainly taught that Immortality is to be sought for
by faith in Jesus Christ, and patient continuance in well doing.
Ro 2:7. “The wages of sin is DEATH.” Ro 6:23. “He that
believeth not the Son, shall not see LIFE.” Joh 3:36.
It is also affirmed that thought and reason cannot be attributed to
matter, that these are evidences of an immaterial substance which
survives the body. It appears to me that Heb 4:12, contradicts
this theory.
“Shall I be told (says W. Lawrence) that thought is inconsistent
with matter; that we cannot conceive how medullary substance can
perceive, remember, judge, reason? I acknowledge that we are
entirely ignorant how the parts of the brain accomplish these
purposes-as we are how the liver secretes bile, how the muscles
contract, or how any other living purpose is effected-as we are how
heavy bodies are attracted to the earth, how iron is drawn to the
magnet or how two salts decompose each other.
NOTE: The following
editorial comments were added by a previous editor and not that of
the Harvest Herald
[Editor: I caution the reader who may dismiss these writings as
antiquated, that while this monograph was written in 1855, and while
science has probed into these mysteries for some 150 years,
uncovering many of the secrets still hidden in Br. Grew’s day, yet
his discussion of the properties of the human soul, and its demise
at death, has withstood the test of time, and still remains
biblically true today.]
“Let us survey the natural history of the human mind-its rise,
progress, various fates, and decay; and then judge whether these
accord best with the hypothesis of an immaterial agent, or with the
plain dictates of common sense, and the analogy of every other organ
and function throughout the boundless extent of living beings. The
senses and brain begin to be exercised as soon as the child is born;
and a faint glimmering of mind is dimly perceived in the course of
the first months of existence: but it is weak and infantile as the
body. As the senses acquire their powers, and the cerebral jelly
becomes firmer, the mind gradually strengthens; slowly advances with
the body, through childhood to puberty; and becomes adult when the
development of the frame is complete. In the perfect period of
organization, the mind is seen in the plenitude of its powers; but
this state of full vigor is short in duration, both for the
intellect and the corporeal fabric. The wear and tear of the latter
is evidenced in its mental movements: with the decline of
organization the mind decays; it becomes decrepit with the body; and
both are at the same time extinguished by death.
“What do we infer from this succession of phenomena? The existence
and action of a principle entirely distinct from the body? Or a
close analogy to the history of all other organs and functions?
“The number and kind of the intellectual phenomena in different
animals, correspond closely to the degree of the development of the
brain. The graduation of organization and of mind passes through the
monkey, dog, elephant, horse, to other quadrupeds; thence to birds,
reptiles, and fishes, and so on to the lowest links of the animal
chain. In ascending the steps of our ladder, following in regular
succession at equal intervals, where shall we find the boundary of
unassisted organization? Where place the beginning of the immaterial
adjunct? In that view which assimilates the functions of the brain
to other organic parts, this case has no difficulty. As the
structure of the brain is more perfect, exquisite and complex, its
functions ought to be proportionally so. It is no slight proof of
the doctrine now enforced, that the fact is actually thus: that the
mental powers of brutes, so far as we can see, are proportional to
their organization.
“If the intellectual phenomena of man require an immaterial
principle superadded to the brain, we must equally concede it to
those more rational animals which exhibit manifestations differing
from some of the human only in degree. If we grant it to these, we
cannot refuse it to the next in order, and so on, in succession, to
the whole series-to the oyster, the sea-anemone, the polyp, the
microscopic animalcules. Is any one prepared to admit the existence
of immaterial principles in all these cases? If not, he must equally
reject it in man.
“Thought, it is positively and dogmatically asserted, cannot be an
act of matter. Yet no feelings, no thought, no intellectual
operation has ever been seen, except in conjunction with a brain;
and living matter is acknowledged by most persons to be capable of
what makes the nearest possible approach to thinking. The strongest
advocates of immaterialism seeks no further than the body, for his
explanation of all the vital processes, of muscular contraction,
nutrition, secretion, &c. -operations quite as different from any
affection of inorganic substance, as reasoning or thought; he will
even allow the brain to be capable of sensation.
“Who knows the capabilities of matter so perfectly, as to be able to
say that it can see, hear, smell, taste and feel, but cannot
possibly reflect, imagine, judge? If the mental processes be not the
function of the brain, what is its office? In animals which possess
only a small share of the human cerebral structure, sensation
exists, and, in many cases, is more acute than in man. What
employment shall we find for all that man possesses over and above
this portion, for the large and prodigiously developed human
hemispheres? Are we to believe that these serve only to round the
figure of the organ or to fill the cranium?”
