The Dead Unconscious, The Resurrection, and Consequent Error of Popular Belief In Heaven and Hell, continued

The account of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16v19-31) is the principal stronghold of the popular belief. It is brought forward with great confidence on every occasion on which the popular belief is assailed. A little consideration, however, will reveal its unsuitability to the purpose for which it is used. We must first realize, if we can, the nature of the passage of Scripture in question. It is either a literal narrative or a parable. If it is a literal narrative-that is, an account of things that actually happened, given by Christ as a guide to our conception of the " disembodied " state-then it is perfectly legitimate to bring it forward in confutation of the view advanced in this lecture. But in that case it would not only upset that view, but it would upset the popular view also, and establish the view that was entertained by the Pharisees, to whom the parable was addressed; for it will be found on investigation that it is the tradition of the Pharisees that forms the basis of the parable; a tradition which clashes with the popular theory of the death state in many particulars.

Look at the incidents of the parable: see how incompatible they are with the popular theory. The rich man lifts up his eyes, being in torment, and sees Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom; and cries, " Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water to cool my tongue. " Does popular theology allow of the wicked in hell seeing the righteous in heaven? or admit of the possibility of conversation passing between the occupants of the two places? And has the popular immortal soul, fingertips, tongue, and other material members, on which water would have a material cooling effect? Abraham denied the rich man's request, adding as a supplementary reason, " Between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that they which would pass from hence to you CANNOT. " (Is a " gulf " any obstacle to the transit of an immaterial soul?) The rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus to his five brethren, to testify to them lest they should come to the same place of torment; Abraham answered, " If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one ROSE FROM THE DEAD. " (What need, according to the popular view, for a rising from the dead, since a spirit commissioned from the " vasty deep " would have been sufficient to communicate the warning?) The whole narrative has an air of tangibility about it which is inconsistent with the common view of the state of the dead. Besides, think of heaven and hell being within sight of each other, and of conversation passing between the two places! If we insist upon the story as a literal narrative, we are committed to all these particulars, which are so thoroughly at variance with the popular theory.

Is it a literal narrative? Even orthodox believers talk of it as a parable, which it doubtless is. As a parable, it has nothing to do with the question in dispute one way or other. It was addressed to the Pharisees to enforce the lesson that in due time the mighty and rich would be brought down, and the poor exalted; and that if men would not be led by the testimony of Moses and the prophets, miracles (even the raising of the dead) would fail to move them. The parable has no reference to the particular view of the death state which its literal outlines reflect; it bears entirely on the lesson which it was used to convey. A parable does not teach itself; it teaches something else than itself, else it were no parable. But it may be urged that all parables have their foundation in fact. So they have, but they do not necessarily exhibit things that are possible. Parables in which trees speak, and a thistle goes in quest of matrimonial alliances, and corpses rise out of their tombs and address other corpses newly arrived, will be found in the Scriptures (Judges 9v8; II Kings 14v9; Isaiah 14v9, 11). The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is founded on fact but not necessarily on a literal possibility. That the dead should speak was necessary for the purpose of the parable, and it would not surprise the Pharisees to whom it was addressed. For, in fact, it embodies their belief. This is apparent from the treatise on " Hades, " by Josephus (himself a Pharisee), which will be found at the close of his compiled works, and in which the reader will find a recognition of the existence of " Abraham's bosom, " and the fiery lake in " AN UNFINISHED PART OF THE WORLD. " He will find the belief of the Pharisees (reflected in the parable of Jesus) a very different thing from popular belief in heaven beyond the skies, and hell as an abyss in the black and dizzy parts of the universe. A perusal of it will convince him of the wide dissimilarity of the Jewish theory embodied in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, from the commonly received doctrine of going to heaven and hell.

It may be asked, Why did Christ parabolically employ a belief that was fictitious, and thus give it his apparent sanction? The answer is that Christ was not using it with any reference to itself, but for the purpose of being able to introduce a dead man's testimony. He wanted to impress upon them the lesson conveyed in the concluding words of Abraham, " If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead; " and in no more forcible way could he have done this, than by framing a parable based upon their own theory of the death state, which admitted of the consciousness of the dead, and, therefore, their capability to speak on the subject he wanted to introduce. This did not involve his sanction of the theory, any more than his allusion to Beelzebub carried with it a sanction of the reality of that god of the heathen (Matt. 12v27).

