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

The appearance of Moses and Elias on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17v 3). As regards Elias, it is testified that he did not see death, but was translated-bodily taken away (2 Kings 2v11). His appearance would, therefore, be no proof of the existence of disembodied spirits. As to Moses, if he were bodily present, he must have been raised from the dead beforehand. That he was bodily apparent is evident from the fact of the disciples-mortal men-seeing and recognising him. But it is an open question whether either Moses or Elias were actually present. The testimony is that the things seen were " a vision " (Matt. 17v9). Now from Acts 12v9, we learn that a vision is the opposite of reality-that is, something seen after the manner of a dream-a something apparently real, but in reality only exhibited visionally to the beholder. The audibility of the voices settles nothing one way or the other, because in vision, as in a dream, voices may be heard that have no existence, except in the aural nerves of the seer. In dreams the illusion is the result of functional disorder; in vision, it is the result of the will energy of the Deity, acting upon the hearing organization of the trance wrapt seer (vice Acts 10v13; also the song of the Apocalyptic living creatures, and the voice of " souls under the altar " ). Neither does the presence of Jesus (an actual personage) as one of the three, contribute much to a solution, because there would be no anomaly in causing Moses and Elias to visionally appear to Jesus, and in association with Jesus. It is probable Moses and Elias were really present, but the use of the word " vision " unhinges the matter a little. In no case can the transfiguration be construed into a proof of the immortality of the soul. It was doubtless a pictorial illustration of the kingdom, in so far as it represented Jesus in his consummated power and glory, exalted over the law (represented by Moses) and the prophets (represented by Elijah), and, therefore, elevated to the position to which the prophets point forward, when, as the head of the nation of Israel and the whole earth, he will cause to be fulfilled the prediction of Moses and the command of the heavenly voice:- " Him shall ye hear in all things; " " Hear ye him. "

"God is not the God of the dead, but of the living " ( Matt. 12v32). If the orthodox believer took a logical view of this statement, he would perceive that instead of proving the immortality of the soul, it indirectly establishes the contrary. It recognizes the existence of a class of human beings who are not " living, " but " dead. " Who are they? According to the popular theory, there are no " dead " in relation to the human race at all; every human being lives for ever. It cannot be suggested that it means " dead " in the moral sense, because this is expressly excluded by the subject of which Jesus is speaking-the resurrection of the dead bodies from the ground (v. 31).

The Sadducees denied the resurrection. Jesus proved the resurrection by quoting from Moses the words of Jehovah [Yahweh], " I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. " How did Jesus deduce the resurrection from this formula? By maintaining that God was not the God of those who were dead in the sense of being done with (see Psalm 49v19-20). From God calling Himself the God of three men who were dead, Jesus argued that God intended to raise them; for " God calleth those things which be not (but are to be) AS THOUGH THEY WERE " (Rom. 4v17). The Sadducees saw the point of the argument, and were put to silence.

But if, as is usually contended, the meaning of " God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, " be, that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive, Christ's argument for the resurrection of the dead is destroyed. For how could it prove the purpose of God to raise Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to assert that they were alive? The very argument requires that they shall be dead at some time, in order to be the subjects of resurrection. Thus it is that the fact of their being dead at a time when God calls Himself their God, yields the conclusion that God purposes their resurrection. But take away the fact of their being dead, which orthodox theology does by saying they were immortal, and could not die, and you take away all the point of Christ's argument. Looked at the other way, the argument is irresistible, and explains to us how the Sadducees were silenced.

"Their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven " ( Matt. 18v10). Whose angels? The angels of " the little ones which believe " ( Matt. 18v6). It is customary to synonomize " spirits " with " angels, " and to make it out that " their angels " means the " little ones " themselves; but this is a liberty so entirely at variance both with the sense and philology of the case, as to be undeserving of reply. The " little ones " are those who " receive the kingdom of God as a little child, " and " their angels " are the angels of God who supervise their interests. " The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him " (Psa. 34v7). " Are they (the angels) not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? " (Heb. 1v4). This fact is a good reason why we should " take heed that we despise not one of these little ones " ; but adopt the popular version of the matter, and the reason vanishes. " Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones, for their redeemed spirits are in heaven. " This would involve a paradox. Yet without it, the proof for immortal soulism which some see in it, is nowhere to be found.

