DEPARTING AND BEING WITH CHRIST.
When will all men come to agree respecting the state of the dead? When
will the question whether the dead are alive, conscious, active, and
intelligent, or whether they rest in the grave in unconsciousness and
inactivity, cease to be a vexed question? When shall it be decided
whether the shout of triumph which the ransomed are to raise, “O death,
where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?” is the celebration
of a real victory, or only an unnecessary and useless transaction, as it
must be if the grave holds not the real man, but only the shell, the
mortal body, which is generally considered an incumbrance and a clog?
Never will this question be decided till men shall be willing to follow
the Scriptures, instead of trying to compel the Scriptures to follow
them; never, while they put the figurative for the literal, and the
literal for the figurative, mistake sound for sense, and rest on the
possible construction of an isolated text, instead of, and in opposition
to, the general tenor of the teaching of the inspired writers.
Paul has told us often enough, and it would seem explicitly enough, when
the Christian goes to be with his Lord. It is at the redemption of the
body. Rom. 8:23. It is in the day of the Lord Jesus. 1 Cor. 5:5. It is
at the last trump. 1 Cor. 15:51-55. It is when we are clothed upon with
our house from Heaven. 2 Cor. 5:4. It is when Christ our life shall
appear. Col. 3:4. It is when the Lord descends from Heaven with a shout,
and the dead are raised. 1 Thess. 4:16, 17. It is at the coming of the
Lord. 2 Thess. 2:1. It is to be at “that day,” an expression by which
Paul frequently designates the day of Christ’s appearing. 2 Tim. 4:7, 8.
Yet Paul, in one instance, without stopping to explain, uses the
expression, “to depart and to be with Christ;” whereupon his words are
seized by religious teachers as unanswerable evidence that at death the
spirit enters at once into the presence of its Redeemer. The passage is
found in Phil. 1:21-24, and reads as follows:--
“For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the
flesh, this is the fruit of my labor: yet what I shall choose I wot not.
For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart and to be
with Christ; which is far better. Nevertheless, to abide in the flesh is
more needful for you.”
Willing to go with our friends as far as we can in their interpretation
of any passage, we raise no issue here on the word depart. Paul probably
means by it the same as in 2 Tim. 4:6, where he says, “The time of my
departure is at hand,” referring to his approaching death. Then Paul,
immediately on dying, was to be with Christ. Not so fast. The very point
intended to be proved has, in such a conclusion, to be assumed. Paul had
in view two conditions: this present state, and the future state.
Between these two he was in a strait. The cause of God on earth, the
interests of the church, stirring to its very depths his large and
sympathetic heart, drew him here; his own desires drew him to the future
state of victory and rest. And so evenly balanced were the influences
drawing him in either direction, that he hardly knew upon which course
he would decide, were it left to him as a matter of choice.
Nevertheless, he said that it was more needful for the church that he
remain here, to give them still the benefit of his counsel and his
labors.
The state or condition to which he looked forward was one which he
greatly desired. About four years before he wrote these words to the
Philippians, he had written to the Corinthians, telling them what he did
desire, and what he did not desire, in reference to the future. Said he,
“Not that we would be unclothed.” 2 Cor. 5:4. By being unclothed, he
meant the state of death, from the cessation of mortal life to the
resurrection. This he did not desire; but he immediately adds what he
did desire, namely, to be “clothed upon, that mortality might be
swallowed up of life;” and when this is done, all that is mortal of us
is made immortal, the dead are raised, and the body is redeemed. Rom.
8:23; 1 Cor. 15:52, 53.
In writing to the Corinthians, he thus stated that the object of his
desire was to be clothed upon, and have mortality swallowed up of life;
to the Philippians he stated that the object of his desire was to be
with Christ. These expressions, then, mean the same thing. Therefore, in
Phil. 1:23, Paul passes over the state of death, the unclothed state,
just as he had done to the Corinthians; for he would not tell the
Corinthians that he did not desire a certain state, and four years after
write to the Philippians that he did desire it. Paul did not thus
contradict himself.
But this intermediate state is the disputed territory in this
controversy; the condition of the dead therein is the very point in
question: and on this the text before us is entirely silent.
This is the vulnerable point in the popular argument on this text. It is
assumed that the being with Christ takes place immediately on the
departure. But, while the text asserts nothing of this kind, multitudes
of other texts affirm that the point when we gain immortality and the
presence of Christ, is a point in the future beyond the resurrection.
And, unless some necessary connection can be shown between the departing
and the being with Christ, and the hosts of texts which make our
entrance into Christ’s presence a future event can be harmonized
therewith, any attempt to prove consciousness in death from this text is
an utter failure.
Landis seems to feel the weakness of his side in this respect, and
spends the strength of his argument, pp. 224-229, in trying to make the
inference appear necessary that the being with Christ must be immediate
on the departure. He would have us think it utterly absurd and
nonsensical to suppose a moment to elapse between the two events.