When Christ had occasion to speak plainly, and for himself, of the dead, his words were in accordance with the truth. Witness the case of Lazarus; " Then said he unto them plainly (indicating that 'sleep' is not 'plain' and literal), Lazarus is DEAD " (John 11v14-25); " He that believeth on me, though he were dead, yet shall he live, " that is, by resurrection, for he had said just before, " I am THE RESURRECTION and the life; " " The hour is coming in which ALL THAT ARE IN THE GRAVES shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of condemnation " John 5v28, 29). It is in these plain words of Christ that we are to seek for Christ's real ideal on the subject of the dead, and not in a parabolic discourse, addressed to his enemies for the purpose of confusion and condemnation and not of instruction.

It would be strange indeed if so important a doctrine as the heaven and hell consciousness of the dead should have to depend upon a parable! Those who insist upon the parable for this purpose have to be asked what are we to do with all the testimony already advanced in proof of the reality of death? Are we to make a parable paramount and throw away plain testimony? Are we to twist and violate what is clear to make it agree with what we think is meant by that which is admittedly obscure? Is not the opposite rather the course of true wisdom, determining and solving that which is uncertain by that which is unmistakable? If it may be urged, as it has been urged, that it was unlike Christ to perpetuate delusion, and withhold the truth on such an important question as that involved in the parable used, it is sufficient to cite the following in reply:-

"And the disciples came and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them IT IS NOT GIVEN. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance; but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away, even that he hath. Therefore speak l to them in parables " (Matt. 13v10-13). " Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to others in parables, that SEEING THEY MIGHT NOT SEE, AND HEARING THEY MIGHT NOT UNDERSTAND " (Luke 8v10).

The next Scriptural argument in favour of the popular theory is generally advanced with an air of great confidence. " Didn't John, in the Isle of Patmos, " says the triumphant questioner, " see the redeemed of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation, standing before the throne of God, and giving glory? Who are these, if the righteous don't go to heaven at death? " This argument is generally felt to be overwhelming. " Stay, friend; turn to the first verse of the fourth chapter of Revelation, and see what you find there: 'I heard a voice as it were of a trumpet talking with me, which said, Come up hither, and I will show thee THINGS WHICH MUST BE HEREAFTER. The sights which John witnessed were representations of things which were to be at a future time, and therefore, when he saw a great multitude praising God, he beheld the assembly of the resurrected as they will appear at the second advent. "

Next comes Stephen's dying prayer-(Acts 7v59)- " Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. " This is understood to mean that Stephen expected the Lord to receive his immortal soul. That this cannot be the meaning becomes manifest on a consideration of the Scripture doctrine of " spirit. " Stephen's pneuma, spirit or breath, was not himself; it was merely the principle or energy that give him life, as it gives all other men and animals life. This principle does not constitute the man or the animal. It is necessary to give them existence, but it does not belong to them, except during the short term of their existence. Stephen's spirit was not Stephen, though essential to his existence. The individual Stephen consisted of that combination of power and organism Scripturally defined as " body and soul and spirit. " His spirit as an abstraction was God's and proceeded from Him, as have done the spirits of all flesh. Thus we read in Job 33v4, " The spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. " Hence it is said -(Job 34v14, 15)- " If He (God) set His heart upon man-if He gather unto Himself HIS spirit, and HIS breath, all flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust. " The spirit is indispensable as the basis of a living man, consisting of bodily organism. It is the life principle of all living creatures. When this life principle, emanating from God, is withdrawn, it reverts to its original proprietorship, and the created being disappears. This is the idea expressed in Solomon's words (Eccl. 12v7), " Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return unto God, WHO GAVE IT. "

But,it may be asked, why should Stephen be anxious about his spirit in this sense? Well, it must be remembered that Stephen looked forward to a renewing of life at the resurrection. This was his hope. He hoped to get his life back. Consequently, when he came to die, he confided it to the keeping of the Saviour till that day, and, as the narrative adds, " He fell asleep. " If Stephen's personality, expressed in the pronoun 'he' appertained to Stephen's spirit, and not to the bodily Stephen, then this statement would prove that the spirit fell asleep; and this is just what those who quote this passage deny.