"In the way of righteousness is life, and in the pathway thereof there is NO DEATH " (Prov. 12v28). This is sometimes quoted to prove that as regards the righteous at any rate there is no such thing as even momentary extinction of being. If the passage prove this, the converse is established also, that in the way of unrighteousness is death, and in the pathway thereof NO LIFE. The terms of an affirmative proposition have the same value in a negative. Hence, if this passage prove the literal immortality of the righteous, it proves the literal mortality of the wicked, which is more than those who use this argument are prepared to accept. The passage bears out the proposition that the Bible is against the doctrine of the immortality of the soul.

"Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul " (Matt. 10v28). This is the orthodox advocate's great triumph. He feels here he has a foothold, and he recites the passage with an emphasis entirely absent from his other efforts. He generally snatches his triumph too early, however. He begins comment before finishing the verse. He exultantly enquires why this passage has not been quoted, and so on. If asked to go on with the verse and not leave it half finished, he is not at all enthusiastic in his compliance. However, he goes on if somewhat reluctantly, and stumbles over the concluding sentence, " but rather fear Him that is able to DESTROY BOTH SOUL AND BODY in hell. "

Instantly perceiving the disaster which this elaboration of Christ's exhortation brings upon his theory of imperishable and immortal soulism, he suggests that " destroy " in this instance means " afflict, " " torment. " But there is no ground for this. In fact, a more unwarrantable suggestion was never hazarded by a theorist in straits. In all the instances in which appollumi -the word translated " destroy, " is used, it is impossible to discover the slightest approach to the idea of affliction or torment. We append all the New Testament instances in which it is used:- " The young child to destroy him " ( Matt. 2v13); " might destroy him " (Matt.12v14, Mark 3v6; 11v18); " Will miserably destroy those wicked men " (Matt. 21v41); " Destroyed those murderers " (Matt. 22v7); " Persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas and destroy Jesus " (Matt. 27v20); " Art thou come to destroy " (Mark 1v24; Luke 4v34); " Into the waters to destroy him " (Mark 9v22); " And destroy the husbandman " (Mark 12v9, Luke 20v16); " To save life or destroy " (Luke 6v9), " Not come to destroy men's lives " (Luke 9v56); " The flood came and destroyed them all " (Luke 17v27, 29); " Of the people sought to destroy him " (Luke 19v47); " To steal, and to kill, and to destroy " (John 10v10), " Destroy not him with thy meat " (Rom. 14v15); " I will destroy the wisdom of the wise " (1 Cor. 1v19); " Were destroyed of serpents " (1 Cor. 10v9); " And were destroyed of the destroyer (1 Cor. 10v10); " Cast down but not destroyed " ( 2 Cor. 4v9), " Is able to save, and to destroy " (Jas. 4v12); " Afterward destroyed them that believed not " (Jude 5).

In all these cases " destroy " has a very different meaning from " afflict " or " torment. " The reader has only to substitute either of these words for " destroy " in any of the passages to see how utterly out of place such a paraphrase of the word would be. If " destroy " in every other case has its natural meaning, why should an exceptional meaning be claimed for it in Matthew 10? No reason can be given beyond the one already hinted at, viz., the necessities of the orthodox believer's theory. This is no sound reason at all, and, therefore, we put it aside, and enquire what Jesus meant by exhorting his disciples to " Fear not them that 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. "