Let us then see if there is anything in Paul’s language which
contradicts the idea that a period of utter unconsciousness, of greater
or less length, intervenes between death and our entrance into the
future life. In the first place, if the unconsciousness is absolute, as
we suppose, the space passed over in the individual’s experience is an
utter blank. There is not the least perception, with such person, of the
lapse of a moment of time. When consciousness returns, the line of
thought is taken up at the very point where it ceased, without the
consciousness of a moment’s interruption. This fact is often proved by
actual experience. Persons have been known to become utterly unconscious
by a fracture of the skull, and a portion of it being depressed upon the
brain, suspending its action. Perhaps when the accident happened they
were in the act of issuing an order, or giving directions to those about
them. They have lain unconscious for months, and then been relieved by a
surgical operation; and when the brain began again to act, and
consciousness returned, they have immediately spoken and completed the
sentence they were in the act of uttering when they were struck down,
months before. This shows that to these persons there was no
consciousness of any time intervening, more than what passes between the
words of a sentence which we are speaking. It was all the same to them
as if they had at once completed the sentence they commenced to utter,
instead of having weeks and months of unconsciousness thrown in between
the words of which that sentence was composed.
So with the dead. They are not aware of the lapse of a moment of time
between their death and the resurrection. A wink of the eye shuts out
for an instant the sight of all objects, but it is so instantaneous that
we do not perceive any interruption of the rays of vision. Six thousand
years in the grave to a dead man is no more than a wink of the eye to
the living. To them, consciousness, our only means of measuring time, is
gone; and it will seem to them when they awake that absolutely none has
elapsed. When Abel awakes from the dead, it will seem to him, until his
attention is attracted by the new scenes of immortality to which he will
be raised, that he is rising up from the murderous blows of Cain, under
which he had seemingly just fallen. And to Stephen, who died beholding
the exaltation of Christ in Heaven, it will be the same as if he had,
without a moment’s interruption, entered into his glorious presence. And
when Paul himself shall be raised, it will seem to him that the stroke
of the executioner was his translation to glory.
Such being the indisputable evidence of facts upon this point, we ask
how a person, understanding this matter, would speak of the future life,
if he expected to obtain it in the kingdom of God? Would he speak of
passing long ages in the grave before he reached it? He might, if he
designed to state, for any one’s instruction, the actual facts in the
case; but if he was speaking simply of his own experience, it would not
be proper for him to mention the intervening time, because he would not
be conscious of any such time, and it would not seem to him on awaking
to life again that any such period had elapsed.
Accordingly, Bishop Law lays down this general principle on this
question:--
“The Scriptures, in speaking of the connection between our present and
future being, do not take into the account our _intermediate state in
death_; no more than we, in describing the course of any man’s actions,
take into account the time _he sleeps_. Therefore, the Scriptures (to be
consistent with themselves) _must affirm_ an immediate connection
between death and the Judgment. Heb. 9:27; 2 Cor. 5:6, 8.”
John Crellius says:--
“Because the time between death and the resurrection is not to be
reckoned, therefore the apostle might speak thus, though the soul has no
sense of anything after death.”
Dr. Priestly says:--
“The apostle, considering his own situation, would naturally connect the
end of this life with the commencement of another and a better, as he
would have no perception of any interval between them. That the apostle
had no view short of the coming of Christ to Judgment, is evident from
the phrase he makes use of, namely, _being with Christ_, which can only
take place at his second coming. For Christ himself has said that he
would come again, and that he would take his disciples to himself, which
clearly implies that they were not to be with him before that time.”
So in harmony with this reference to our Lord’s teaching is the language
used by Paul in 1 Thess. 4:16, 17, that we here refer to it again: “For
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 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.”
As Christ taught that the time when his people were to be with him again
was at his second coming, so Paul here teaches. We call attention to the
word _so_, in the last sentence of the quotation. So means in this way,
in this manner, by this means. “_So_,” in this manner, by this means,
“shall we ever be with the Lord.” When Paul, as he does here, describes
without any limitations, the way and means by which we go to be with the
Lord, he precludes every other means. He the same as says there is no
other means by which we can be with the Lord, and if there is any other
means of gaining this end, this language is not true. If we go to be
with the Lord, by means of our immortal spirit, when we die, we do not
go to be with him by means of the visible coming of Christ, the
resurrection of the dead, and the change of the living, and Paul’s
language is a stupendous falsehood. There is no possible way of avoiding
this conclusion, except by claiming that the descent of the Lord from
Heaven, the mighty shout, the voice of the archangel, the sounding of
the great trump of God, the resurrection of the dead, and the change of
the living, all take place when a person dies--a position too absurd to
be seriously refuted, and almost too ridiculous to be even stated.