Lu 16:19-31. It must be admitted that a part of our Lord’s representation
of the state of the rich man and Lazarus, seems to favor the opinion
of conscious happiness and misery immediately after death,
especially the request of the former, that Lazarus should be sent to
his father’s house. The entire representation, however, is far from
sustaining such an opinion. So that the parable could not be
considered as clearly teaching the popular theory, even if there was
no opposing testimony.
By what process of reasoning do we infer the conscious misery of a
disembodied spirit, from the declaration that a man “lifted up HIS
EYES” in hell, and felt HIS “TONGUE” tormented in the flame? Is not
our Lord’s representation strong proof, that man has no soul which
is capable of suffering without the body? If such an opinion is
true, was not this the very occasion to teach it? Would the faithful
witness of the truth teach that the bodily members were actually
tormented, when if fact they were as dead as a stone in the grave?
Does not such a representation oblige us to understand our Lord as
anticipating that state, when the body, or the man, raised from the
grave, should be capable of the suffering and enjoyment which he
describes? Even that part of the parable which refers to the rich
man’s concern for his brethren, contains some proof that there is no
conscious spirit separate from the body, for the representation is,
that Lazarus could not make the desired communication, except he
“rose from the dead.”
Moreover, Jesus Christ in Mt 25th chap. and in other passages
teaches us, that judgment will precede future punishment. But the
judgment will not be until the harvest, which “is the end of the
world,” or present state, when the Son of man will come in his
glory. He plainly teaches us that the wicked are not to be cast into
the furnace or lake of fire, (where, it appears, the rich man is
represented as being tormented) until the end of the world. See
Mt 13:39-42.
Whatever view we take of this part of our Lord’s instruction-whether
we admit or deny that it is a parable, and whatever construction we
give it, one things is undeniable, viz., it is not all literally
true. Therefore, it is totally inconsistent with the acknowledged
correct rules of interpreting the oracles of God, to give it a
construction which contradicts the plain and positive declarations
of divine truth, that “the dead know not anything;” that their
“thoughts perish,” and that their hatred and love is lost. Compare
Isa 14:9-24 Eze 32:21-32; where the dead are represented as speaking
in the grave.
2Co 5:1-10. I have never been more impressed with a sense of the
importance of examining scripture in its connection, than when
critically reviewing the sixth and eighth verses of this chapter,
which I have long considered as proof of the doctrine I am now
obliged to oppose.
Before examining these verses in their connection, the reader is
requested to consider whether, even separately considered, these
verses prove that Paul expected at death to be immediately with the
Lord, any more than the first verse proves that he expected
immediately at death, to be clothed with the immortal body?
“For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle, (i.e.,
our body) were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not
made with hands, eternal in the heavens,” i.e., an IMMORTAL BODY.
-“For in this we groan earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with
our house which is from heaven: (i.e., our immortal body.) If so be
that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in
this tabernacle do groan, being burdened {see Ro 8:23} not for
that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon (how?) that mortality
might be swallowed up of life, ( i.e., by the possession of the
immortal body as verse 2 proves. See also 1Co 15:54) “Now he
that hath wrought us for the self same thing is God.” What “self
same thing?” certainly, for the possession of this house from heaven
which is the immortal body. “Who also hath given us the earnest
(i.e., of the self same thing) of the spirit.” Thus far the
premises, now for the conclusion. “Therefore,” i.e., because God
hath wrought us for this self same thing of giving us an immortal
body, “ we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home
in the body, (i.e., our mortal 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 (i.e., this mortal body)
that (in our immortal body) we may be present with the Lord.”
According to the common opinion, Paul and his brethren might have
been confident of their being present with the Lord, if God never
had wrought them for that self same thing, viz., the immortal body.
The unbiased reader will perceive that the common construction of
the sixth and eighth verses destroys all connection between the
apostle’s premises and conclusion. It makes him reason most
absurdly. What sense is there in the following argument? Because God
has promised us the immortal body, therefore we are confident and
desire to have no body at all. It is evident that the apostle had in
his mind, “the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body” from
the grave, throughout this connected chain of premises and
conclusion; which is further proved by his reference to our
appearing before the judgment seat of Christ, which certainly will
not be till he comes in glory and raises the dead. See Mt
25:31-46 1Th 4:16.
It is evident from the first four verses of this very chapter, that
Paul’s hope of being present with the Lord, was founded on the
doctrine of the resurrection.
