able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both
soul and body in hell.” Matt. 10:28. We know what it is to kill the body;
and by association of ideas, it seems quite natural to form a like
conception of the soul as something that can be treated in the same way.
Then if the soul cannot be killed like the body, the conclusion seems easy
of adoption that it lives right on, with all sensations preserved, as it
was with the body before its death. If it were not for the pagan
definition of “soul,” which here comes in to change the current of
thought, such conclusions drawn from this text would not be so prevalent;
and a little attention to the scope of Christ’s teaching here will readily
correct the misapprehension. This is brought out clearly in verse 39: “He
that findeth his _life_ shall lose it: and he that loseth his _life_ for
my sake shall find it.” This is easily understood. No one will question
what it is to lose his life; and Christ says that he who will do this for
his sake, shall find it. Any one who has been put to death for his faith
in the gospel has “lost his life” (had the body killed) for Christ’s sake.
But Christ says, Do not fear them, even if they do this. Why?—Because ye
shall find it—the life you lost. When shall we find it?—In the
resurrection. John 6:40; Rev. 20:4-6. The expression, “shall find it,”
thus becomes the exact equivalent of the words, “are not able to kill the
soul;” that is, are not able to destroy, or prevent us from gaining that
life he has promised, if we suffer men, for his sake, to “kill the body,”
or deprive us of our present life. The correctness of this view is
demonstrated by the word employed in these instances. That word is ψυχή
(_psuche_). It is properly rendered “life” in verse 39, and improperly
rendered “soul” in verse 28. This lesson, that men should be willing to
lose their life for Christ’s sake, was considered so important that it is
again mentioned in Matthew, and reiterated with emphasis by Mark, Luke,
and John; and they all use this same word ψυχή, which is rendered “life.”
In one instance only in all these parallel passages have the translators
rendered it “soul;” and that is Matt. 10:28, where it is the source of all
the misunderstanding on that text.
6. _Souls Under the Altar._—As a part of the events of the fifth seal as
described in Rev. 6:9-11, John says he saw the souls of the martyrs under
the altar, and heard them crying for vengeance. If they could do that, it
is asked, cannot disembodied souls now communicate with the living? Not to
enter into a full exposition of this scripture, and the inconsistencies
such a view would involve, it is sufficient to ask if these were like the
communicating spirits of the present day. How many communications have
ever been received by modern Spiritualists from souls confined under an
altar? In glowing symbolism, John saw the dead martyrs, as if slain at the
foot of the altar; and by the figure of personification a voice was given
to them, just as Abel’s blood cried to God for vengeance upon his guilty
brother (Gen. 4:10), and just as the stone is said to cry out of the wall,
and the beam out of the timber to answer it. Hab. 2:11.
7. _The Medium of Endor._—Aside from the direct teaching of the
Scriptures, it is still held by some that there are scenes narrated in the
Bible which show that the dead must be conscious. The first of these is
the case of Saul and the woman of Endor, whom he consulted in order to
communicate with the prophet Samuel, as narrated in 1 Samuel 28. Here, it
must be confessed, is brought to view an actual case of spirit
manifestation, a specimen of ancient necromancy; for the conditions,
method of procedure, and results, were just such as pertain to the same
work in our own day. But then, as now, there was no truth nor good in it,
as a brief review of the narrative will show. (1) Samuel was dead. (2)
Saul was sore pressed by the Philistines. Verse 5. (3) God had departed
from him. Verse 4. (4) He had cut off those who had familiar spirits and
wizards, out of the land, because God had forbidden their presence in the
Jewish theocracy, as an abomination. Verse 3; Lev. 19:31. (5) Yet in his
extremity he had recourse to a woman with a familiar spirit, found at
Endor. Verse 7. (6) She asked whom she should bring up, and Saul answered,
Samuel. Verse 11. (7) Saul was disguised, but the familiar spirit told the
woman it was Saul, and she cried out in alarm. Verse 12. (8) Saul
reassured her, and the woman went on with the séance. Verse 10. (9) She
announced a presence coming (not from heaven, nor the spheres, but) up out
of the earth, and at Saul’s request gave a description of him, showing