Shall we then take the position that Paul taught the Philippians that a
person went by his immortal spirit immediately at death to be with the
Lord, when he had plainly told the Thessalonians that this was to be
brought about in altogether a different manner, and by altogether
different means? No one who would have venerated that holy apostle when
alive, or who has any decent regard for his memory now that he is dead,
will accuse him of so teaching.
Why, then, does he say that he has a desire to depart, that is, to die?
Because he well understood that his life of suffering, of toil, and
trial here was to terminate by death; and if the church could spare him,
he would gladly have it come, not only to release him from his almost
unbearable burdens, but because he knew further that all the intervening
space between his death and the return of his Lord would seem to him to
be instantly annihilated, and the glories of the eternal world, through
his resurrection from the dead, would instantly open upon his view.
It is objected again that Paul was very foolish to express such a desire
if he was not to be with his Lord till the resurrection; for, in that
case, he would be with him no sooner if he died than he would if he did
not die. Those who make this objection, either cannot have fully
considered this subject, or they utterly fail to comprehend it. They
have no difficulty in seeing how Paul would be with Christ sooner by
dying, provided his spirit, when he died, immediately entered into his
presence; but they cannot see how it would be so when the time between
his death and the coming of Christ is to him an utter blank, and then
without the consciousness on his part, that a single instant has
elapsed, he is ushered into the presence of his Redeemer. Remember that
Paul’s consciousness was his only means of measuring time; and if he had
died just as he wrote these words to the Philippians, it would have been
_to him_ an entrance into Christ’s presence just as much sooner as what
time elapsed between the penning of that sentence and the day of his
death. None can fail to see this point, if they will consider it in the
light of the fact we have here tried so fully to set forth, that the
dead have no perceptions of passing time.
In the light of the foregoing reasoning, let us read and paraphrase this
famous passage to the Philippians:--
“For to me to live is for the furtherance of the cause of Christ, and
for me to die is still gain to that cause (because ‘Christ shall be
magnified in my body, whether it be by life or death,’ verse 20). But if
I live in the flesh, this, the furtherance of Christ’s cause, is the
fruit of my labor; but what course I should take were it left for me to
decide, I know not; for I am in a straight betwixt two: I know that the
church still needs my labors, but I have a desire to end my mortal
pilgrimage, and be the next instant, so far as my experience goes (for
the dead perceive no passing of time), in the presence of my Lord.
Consulting my own feelings, this I should esteem far better; but I know
that it is more needful for you that I abide still in a condition to
labor on for your good in this mortal state.”
Who can say, bearing in mind the language Paul frequently uses in his
other epistles, that this is not a just paraphrase of his language here.
The only objection against it is, that, so rendered, it does not support
the conscious-state dogma. But it makes a harmony in all that Paul has
taught on the subject; and is it not far more desirable to maintain the
harmony of the sacred writings, than to try to make them defend a dogma
which involves them in a fatal contradiction?
REMAINING TEXTS CONSIDERED.
We have now examined all the principal texts of the Scriptures which are
supposed to have a bearing on the question of the intermediate state. A
few others of minor importance are occasionally urged in favor of the
popular view, and as such are entitled to a passing notice. We give them
in consecutive order as follows:--
Rom. 8:38, 39. “For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, ...
shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ
Jesus our Lord.”
It is claimed that death cannot separate us from the love of God; but,
as God cannot exercise his love toward any but a rational and conscious
creature, therefore the soul must be alive after death. (_Immortality of
the Soul, by Luther Lee_, p. 111.) To what far-fetched and abortive
reasoning will wrong theories lead intelligent men. We owe the reader an
apology for noticing this passage at all. We should not here introduce
it, were it not used as an objection to the view we advocate; and we
should not believe it could ever be urged as an objection, had we not
actually seen it. The reasoning of the apostle has to be completely
inverted before any argument (may we be pardoned the misnomer) can be
manufactured out of it for the conscious-state theory. For it is of our
love to God, through Christ, and not of his to us, that the apostle
speaks. It has reference, also, wholly to this life. Thus he says, verse
35, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation,
or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or
sword?” That is, shall these things which we have to endure in this life
on account of our profession of the gospel and our love for Christ,
quench that love in any wise? Shall we compromise the gospel, and
alienate ourselves from the love of Christ, who has done so much for us,
and through whom we hope for so much (see the whole chapter), to avoid a
little persecution, peril, and distress? The separation from the love of
Christ by death, of which he speaks, is the same as the separation by
persecution, &c.; but tribulation, distress, persecution, famine,
nakedness, peril, and sword, do not necessarily kill us; they have
respect to this life; the separation, therefore, is something which
takes place here--simply an alienation of our hearts from him. And shall
all these things, he asks--nay, more, shall even the prospect of death
on account of our profession of Christ, prevent our loving and following
him? No! is the implied and emphatic answer.