We reply, that " life, " in the abstract, which is the equivalent of the word translated " soul " -the Revisers of the New Testament being witnesses (for they have substituted " life " for soul in Matt. 16v25, 26)-life in the abstract is indestructible. But life is not the man, nor of any use to him if it is not given to him. It is God's purpose to give life back to those who obey Him, and to give it back immortally. This constitutes the essence of the statement we are considering. Arising out of this, there comes the special view that life in relation to those who are Christ's cannot be touched by mortal man, however they may treat the body. Of this life, Paul says, " IT IS HID WITH CHRIST IN GOD " (Col. 3v3) " and when CHRIST, WHO IS OUR LIFE, shall appear, then shall we appear with him in glory " (v. 4). This life is the " treasure in the heavens, which faileth not, " spoken of by Jesus and said by Peter to be " reserved in heaven. " Now when men kill the saints, they only terminate their mortal existence. They do not touch that real life of theirs, which is related to the eternal future, and which has it foundation in their connection with Christ in the heavens. This is in Christ's keeping and can be touched by no man. We are not to fear those who can only demolish the corruptible body, and cannot do anything to prevent the coming bestowal of immortality by resurrection. We are to fear him who hath power to destroy BOTH BODY AND SOUL (LIFE) in Gehenna; that is, in the coming retribution by destructive fire manifestation, which will utterly consume the ungodly from the presence of the Lord. We are to fear God, who has the power to annihilate from the universe. and who will use the power on all such as are unworthy. We are not to fear those who can at best only hasten the dissolution to which we are Adamically liable.

This follows as a conclusion from what has gone before. If the dead are really dead-in the absolute sense contended for in this lecture-of course they cannot have gone to any state of reward or punishment, because they are not alive to go.

We might well leave the matter in this position, as an inevitable conclusion from the premises established, but its grave importance justifies us in carrying the matter further. The belief in question is not only erroneous in supposing that the dead go to such places as the popular heaven or hell, immediately after death, but, in thinking that they ever go there at any time.

According to the religious teaching of the present day, the place of final reward is a region beyond the stars-remote from the farthest limit of God's universe, " beyond the realms of time and space. " The ideas entertained concerning the nature of this place are very vague. So far as they take shape, whether in picture or in discourse, they take their cue from the earth. Hence, " The plains of Heaven. " In these " plains " the inhabitants are generally represented as singing a perpetual song of praise. The numbers are supposed to be constantly recruited by arrivals from the earth " below. " A man dies, and according to orthodox idea, the liberated soul flies with inconceivable rapidity to the realms above, safely installed in which, bereaved friends console themselves with the idea that the dead are " not lost, but gone before. " Friends think of them as better off in that " happy land, far, far, away, " than they were in this vale of tears.

Doubtless if it was true, that they were gone to a happy land, the contemplation of their state would be consoling. Whether true or not, it must strike every reflecting mind as an exceedingly discordant element in the case that the righteous after enjoying years of celestial felicity, should have to leave the abode of their bliss, on the arrival of the day of judgment, come down to earth, reenter their bodies for arraignment at the bar of eternal judgment. What is this judgment, " according to what they have done, " for? It seems natural to suppose that admission into heaven in the first instance is proof of the fitness and acceptance of those admitted. Why, then, the trial afterwards? Judgment in such a case seems a mockery. The same remark applies to those who are supposed to have gone to the place of woe.

What is the escape from this distracting inconsistency? It is to be found in the recognition of the unfounded character of the whole heaven going idea of popular religion. This going to heaven is a purely gratuitous speculation. There is not a single promise throughout the whole of the Scriptures to warrant a man in hoping for it. There are, doubtless, phrases which, to a mind previously indoctrined with the idea, seem to afford countenance to it, such, for instance, as that used by Peter (1st Epistle, chap. 1v v. 4): " An inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you; " of which also we have an illustration in the words of Christ (Matt. 5v 12): " For great is your reward in heaven; " and more particularly in his exhortation to " Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust cloth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. "

But the countenance which these phrases seemingly afford to the popular idea, disappears entirely when we realise they express an aspect of the Christian hope, viz., its present aspect. God's salvation is not now on earth; indeed, it is not yet an accomplished fact anywhere, except in the person of Christ. It merely exists in the divine mind as a purpose, and, in detail, that purpose is specially related to those whom Jehovah foreknowingly contemplates as the " saved, " who are said to be " written in the book, " that is, inscribed in the book of His remembrance (Malachi 3v 16). Therefore the only localisation of reward, at present, is in heaven, to which the eye instinctively turns as the source of its promised manifestation. This is especially the case when it is taken into account that Jesus, the pledge of that reward, yea, the very germ thereof, is in heaven. In his being there, who is our life, the undefiled inheritance at present is there; for it exists in him in purpose, in guarantee, and in germ. It has no other kind of existence anywhere else at present; but it is only in heaven in " reserve; " " reserved in heaven, " is Peter's phrase. When a thing is " reserved, " it implies that when it is wanted, it will be brought forth. And thus it is that Peter speaks in the very same chapter. He says the salvation that is reserved in heaven is a " salvation that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ " (I Peter 1v 13). We shall see in future lectures that it is not bestowed upon any until its manifestation at " the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, " of whom it is said that " His reward is WITH HIM " (Rev. 22v 12; Isaiah 40v 10).