It may be said that according to the view advocated, the saints
never will be absent from the body. I reply that the dissolution of
our body is sufficient to justify such an expression. “Flesh and
blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” It is in the incorruptible
and immortal body only that we can be present with the Lord. If the
believer is present with the Lord in a disembodied state as many
suppose, he would then see him as he is and be like him, but this is
not to be until he appears. See 1Jo 3:2 Php 1:23. “For I am in
a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and be with Christ;
which is far better.” The apostle does not affirm that he expected
to be with Christ immediately on his departure; though such would be
a fair construction of his words, if it were not a violation of the
general tenor of divine truth on this subject. It will indeed appear
to Paul that he is with his Savior immediately on his departure, for
of the intervening period he has no consciousness. Compare this
passage with 2Co 5:1. To deny that a release from his toils
and sufferings was an adequate cause for his desiring to depart, is
to deny the word of the Lord which declares that such are blessed
because “they rest from their labors,” Re 14:13. The wise man
“praised the dead-more than the living, not because of their being
in a state of conscious felicity, but because of their deliverance
from oppression, Ec 4:1,2. In the grave “the wicked cease from
troubling and the weary are at rest.” The righteous are taken away
from the evil to come. Isa 57:1 Lu 23:43. “And Jesus
said unto him, verily I say unto thee, to-day shalt thou be with me
in paradise.”
In the “Improved Version” of the New Testament this passage is
marked as doubtful. Neither of the other evangelists record it. If
it is genuine, the Greek does not require the pointing of our
version. In the margin, though not in the text Griesbach has the
comma after to-day. We may understand our Lord as saying, “Verily,
verily I say unto thee to-day,”&c. What was the request of the dying
thief? “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” Our
Lord has not yet entered into his kingdom, nor will he, until the
seventh angel hath sounded, see Re 11:15. Then, the penitent
thief, who will have part in the first resurrection, will be with
him in paradise, which will be in the new earth wherein dwelleth
righteousness. Then the promise, given him on the day of our Lord’s
crucifixion will be fulfilled.
Is it reasonable to suppose, that Jesus Christ, who assured his
disciples “all things that I have heard of my Father, I have made
known unto you,” although he spoke to them of death and of the
resurrection would never say a word to them on this subject, if it
were true? -Moreover, how could our Savior be in paradise that day,
when, on the third day after, he told Mary, “I am not yet ascended
to my Father?” Such a supposition subverts the great truth that, on
that day Jehovah made “HIS SOUL AN OFFERING FOR SIN,” Isa
53:10; and that, for us, he “poured out HIS SOUL unto death,” see
Mt 26:38 Ps 16:10. Is hades or sheol paradise or heaven?
Never. If his soul was in paradise, or in heaven, that day, then his
soul was not poured out unto death. It did not die at all. The
separation from the body, of a soul which still exists in a
conscious state, is not death but life. It is the very opposite of
death. We know from Ps 16:10, that Jesus Christ’s SOUL was in
sheol from his death to his resurrection; and from Ec 9:10, we
know that “there is no work, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in sheol.”
&c. According to the common theory, God never gave HIS OWN SON to
die for us. He gave only a human body to DIE for the sin of the
world! Where then is the love of God which the inspired writers
delighted to celebrate, as manifested in the fact that God gave that
very Son, who was with him before the world was, TO DIE FOR us?
Where is that efficacy of the atoning sacrifice which is to give us
confidence before God? Alas! how have the corrupt theories of that
wisdom, which is foolishness with God, eclipsed the true wisdom and
glory of redeeming love!
Mt 10:28. “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill
the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and
body in hell.”
In some passages, it is positively declared, that men do kill and
destroy the soul. See Jos 10:28,30,32,35,37 Jos 11:11. In the
passage before us it is affirmed that men are not able to kill the
soul. How shall we reconcile these apparent opposite testimonies? By
flatly denying the former altogether, which we must do to sustain
the common theory? Or by understanding that in one sense men can
kill the soul, but not in another? Men can kill the soul temporarily
but not eternally. See Lu 12:4,5 1Pe 3:19. “By which also he
went and preached unto the spirits in prison,” Milton says,
“literally, in guard, or, as the Syriac version renders it, in
sepulchres, in the grave.” The spirit of Christ in Noah, preached to
those who were in the grave when Peter wrote. 2Pe 2:5.
The angel in Re 22:8,9, might be Enoch or Elijah.