Such we believe to be the view which any one must take of this passage,
who does not find himself under the unfortunate necessity of making out
a case.
But looking at this scripture from the objector’s stand-point, the
singular inquiry at once forces itself upon us, Can the immortal soul in
its disembodied state suffer tribulation, distress, persecution, famine,
nakedness, peril, and sword!?
2 Cor. 4:16. “For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man
perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.”
Is this inward man the immortal soul? We answer, No; but the new man
which we put on, Christ formed within _the hope_ of glory. See Col. 3:9,
10; Eph. 4:22, 24; 3:16, 17; Col. 1:27.
1 Thess. 4:14. “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even
so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.”
Yes, says the objector, bring them from Heaven; so they must now be with
him there in a conscious state. Not quite so fast. The text speaks of
those who sleep in Jesus. Do you believe those who have gone to Heaven
are asleep? We always supposed that Heaven was a place of unceasing
activity, and of uninterrupted joy. And, again, are all these persons
going to be brought from Heaven asleep! What a theological incongruity!
But, from what place are they brought, if not from Heaven? The same
place, we answer, from which God brought our Lord Jesus Christ. And what
place was that? See Heb. 13:20: “Now the God of peace, that brought
again _from the dead_ our Lord Jesus,” &c. We may then read the text in
Thessalonians, as follows: “For if we believe that Jesus died and God
brought him from the dead, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will
God bring with him from the dead.” Simply this the text affirms, and
nothing more. It is a glorious pledge of the resurrection, and so far
diametrically opposed to the conscious-state theory.
2 Tim. 4:6. “For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my
departure is at hand.”
It is claimed that the departure here referred to is death, with which
we agree. We take no exceptions to the remark so often made, “Departed
this life,” &c. But as Paul does not here intimate that his departure
was to be to Heaven, or even to any conscious intermediate state, we
have no right to infer this.
2 Pet. 1:14. “Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle,
even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath showed me.”
It is here claimed that the “I” that speaks, and the “my” that is in
possession of a tabernacle, is Peter’s soul, the man proper, and the
tabernacle, is the body which he was going to lay off. That Peter here
has reference to death, we doubt not; but it was to be as the Lord Jesus
Christ had showed him. How had he shown him it would be? See John 21:18,
19: “But when _thou_ shalt be old, _thou_ shalt stretch forth thy hands,
and another shall gird _thee_, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.
This spake he, signifying by what death _he_ should glorify God.” Here
we are shown that the “thou” and the “he,” claimed on 1 Pet. 1:14, to be
Peter’s soul, the man proper, was going to die, and by death, glorify
God. And Peter himself says in the next verse, “Moreover, I will
endeavor that ye may be able after _my_ decease to have these things
always in remembrance.” Here, then, the same “my,” Peter’s soul, the man
proper, recollect, which in the verse before is in the possessive case,
and governed by tabernacle, is again in the possessive case, and
governed by decease, or _death_! Yes, Peter _himself_ was going to die.
We find no proof of a double entity here.
This phraseology is well illustrated by Job 7:21, which shows that the
man proper, the “I,” sleeps in the dust: “And why dost Thou not pardon
my transgression, and take away mine iniquity? for now shall I sleep in
the dust; and thou shalt seek me in the morning, but I shall not be.”
2 Pet 2:9. “The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of
temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of Judgment to be
punished.”
This testimony shows that the unjust do not enter into a place of
punishment at death, but are _reserved_ to the day of Judgment. Where
are they reserved? Answer. In the general receptacle of the dead, the
grave. See Job 21:30.
Rev. 20:5. “But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand
years were finished. This is the first resurrection.”
By this first resurrection a portion of the dead are restored to life,
consciousness, and activity, while it is said of those whose condition
is not affected by this resurrection, that they _lived not_ for a
thousand years. This proves that up to the time of this resurrection,
_all_ the dead were in a condition just the opposite of life--a
condition in which it might be said of them that they “lived not.” And
this, mark, is spoken of the whole conscious being, not of the body
merely. No language could more positively show that in death the whole
person is in a state just the opposite of life.
Rev. 22:8, 9. “And I John ... fell down to worship before the feet of
the angel which showed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou
do it not; for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the
prophets.”
This text is supposed to prove that one of the old prophets came to John
as an angel, showing that the dead exist in a conscious state. But it
does not so teach. The angel simply stated that he was John’s
fellow-servant, and the fellow-servant of John’s brethren, the prophets,
and the fellow-servant of them which keep the sayings of this book. The
being of whom they were all worshipers together was the great God.
Therefore, says the angel, do not worship me, since I am only a
worshiper with you at the throne of God; but worship God. This angel had
doubtless been sent to the ancient prophets to reveal things to them, as
he had now come to John. Such we believe to be the legitimate teaching
of this scripture, the last that is found in the book of God supposed to
teach a conscious state.