The phrases in question indicate in a general way that " Salvation cometh from the Lord " ; and, the Lord being in heaven, it cometh from heaven; and, being yet unmanifested, can properly be said to be at present in heaven. But, on the specific question of whether men go to heaven or not, the evidence is conclusive, as showing that no son of Adam's race is offered entrance to the holy and inaccessible precincts of the residence of the Deity. " God dwelleth in light which no man can approach unto " (I Tim. 6v 16). The emphatic declaration of Christ is, " No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven " (John 3v 13).

Agreeably to this declaration, we have no record in the Scriptures of anyone having entered heaven. Elijah was removed from the earth; so was Enoch; but Christ's statement forbids us to suppose that they were conducted to the " heaven of heavens " which " is the Lord's. " The statement that they went " into heaven " does not necessarily imply that they went to the abode of the Most High. " Heaven " is used in a general sense as designating the firmament over our heads, which we know is a wide expanse, while " the heaven of heavens " points to the region inhabited by Deity. If it be asked, Where are they? The answer is, No one knows; because there is no testimony on the subject beyond that of Christ's, which proves that they did not go to the heaven of which he was speaking.

And especially is it true that there is no record in the Scriptures of any dead man having gone to heaven. The record is the other way-that the dead are in their graves, knowing nothing, feeling nothing, being nothing, awaiting that call from oblivion which is promised by resurrection. Of David it is specifically declared that he has not attained to the sky translation which in funeral sermons is affirmed of every righteous soul. And David, remember, was " a man after God's own heart, " and certain, therefore, of admission into heaven at death, if anybody were. Peter says:-

"Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day . . . FOR DAVID IS NOT ASCENDED INTO THE HEAVENS " (Acts 2v 29, 34).

This is emphatic enough. If you say Peter is speaking of David's body, then it proves that Peter recognized David's body as David, and the departed life as the property of God taken back again. Again, let Paul speak of the " great cloud of witnesses, " who have passed away-the faithful saints of old times, who are supposed to be before the throne of God, " inheriting the promises, " and he tells us:-

"These all died in faith, NOT HAVING RECEIVED THE PROMISES, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth " (Heb. 11v 13).

And in the same chapter, verses 39-40, he repeats:-

"These all having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise. God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us SHOULD NOT BE MADE PERFECT. "

Let us now consult those cases in which consolation is administered in the Scriptures in reference to the dead. You know the doctrines which are enforced with such peculiar urgency by the religious teachers of the present day, when they have to discourse of the departed, such as in the funeral sermons, by way of " improving the occasion. " You will find a great contrast to these in Scriptural cases of consolation concerning the dead. When Martha told Jesus that Lazarus was dead, he did not tell her he was better where he was. He said (John 11v 23), " Thy brother shall rise again. "

When death had removed some of the Thessalonian believers, the survivors, who had evidently calculated upon their living until the coming of the Lord, were filled with sorrow. In this condition, Paul writes to comfort them. Suppose a minister of the present day had had the duty to perform, what would have been his language? " You must rejoice, my friends, for those who are dead, for they are gone to glory. They are delivered from the trials and vexations of this life, and are promoted to a felicity they could never experience in this vale of tears. It is selfish of you to grieve, you ought rather to be glad that they have reached the haven of eternal rest. "

But what says Paul? Does he tell them their friends are happy in heaven? This was the time to say so if it were true, but no; his words are:-

"I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them who are asleep, that ye sorrow not even as others who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also that sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. (When?) For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent (or precede) them who are asleep: 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: 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. Wherefore comfort one another with these words " (I Thess. 4v 1318).