that Saul did not himself see the form. Verse 13. (10) Saul “perceived”
that it was Samuel (not by actual sight, but from the woman’s description;
for the Hebrew ירע and the Septuagint, γινωσκώ, signify to know, or
perceive, by an operation of the mind.) Verse 14. (11) The woman supposed
it was Samuel; Saul supposed it was Samuel; and that personation is, then,
by the law of appearance, spoken of, in whatever it said or did, as
Samuel; as, “Samuel said to Saul,” etc. Verse 15. (12) Was Samuel really
there as an immortal soul, a disembodied spirit, or as one raised from the
dead?—No; because (_a_) immortal souls do not come up out of the ground,
wrapped in mantles, and complain of being disquieted and brought up; (_b_)
Samuel was a holy prophet, and if he was conscious in the spirit world, he
would not present himself at the summons of a woman who was practicing
arts which God had forbidden; (_c_) God having departed from Saul, and
having refused to communicate with him on account of his sins, would not
now suffer his servant Samuel to grant him the desired communication
through a channel which he had pronounced an abomination; (_d_) Samuel was
not present by a resurrection, for the Devil could not raise him, and God
certainly would not, for such a purpose; besides Samuel was buried at
Ramah, and could not be raised at Endor; (_e_) It was only the woman’s
familiar spirit, personating Samuel as he used to appear when alive—an
aged man clothed with a mantle. His object was to make both the woman and
Saul believe it was Samuel, when it was not, just as communicating spirits
to-day try to palm themselves off for what they are not. As a specimen of
ancient Spiritualism, this case is no particular honor to their cause; and
as a proof of the immortality of the soul, and the conscious state of the
dead, it is a minus quantity.
8. _The Transfiguration._—Jesus took three of his disciples, Peter, James,
and John, apart into a high mountain, and was transfigured before them;
his face became as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light, just
as it will be in the future kingdom of glory, which this scene was
designed to represent. And there then appeared Moses and Elias talking
with Christ. But Moses had died in the land of Moab nearly fifteen hundred
years before, and it is at once concluded that the only way to account for
his appearance on this occasion, is to suppose that he was still alive in
the spirit world, and could appear in a disembodied state, and talk with
Jesus as here represented. But such a conclusion is by no means necessary.
Jesus was there in person, Elias was there in person; for he had not died,
but had been translated bodily from this earth. Now it would be altogether
incongruous to suppose that the third member of this glorious trio,
apparently just as real as the others, was only a disembodied spirit; an
immaterial phantom. Unless the whole scene was merely a vision brought
before the minds of the disciples, Moses was as really there, in his own
proper person, as Jesus and Elias. But there is no way in which he could
thus be present, except by means of a resurrection from the dead; and that
he had been raised, and was there as a representative of the resurrection,
is proved, first by his actual presence on this occasion, and secondly, by
the fact that Michael (Christ, who is “the resurrection and the life,”
John 11:25) disputed with the Devil (who has the power of death, Heb.
2:14) about the body of Moses. Jude 9. There could be no other possible
ground of controversy about the body of Moses except whether or not Christ
should give it life before the general resurrection. But Christ rebuked
the Devil. Christ was not thwarted in this contest, but gave his servant
life; and thus Moses could appear personally upon the mount. This makes
the scene complete as a representation of the kingdom of God, as Peter
says it was (2 Peter 1:16-18); namely, Christ the glorified King, Elias
representing those who will be translated without seeing death, and Moses
representing those who will be raised from the dead. These two classes
embrace all the happy subjects of that kingdom. This view of the matter is
not peculiar to this book. Dr. Adam Clarke, on Matt. 17:3, says: “The body
of Moses was probably raised again, as a pledge of the resurrection.”(2)
And Olshausen says: “For if we assume the reality of the _resurrection of
the body_, and its glorification,—truths which assuredly belong to the
system of Christian doctrine,—the whole occurrence presents no essential
difficulties. The appearance of Moses and Elias, which is usually held to
be the most unintelligible point in it, is as easily conceived of as
possible, if we admit their bodily glorification.”
