Facts and
Theories as to a Future State
CHAPTER XII
CONSCIOUSNESS AFTER DEATH . . . 2
WE have seen then the Lord affirming the doctrine of the
Pharisees as to conscious existence in happiness or misery in the intermediate
state. We shall now pass on to a passage which shows how far the disciples of
the Lord had imbibed the Pharisaic, or let us rather say, the Scripture
doctrine, with which the Pharisaic was identical. For we read that when, after
His resurrection, they were gathered together, "Jesus Himself stood in the
midst of them, and saith unto them, 'Peace be unto you'. But they were
terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And He said
unto them, 'Why are ye troubled, and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me and see; for a
spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have'" (Luke xxiv. 36-39).
Now, here it is plain they recognized the form of the Lord, for in none
of the appearances to them do we find anything spectral to make them think
otherwise it was a spirit they saw. Mary Magdalene had supposed Him the
gardener. The two on the way to Emmaus just before had taken Him for an
ordinary man. Moreover, they had just come among the other disciples, and found
them "saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared unto Simon." Then,
while they were giving their own account, "Jesus Himself stood in the midst."
It was this sudden appearance, the door being shut, that staggered them. They
did not doubt who it was, nor, had they doubted, would handling Him have given
them that knowledge. The Lord does not need to name Himself nor do it. He does
not say, "It is I Jesus," but "it is I, myself;" using that common language
which I have spoken of; the language of sense, which identifies man with his
body: "HANDLE ME and see: for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me
have." Thus, it was not a question of its being Jesus or another, but as to its
being Jesus in the body or as a spirit only. This the Lords answer shows.
The objections of Ham and Storrs are thus clearly set aside, for they
make the question one of (to use the language of the former) "the existence of
other beings, who are called spirits." But this is not the question, but
whether it was He Himself in bodily presence, or as a spirit. The whole
circumstances and the Lords words assure us of this.
Upon the
authority of "some ancient MSS. of Luke," Roberts would substitute "phantasma"
for pneuma in ver. 37, and then, without any authority, make pneuma mean
phantasma in the 39th verse. having thus converted "spirit" into "phantom," he
would make the whole a question of "reality or of spectral illusion."
But Mr. R. can find no such meaning for "pneuma" in the New Testament
or in the Greek language anywhere, as "phantom" or "spectral illusion," and he
must know he cannot. Hence his anxiety to import "phantasma" into ver. 37, a
reading unanimously rejected by every editor of the Greek that I am acquainted
with, and disproved by the fact of its being unquestionably pneuma in the 39th:
for if their thought had been that it was a mere illusion that they saw the
Lord would not have answered it by saying, "a spirit," etc.
It was not
with them then a question of illusion or reality, but of bodily or spiritual
presence. Mr. R. objects that the Lord says, "It is I myself," and that His
spirit, according to the common belief, would have been Himself. But all
depends upon the point of view. To those who had had Him as the living man
among them, the mere visit of His departed spirit would not have been "Himself"
for it is no question of metaphysical accuracy, but of heart, to which the Lord
responds. They saw Him, did not believe that it could be a living man come
among them in that mysterious way, therefore thought they saw a spirit; to
which He answers by bidding them prove that He had flesh and bones. Thus it was
not what would have been the evidence of the triumph of death over Him, but
what their hearts would call Himself
But here then it is very plain
that the disciples of the Lord were as to this point Pharisees, or Platonists,
if you will. And it is as plain that, instead of checking their thoughts as
superstitious fancies, He appeals instead to the bodilessness of a "spirit,"
and his own flesh and bones. Nor is there "parable" to justify (as they say
elsewhere) the employment of fictitious speech. The favourite arguments fall
here like broken arrows from the panoply of truth.
How common a use of
the word "spirit" this is, we may see by the inspired statement of the Jewish
views in Acts xxiii. 8: "For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection,
neither angel nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both." There again the word
"spirit" is taken as ordinarily applying (as our word "ghost," which is
equivalent, does now) to the spirits of men apart from the body. Angels are
given as another class. And the context confirms this: for Paul being called in
question about the resurrection of Jesus, had declared himself a Pharisee, a
believer in resurrection; and hereupon the council was divided, "and there
arose a great cry; and the scribes that were of the Pharisees part arose
and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man, but if a spirit or an angel
hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God." Against this passage Mr.