Wenext come to the words of Paul, in II Corinthians 5v8, " We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. " This seems at first sight to express the popular idea; but let us consider it. Orthodox people understand that by this, Paul meant to express the desire to depart from his body and go to Christ in heaven. If this was the " absence from the body " that Paul desired, the passage would doubtless stand as an orthodox proof: but was this the " absence from the body " that Paul desired? The context answers the question by defining precisely the idea that was before Paul's mind. It was not disembodiment, as the orthodox idea requires: for he says in verse 4 of the same chapter, " Not that we would be unclothed, but CLOTHED UPON, with our house which is from heaven, that MORTALITY might be SWALLOWED UP of life. " What Paul desired was deliverance from the cumbrance of an imperfect sinful body, and the attainment of the incorruptible body of the resurrection, for, says he (v. 4):-

"We that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened (v. 2) earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with OUR HOUSE which is from heaven. "

Or, as he expresses it in Romans 8v23:-

"We ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit THE REDEMPTION OF OUR BODY. "

Now, when does this redemption of the body take place? Not at death, for at death the body undergoes the very opposite of a process of " redemption. " It goes into bondage and destruction. It breaks up in the ground in corruption; not till the resurrection at the coming of the Lord, is it raised to incorruption. Not till then does " presence with the Lord " take place. The testimony is:-

"The Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we who 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 " (1 Thess. 4v16, 17).

This " absence from the (corruptible) body " is synonymous, in the passage quoted, with " presence with the Lord, " since flesh and blood will, in the case of the accepted, then be merged in the spirit nature with which the saints are to be invested. Says Paul, " Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God " (1 Cor. 15v50). This being the case, he might well desire to be absent from flesh and blood. But this was not enough: it was necessary to add his desire to be present with the Lord, for all who are absent from the body will not attain to the honour of incorruptible existence in his presence. Many will be absent from the body for ever, and nothing else; that is, they will be without body-without existence-swallowed up in the second death: only those who are accepted will " be absent from the body, AND present with the Lord " in the glory of the spirit nature.

We must next look at the 23rd verse of the first chapter of Philippians- " I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart and to be with Christ, which is far better. " As in the last case, this also seems, on its face, to give expression to the idea that popular theology imputes to Paul. In reality, however, it does not do what it appears to do. The words do not teach that Paul would be with Christ as soon as he departed. It would require to be shown from other parts of God's word that a man was with Christ the moment he " departed, " before the passage could be pressed into that service. As it stands, it merely expresses a certain sequence of events, without indicating whether there is any actual interval between the events or not. Depart, first; then be with Christ, but whether immediately after departing, or a time after departing, there is nothing in the expression to tell. If we understand that depart means to die, then the question to settle is, what is provided in the Christian system as the means of introducing a dead person to Christ? The answer which all investigation will yield to this question is, Resurrection. It might seem as if two things so far apart could not be brought together as they are in Paul's language; but it must be remembered that the thing is described from the point of view of the person dying. Now, if the dead, " know not anything, " which the Scriptures declare (Eccl. 9v5), it follows that departing and being with Christ would, to those dying, appear instantly sequential events, and, therefore, perfectly natural to be concatenated in the way Paul does here.

Paul invariably points to Christ's return as the time of being made present with Christ. As instanced in 1 Thess. 4v17, already quoted, after describing the coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the transformation of the living, he says, " So shall we EVER be with the Lord. " Again in 2 Corinth. 4v14, he says, " He which raised up the Lord Jesus, shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us WITH YOU. " Again John says (1 Epistle 3v2), " When he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. " For this reason Paul tells us in the very epistle in which the disputed words are found, that he was striving " if by any means he might attain to the resurrection of the dead " ( Phil. 3v11). In no case does he speak of presence with the Lord occurring till that event.

Assuming this to be settled, we have to harmonize this understanding of the text with the necessity of the context. If it be asked in what sense death would be a " gain " to Paul, the answer is furnished in the words of Christ: " Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it. " Paul was about to be beheaded; this was the death he refers to in the context. Consequently, he would, in a special way, stand related to the words of Christ, " Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life " ( Rev. 2v10). The question as to when this crown would be given is settled by Paul's declaration in 2 Timothy 4v8: " Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me AT THAT DAY (Christ's appearing and kingdom, see 1st verse), and not to me only but unto ALL THEM also that love, his appearing. " It was " gain " to die, also, because Paul would thus be freed from all the privations and persecutions enumerated in 2 Cor. 11v23-28, and would peaceably " sleep " in Christ.

There are arguments advanced on Scriptural grounds in favour of the immortality of the soul which do not quite come within the category of " passages " quoted, but are rather in the nature of deductions from Scriptural principles. It may be of advantage to look at some of these before passing on.

"There is no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked. " - This is quoted to prove the eternal torment of the wicked. It surely requires no argument to show that it fails entirely in this purpose. The statement is true, irrespective of any theory that may be held as to the destiny of the wicked. While the wicked are in existence, either in this life or after resurrection, there is no peace for them. It is impossible there could be peace for them, especially looking forward to the time when they shall be the objects of God's judicial and all devouring vengeance. But this does not prove (as it is quoted to prove) that they are immortal. Such an idea is utterly precluded by the testimonies quoted.