Those passages which speak of Christ as the “first-fruits,” the
“first-born from the dead,” the “first-born among many brethren,” “of
every creature,” etc., refer only to the chief and pivotal importance of
his own resurrection, as related to all others; and Acts 26:23 does not
declare that Christ should be the first one to be raised from the dead,
but that he first, by a resurrection from the dead, should show light to
the Gentiles. (See the Greek of this passage.) These scriptures therefore
prove no objection to the idea that Moses had been raised from the dead,
and as a victor over the grave, appeared with Christ upon the mount. Thus
another supposed stronghold affords no refuge for the conscious-state
theory, or for Spiritualism.
9. _The Rich Man and Lazarus._—With the features of this parable, as found
in Luke 16, which is supposed to prove the dead conscious, and
Spiritualism possible, the reader is doubtless familiar. It should ever be
borne in mind that this is a parable; and in a parable, neither the
parties nor the scenes are to be taken literally, and hence no doctrines
can be built upon such symbolic representations. But not only is it a
parable, but it is a parable based upon traditions largely entertained by
the Jews themselves in the time of Christ. Thus T. J. Hudson (“Law of
Psychic Phenomena,” p. 385) says:—
“It is a historical fact, nevertheless, that before the advent of
Jesus, the Jews had become imbued with the Greek doctrine of
Hades, which was an intermediate waiting station between this life
and the judgment. In this were situated both Paradise and Gehenna,
the one on the right, and the other on the left, and into these
two compartments the spirits of the dead were separated, according
to their deserts. Jesus found this doctrine already in existence,
and in enforcing his moral precepts in his parables, he employed
the symbols which the people understood, neither denying nor
affirming their literal verity.”
Thus Christ appealed to the people on their own ground. He took the views
and traditions which he found already among them, and arranged them into a
parable in such a way as to rebuke their covetousness, correct their
notions that prosperity and riches in this life are tokens of the favor
and approbation of God, and condemn their departure from the teachings of
Moses and the prophets. As a parable, it is not designed to show the state
of the dead, and the conditions that prevail in the spirit world. But if
any persist that it is not a parable, but a presentation of actual fact,
then the scene is laid, not in the intermediate state, but beyond the
resurrection; for it is after the angels had carried Lazarus into
Abraham’s bosom. But the angels do not bear any one anywhere away from
this earth, till the second coming of Christ and the resurrection of the
dead. Matt. 24:30, 31; 1 Thess. 4:15-17. Finding no support in this
portion of scripture for the conscious-state theory, with its
spiritualistic possibilities, appeal is next made by the friends of that
theory to the case of—
10. _The Thief on the Cross._—Luke 23:39-43. When one of the malefactors
who were crucified with Jesus, requested to be remembered when he should
come into his kingdom, according to the record in the common version, the
Lord replied, “To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” To go from death
into paradise the same day, means to go into the spirit world without a
body, or discarnated, as Spiritualists claim. And so it would be if such
was Christ’s promise to the thief; but it was not.
The little adverb “to-day” holds the balance of power as to the meaning of
this text. If it qualifies Christ’s words, “Verily I say unto thee,” it
gives one idea; if it qualifies the words, “Thou shalt be with me in
paradise,” we have another and very different idea. And how shall the
question of its relationship be decided?—It can be done only by the
punctuation.
Here another difficulty confronts us; for the Greek was originally written
in a solid line of letters, without any punctuation, or even division into
words. Such being the case, the punctuation, and the relation of the
qualifying word “to-day,” must be determined by the context. Now it is a
fact that Christ did not go to paradise that day. He died, and was placed
in the tomb, and the third day rose from the dead. Mary was the first to
meet him, and sought to worship him. But he said, “Touch me not, for I am
not yet ascended to my Father.” John 20:17. Paradise is where the Father
is (see 2 Cor. 12:2-4; Rev. 2:7; 22:1, 2), and if Christ had not been to
his Father when Mary met him the third day after his crucifixion, he had
not then been to paradise; therefore it is not possible that he made a
promise to the thief on the day of his crucifixion, that he should be with
him _that_ day in paradise.