Storrs criticism on Luke xxiv. 39 falls pointless. "Angels are spirits,"
says he, "but have not a body of flesh and bones." But in these two last quoted
passages, and as identified with the Pharisees belief (the nature of
which all admit), angels are named as a separate class of beings from these
spirits spoken of, - "if a spirit or an angel." In a Pharisees mouth even
our opponents allow the meaning of such words. And with their belief Paul links
himself. For having declared himself a Pharisee, and called in question as to
one point of a Pharisees belief, the resurrection of the dead, it is
added as showing the points in which their faith coincided with the
Christians: "for the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection neither
angel NOR SPIRIT; but the Pharisees confess both." The language of the inspired
writer here shows his own consent with this doctrine: "the Pharisees confess
(or acknowledge) both. When I speak of "acknowledging" a thing, I plainly
suppose it true, what is acknowledged. And thus in these matters the Pharisaic
and the Christian faith are one.*
*Roberts says, "We prefer to let Mr.
Grant have the full benefit of this. His inference that Luke endorses their
opinion is too unsubstantial to call for serious argumentation" Be it so. but
many will judge differently, and of the motive also for declining argument.
Pauls "I am a Pharisee," he passes over entirely.
If I take
the light this gives me, how plain and simple it makes such passages as the
Lords words to the dying thief, for instance: "To-day shalt thou be with
me in Paradise." Or Stephens prayer in the midst of the stones of his
enemies: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."* Or "the Spirit shall return to God
that gave it." Or yet again, the passage that speaks (Heb. xii. 23) of the
"spirits of just men made perfect," as chap. xi. 40 shows, by resurrection,
which we all get together. The Lords saying to the thief will come up in
another connection. Meanwhile I turn to some other passages.
*Would it be believed that in the "Bible vs. Tradition" it is asserted the
"grammar of the text charges the saying, Lord Jesus receive my spirit, upon the
wicked Jews, and afterwards records what Stephen said and did" (2d ed., p. 98).
This is from people who appeal not only to Greek and Hebrew but to Syriac, and
what not; and yet they assert what any schoolboy in Greek could contradict. For
the words translated "calling upon and saying" are in the singular number, and
could not possibly apply to the Jews, or to any but Stephen himself.
Campbell ("Age of Gospel Light," p. 44) concurs with this: "Now it seems it was
the same they that ran upon him, and calling upon God. . . But it may be asked,
why the Jews should say, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit? Only by mocking the
confidence of Stephen in the Saviour."
In the 6th ed. of Ellis and
Reads book just referred to ("Bible vs. Tradition," p 99) they give
another version of the passage, equally remarkable for learning: speaking of
the word translated "receive," they say, "Dexia means the right, cheir, hand,
being understood; metaphysically it means assistance, aid, strength courage,
and is equal to endurance." here a common Greek word, dexai, rightly translated
receive (a verb), is mistaken for the adjective dexia, "right (hand)."
Whether the wickedness surpasses the folly of this, or the folly the
wickedness, I leave others to decide. But these are Annihilationist leaders.
Roberts comment upon the answer to the thief is
therefore reserved to this. His remarks as to Stephen need but little notice,
he thinks that Stephens prayer means that "if God did not, so to speak,
treasure his spirit or life for him, his death would be final as the beasts
that perish." Here it is more convenient for him to say "life," than "breath of
life," and to add one more new interpretation of "spirit" to those that have
gone before. This "spirit," he has, told us elsewhere, is an "abstract"
"energy, which is the basis of our life " (p. 54). And God is to treasure up
this abstract energy for Stephen!
"Spirits of just men," on the other
hand, means neither "life" nor "energy," but, "consciences." (Mr. Roberts takes
credit to himself that his meaning of spirit is a key that "fits the lock all
round.") So "we are come to. . . the consciences of just men made perfect," -
notice the connection, "to Mount Zion, and to the heavenly city, the New
Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and
church of the first-born, and to God the judge of all, and to the consciences
of just men made perfect!" The whole speaks to us of that future, which is yet
so immediate for faith, in which both the church of the first-born finds its
completeness, and the "just men" of old obtain their long looked-for
"promises." "They without us shall not be made perfect." For us and for them
this shall be attained in the resurrection day; and there is no anomaly
according to our view (a view Mr. R. so poorly understands) in a human spirit
being "perfected" by getting back again the body, for partnership with which it
was of old created and ordained.
In Phil. i. 21-24 occurs a
statement which has naturally had an important plan in the controversy upon
this subject. It reads as follows in our version, which is sufficiently
correct: - "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 labour [an idiomatic expression meaning
worth my while], yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a
strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far
better; nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you."
The
passage is simple enough, and would scarcely seem to need any explanation. But
for the sake of distinctly reviewing the objections made, I shall divide it
into its parts, and look at each part separately.