Re 6:9,10: “I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for
the word of God-and they cried with a loud voice,”&c.
It would be absurd to give this passage a literal construction. No
one can suppose that the souls of the departed are under an altar in
heaven. The blood is the life. In the sacrifice under the law, it
was poured under the altar. As the blood of Abel cried from the
ground for vengeance, so the blood of the martyrs cries for
vengeance against their persecutors.
Ac 7:59. “Lord Jesus receive my spirit.”
It is indeed true, that, at death, the dust returns to dust, and the
spirit, or life, to God who gave it. But in what sense, is the
question? I understand that the dying martyr committed his spirit or
life to the care of Him who is the resurrection and the life, and
who will restore it, by raising Stephen from the dead when he comes.
The passage contains no proof that the spirit or life, is distinct
immaterial substance susceptible of consciousness without
organization. “Ye are dead, and your life is hid (i.e., concealed,
not manifest, secured,) with Christ in God.” What then? Are the
saints therefore in a conscious state of felicity previous to the
resurrection? The apostle makes no such inference. The consequence
of our life being thus hid is plainly stated. “When Christ, who is
our life, shall appear, THEN, shall ye also appear with him in
glory.” Col 3:3,4.
“The spirits of just men made perfect.”
The proof that verses 22 to 24 are an illusion to the state, after
the first resurrection, is as follows-1. The apostle says “ye are
come unto the City of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem,”&c.
Now we know from Re 21:1-3, that this City will not come down
out of heaven to be the residence of the saints until the new earth
is established. 2. From Joh 14:3 and 1Jo 3:2, &c., it is
evident that the saints will not see their Savior, or be with him,
until he comes to reign on the earth. 3. From Php
3:10,11,12,21, it is evident that Paul believed that just men are
not “made perfect” until the resurrection. Until then they are in
bondage. Ro 8:21. They will not be perfect until “the
adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.”23d. ver.; 2Co
5:2.
But some exclaim, “What a gloomy doctrine!”
Did the apostles think so? Let us hear them. “But I would not have
you to be ignorant brethren, concerning them which are asleep, (not
in heaven,) that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
(Why not Paul? Because the departed are now with Christ?) For if we
believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which
sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. (How?) For the Lord himself
shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the
archangel, and the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise
first.” 1Th 4:13-16. Whatever it may be with us, it is
manifest that with Paul, the doctrine of the resurrection, with its
concomitant glories, was an adequate source of consolation in
respect to departed brethren. So Peter’s representation of the
incorruptible inheritance, “ready to be revealed in the last time,”
even “at the appearing of Jesus Christ,” actually produced in the
minds of believers, in their “manifold temptations,” a joy
unspeakable and full of glory! Far be it, that we should be found
undervaluing such promises.
Let us candidly review this subject, and ask, what is the evidence
of the existence of such a distinct spiritual and independent
substance as the human soul is supposed to be? The original terms
translated soul and spirit, mean no such thing, the most learned
being judges. The scriptures of truth reveal no such doctrine. The
account of man’s creation is opposed to it. The divine testimony is
plain and positive, that when the body dies, the thoughts,
affections, purposes, &c., which, it is admitted, pertain to the
soul or spirit, perish. No reason or philosophy can prove that it is
any more absurd to admit that the Almighty Creator can make the
material organization of man to reason, &c., than it is to admit
that he can impart mental capacity to the beasts which perish.
Reader, are thou prepared to enter into the kingdom of God? You may
profess to believe the Gospel-you may have been baptized and united
with the church of Christ-all this Ananias and Sapphira did, yet
they perished. All this Simon did, yet he had no part in the kingdom
of Christ for his “heart was not right in the sight of God.” So
Demas, but alas! he “loved this present world.” The King himself has
declared that, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the
kingdom of God.”“ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord,
shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will
of my father which is in heaven.” “And there shall in no wise enter
into it (the holy city) any thing that defileth, neither whosoever
worketh abomination, or maketh a lie, but they which are written in
the Lamb’s book of life.” “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the
abominable-shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire
and brimstone; which is the second death.” Re 21:8,27.
The first scene of the great drama of Jehovah’s wisdom and love in
our salvation has been exhibited to an astonished universe-“THE
SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST.” The second, “THE GLORY THAT SHALL FOLLOW,”
will soon burst upon us. “He that shall come WILL COME, and will not
tarry.” “EVEN SO COME, LORD JESUS.” “Blessing and honor, and glory,
and power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne and unto the Lamb
forever and ever.
|