But further, the day of the crucifixion was the day before the Sabbath;
and it was not lawful to leave criminals on the cross during that day.
John 19:31. If they were still living when the time came to take them from
the cross, they were taken down, and their legs were broken to prevent
their escape. The soldiers on this occasion broke the legs of the two
thieves, because they were still alive; “but when they came to Jesus and
saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs.” Verses 32, 33. The
thief therefore lived over into the next day.
Thus there are two absolutely insuperable objections against allowing the
adverb, “to-day,” to qualify Christ’s promise, “Thou shalt be with me in
paradise:” (1) Christ did not go to paradise that day; and (2) The thief
did not die that day. Before these facts the conscious-state argument
built upon this incident, vanishes into thin air. Just place the comma (a
punctuation mark not invented till 1490) after “to-day” instead of before
it, and let that word qualify the verb “say” and emphasize the time when
it was spoken, and all is harmonious. The thief’s request did not pertain
to that day, but looked forward to the time when Christ should come into
his kingdom; and Christ’s promise did not pertain to that day, but to the
time in the thief’s request; so he did not falsify it by not going to his
Father for three days afterward. The thief is quietly slumbering in the
tomb; but Christ is soon coming into his kingdom. Then the thief will be
remembered, be raised from the dead, and be with Christ in that paradise
into which he will then introduce all his people. Thus all is as clear as
a sunbeam, when the text is freed from the bungling tinkering of men.
The strongest texts and incidents which are appealed to in defense of the
conscious-state theory, have now been examined. If these do not sustain
it, nothing can be found in the Bible which will sustain it. All are
easily harmonized with these. Thus in Paul’s desire to “depart and be with
Christ” (Phil. 1:23), he does not there tell us _when_ he will be with
Christ; but he does tell us in many other places; and it is at the
resurrection and the coming of Christ. Phil. 3:11; 1 Thess. 4:16, 17. When
he speaks of our being clothed upon with our house from heaven (2 Cor.
5:2), he tells us that it is when “mortality” is “swallowed up of life.”
But that is only at the last trump. 1 Cor. 15:51-54. If we are told about
the woman who had had seven husbands (Matt. 22:23-28), no hint is given of
any reunion till after the resurrection. If God calls himself “not the God
of the dead, but of the living” (Matt. 22:32), it is because he speaks of
“those things that be not as though they were” (Rom. 4:17), and the
worthies of whom this is spoken, are sure to live again (Heb. 11:15, 16),
and hence are now spoken of as alive in his sight, because they are so in
his purpose. Texts which speak of the departure and return of the soul
(Gen. 35:18; 1 Kings 17:21, 22), are referable to the “breath of life,”
which is the meaning of the word in these instances rendered “soul.”
Three passages only have been referred to, which declare positively that
the dead know not anything. It was thought preferable to answer certain
objections, before introducing further direct testimony. But there are
many such passages, a few more of which will now be presented, as a
fitting conclusion to this branch of the subject. The reader’s careful
attention is invited to a few of the various texts, and the conclusions
that follow therefrom.
1. _Death and Sleep._—Death, in numerous passages is compared to sleep, in
contrast with the wakeful condition. See Ps. 13:3; Job 7:21; John 11:11;
Acts 7:60; 1 Cor. 11:30; 15:51; 1 Thess. 4:14; etc. But there is only one
feature in sleep by virtue of which it can be taken as a figure of death;
and that is, the condition of unconsciousness which shuts up the avenues
of one’s senses to all one’s environment. If one is not thus unconscious
in death, the figure is false, and the comparison illogical and
misleading.
2. _Thoughts Perish._—So David testifies: “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.” Ps.
146:3, 4. The word “thoughts” does not here mean simply the projects and
purposes one has in view, which do often fail, when the author of them
dies, but it is from a root which means the act of thinking, the operation
of the mind; and in death, that entirely ceases. It cannot therefore be
the dead who come out of the unseen with such intelligence as is shown in
Spiritualism.
3. _Job’s Statement._—Speaking of a dead man, Job (14:21) says: “His sons
come to honor, and he knoweth it not; and they are brought low, but he
perceiveth it not of them.” If the dead cannot take cognizance of matters
of so much interest as these, how can they communicate with the living as
the spirits do?