(1.) In the first place,
to the apostle, the object of his life was Christ, and to die was gain. This is
the plain meaning. Nevertheless it is denied. "Do you ask," say Ellis and Read,
"how then it would be gain to Paul to die? Paul does not say it would be gain
to him. Fill up the ellipsis according to grammatical laws: For me to
live will be gain to the cause of Christ, for Christ will at all events be
magnified in my body, whether by my life or by my death. And for me to die is
gain to the cause of Christ, for Christ will be magnified in my body, whether I
die or live. If you insist that it would be gain to Paul to die, we
reply, He does not say so, and if it would be gain to him personally, then he
would not be in perplexity which to choose."* Mr. Hudson speaks similarly,
though more cautiously. So also Dr. Field.
*Bible vs. Tradition, pp.
139, 140.
But the interpretation is not admissible. For the word
(for to me) standing at the commencement of the sentence is necessarily related
to both clauses of it: "to me to live is Christ, and (to me) to die is gain."
Nor does he say, to me to live is gain to the cause of Christ" at all, but to
me to live is Christ, Christ is the object of my life. And when he comes to
speak of death being gain, he never says, "to the cause of Christ" at all, but
"(to me) to die is gain." I need not comment upon the remark that "if it would
be gain to him personally, he would not be in perplexity which to choose." Of
that people must judge for themselves; and of the knowledge of Christian spirit
which it shows. The apostle goes on to say:
(2.) "Yet what I shall
choose I wet not, for I am in a strait betwixt two."
Is it not plain that
it was in spite of death being gain to him, that he was in a strait betwixt
choosing death or life; not because, as Ellis and Read say, "they were equally
indifferent to him," - that would be a strange way of being in a strait betwixt
two equally indifferent things - but because it was a question of choosing his
own interest or that of the saints, as he goes on to tell us. But the authors
quoted have another version of it. "But there was a third thing that Paul
possessed an earnest desire for; but this third thing was obviously not either
of the former two indifferent ones, and therefore must be distinct from dying
and going immediately to Christ; for dying or death was one of the things that
he did not deem so greatly preferable to life as to decide his choice. But
again, this third thing was far better. Better than what? Better
than life, better than death; therefore death could not be the thing desired."
This is remarkable reasoning certainly. The apostle says, "I am in a
strait betwixt two": that means, say these writers, "they were equally
indifferent to him"! "I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart,"
says the apostle. "Which is a third thing," says Messrs. Ellis and Read, "as he
was indifferent to the former two"! Nevertheless I am persuaded any candid mind
will perceive that the apostle is only revealing the cause of his perplexity
between the two, when he says, "having a desire to depart and be with Christ,
which is far better; nevertheless" - here is the perplexity - "to abide in the
flesh is more needful for you." So that although death would be his gain, and
he knew it, the strait was between his own gain and other peoples gain.
And he was not indifferent to either, but desiring this and desiring that, and
did not know which to choose.
There was no third thing at all. His
having a desire to depart and be with Christ was just his strait on the one
side. and his abiding in the flesh being more needful for them, was just his
difficulty on the other. And thus "departing and being with Christ" is fixed to
mean his dying; just as his "abiding in the flesh "is fixed to mean his living.
(3.) But here a great tumult is raised, and much knowledge of Greek is
endeavored to be shown in letting us know that the word does not mean "to
depart" at all. So Messrs. Hudson, Roberts, Ellis and Read, would all have it,
"having a desire for THE RETURNING and being with Christ," supposing it to
refer to Christs returning. The latter writers go on even to suppose that
it was better for the Philippians that Christ should not come, and that so Paul
should abide in the flesh. However, it is at least a little unfortunate for
their theory, that the substantive "analusis" derived from the verb
"analu" is used by Paul in 2 Tim. iv. 6, undoubtedly for his death: "I
am now ready to be offered, and the time of my DEPARTURE is at hand. I have
fought a good fight, I have finished my course," etc. If it be departure there,
and death, why cannot it be so where, as we have seen, the context fixes it
down to apply to death? And it is true that it sometimes means "return," but
not so often as "depart," so that an Annihilationist alone could tell us why it
should be so translated here. The reason being only in the exigencies of a
theory, which must bend Scripture to its need, or be convicted of open
opposition to it.
Mr. Roberts is now willing, however, to accept the
ordinary rendering. He says, "This understanding of Pauls words would not
be affected by the acceptance of the common version for to die and be with
Christ are instantly consequential incidents to the consciousness of the man
who dies." But that is not quite all we have to consider. Is it just the same
to the consciousness of the man that lives? Would a fiction of this kind render
attractive in the eyes of such a one as Paul, does Mr. Roberts think, what in
reality would be "to depart into forgetfulness, and be with Christ when he woke
up"? The "gain" of death would be forgetfulness: "better by far" than present
fellowship with Christ, and joy in God, and magnifying Christ by service such
as his!