4. _No Remembrance of God._—David, in Ps. 6:5 and 115:17, again testifies:
“For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give
thee thanks?” “The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into
silence.” Is it possible that any righteous man, if he is living and
conscious after going into the grave, would not praise and give thanks to
the Lord?
5. _Hezekiah’s Testimony._—Hezekiah was sick unto death. Isa. 38:1. But he
prayed, and the Lord added to his days fifteen years. Verse 5. For this he
praised the Lord, and gave his reasons for so doing in the following words
(verses 18, 19): “For the grave 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.” This is a
clear affirmation that in death he would not be able to do what he was
able to do while living.
6. _New Testament Evidence._—The New Testament bears a corresponding
testimony on this subject. None will be saved except such as Christ raises
up at the last day. John 6:39, 40. No one is to receive any reward before
the resurrection. Luke 14:14; 2 Tim. 4:8. No one can enter God’s kingdom
before being judged; but there is no execution of judgment before the
coming of Christ. 2 Tim. 4:1; Acts 17:31; Luke 19:35; etc. If there is no
avenue to a future life by a resurrection, then all who have gone down in
death are perished. 1 Cor. 15:18. Such texts utterly forbid the idea of
consciousness and activity, on the part of any of the human family, in
death.
This part of the subject need not be carried further. It has been dwelt
upon so fully simply because of its determinate bearing on the question
under discussion. Spiritualism rests its whole title to credence on the
claim that the intelligences which manifest themselves are the spirits of
the dead. The Bible says that they are _not_ the spirits of the dead. Then
if the Bible is true, the whole system rests upon deception and falsehood.
No one who believes this will tamper with Spiritualism. One cannot have
Spiritualism and the Bible, too. One or the other must be given up. But he
who still holds on to the theory that the dead are conscious, contrary to
the testimony of the Scriptures has no shield against the Spiritualistic
delusion, and the danger is that he will sooner or later throw the Bible
away.
Chapter Four.
THEY ARE EVIL ANGELS.
As the Bible plainly shows what the spirits which communicate are _not_,
it just as clearly reveals also what they _are_; so that in no particular
is one left to conjecture or guesswork. There is an order of beings
brought to view in the Scriptures, above man but lower than God or Christ,
called “angels.” No Bible believer questions the existence of such beings.
It is sometimes asserted that angels are departed human spirits; but this
cannot be; for they appear upon the stage of action before a single human
being had died, or a disembodied spirit could have existed. When the world
was created, Job declares that “the morning stars sang together, and all
the sons of God shouted for joy.” These are two of the names applied to
these beings, but they are also known by a number of others. They are 167
times called angels; 61 times, angel of the Lord; 8 times, angel of God;
17 times, his angels; 41 times, cherub and cherubim. There are also such
names as seraphim, chariots, God’s hosts, watchers, holy ones, thrones,
dominions, principalities and powers,—all referring to the different
orders of these heavenly beings.
A part of this host fell into sin, and thereby became evil, or fallen,
angels. A reasonable statement of how this came about can be given, but no
reason for the act itself. Sin cannot be explained. To explain it would be
to give a reason for it; and to give a reason for it would be to excuse
it; and then it would cease to be sin. In the beginning a condition
existed which was in itself right and essential; but which nevertheless
made sin possible. It is one of the inevitable conditions of the highest
glory of God, that all his creatures should serve him from choice, under
the law of love, and not by compulsion, as a machine, under the law of
necessity. To secure this end, they must be made free moral agents. Thus
to angels was given the freedom of the will, the same as to man. They were
in a state of purity and happiness, with every condition favorable for a
continuance in that condition; but in the free choices of their free
wills, they of course had the power, if they should unaccountably see fit
so to use it, to turn away from truth and right, and rebel against God.
This some of them did. So we find Jude speaking of “the angels that kept
not their first estate” (Jude 6), and Peter, of “the angels that sinned”
(2 Peter 2:4); and these they further declare, were cast down to Tartarus,
and are reserved in everlasting chains under darkness, unto the judgment
of the great day.