Mr. Constable is of one mind with Roberts in this last view of
the passage. "To depart," he says, "means doubtless to die, and to be with
Christ means doubtless the glorified state at resurrection. They are spoken of
here as closely connected, as in fact synchronal, from that doctrine of the
sleep of the intermediate state which Paul so often taught. [?] To depart from
life and die would be, he knew, to be followed at once by the trumpet calling
him to arise and be with his Lord; for time would in the actual interval,
however long, between dying and rising, be annihilated for him who slept." How
strangely it sounds to hear the different reports of that land of
forgetfulness, which these writers give us at different times. Who would think
that this was Jobs place of darkness and disorder which his soul
contemplated with so little desire! Yet Job too knew that his Redeemer lived,
and expected to see Him stand in the latter day upon the earth. If the quiet
oblivion of sleep alone was between him and that day, why not more of
Pauls spirit as to it? The light had somehow shone into that place of
gloom for Paul. Nonentity merely would have been the same for each, and not
light nor darkness, but nonentity! Mr. Constable has not the solution of this
enigma plainly. However, I have answered him before and independently.
But he adds - "that the opinion that during the state of death
believers are with Christ in a state of life, involves a
contradiction to one of the fundamental doctrines of Scripture. If they are
then with Christ, and see Him as He now is, St. John tells us expressly that
such a sight would change them into the likeness of Christ. It would hence
follow that they would now possess the fullest glory that they could ever look
for and obtain. The popular view that believers during the state of death are
with Christ and see Him, involves in fact the denial of the resurrection as
taught by Paul, or teaches what he condemned as heresy, that the resurrection
is past already."
Now, without raising any debate as to the
interpretation of 1 John iii. 2, it is plain Mr. Constable confounds two
different things in this, viz., moral and physical likeness. Does he really
mean to say that seeing Christ in the intermediate state would bring the body
out of the grave and glorify it? So it would seem. We however believe that
resurrection waits for the word of Christ to effect, and that there can be no
"perfection" for the saint, short of body, soul and spirit being united in
blessing. Nay, it may well be, that we must put on this "image of the heavenly"
in order even in the full sense to see Christ as He is. All this consists
perfectly with the thought of being with Christ in the meanwhile in such a way
as to awaken the desire of the living saint in the fullest way. On the other
hand nonentity for the saint can call forth no such desire, save on the
supposition of an utter wretchedness in the present life such as Paul knew
nothing of; it is clear. Mr. Constable shows this fully in what he has written
elsewhere. "To one capable of the vast grasping thought of immortality death is
indeed a thing of terror . . . death is after all the king of terrors." And he
is speaking of Christians here. Yet when he comes to argue about Pauls
words, this king of terrors becomes more attractive even than companionship
with Christ on earth. Nonentity is a sweet forgetfulness which only hastens the
day of glory! Which is the true statement I must leave Mr. Constable to say.
Where speaks the man, and where the controversialist - I will not try to
decide. But he is certainly self-contradicted - hopelessly so.
I shall not
again do more than refer to 2 Cor. v. Its "at home in the body" and "absent
from the Lord"- its "absent from the body and present with the Lord" - speak
manifestly the same language as that we have just been considering. Those who
tell us that in the resurrection state we shall not be "at home -in the body,"
and that we are "absent from the body" when it has been raised in glory or
changed into the likeness of Christs glorious body, may well be left as
hopeless of conviction. Mr. Constables arguments are the same as those we
have already reviewed. I pass on to just one more Scripture in this connection,
which gives us in full reality the thing of which we have been in search, - not
in parable but in the historical fact, - a man absent from the body, - a spirit
conscious of unutterable things, - a bright transient gleam from the unseen, -
Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration with the Lord.
It is no dream,
for eyes, that closed in sleep behold it not, awakened to behold it. (Luke ix.
32): "But Peter and they that were with Him were heavy with sleep: and when
they were awake they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him." This
proves also that it was no mere vision, even waking. The thing was there before
they beheld it: "Moses and Elias talking with Jesus." Thus it was a real thing,
apart from all spectators.* And how simply described, "two men which were Moses
and Elias." One of these a man caught up in glory centuries before, and one
still longer "departed," and his body buried, yet still a "man," neither
extinct nor asleep, but in activity of thought and of enjoyment. Not raised
from the dead either, as some would have it, because Jesus was himself the
"first-fruits," and the "first-begotten of the dead." For it is no question
here of simple restoration to the earthly life just quitted, as with Lazarus
and others, whom the Lord had so restored. It is a man in the blessedness of
another sphere, to enjoy which he must have been raised (if raised at all)
spiritual and incorruptible. But of this resurrection the Lord Himself was the
beginning, as Scripture asserts. Moses could not have been thus the first-born
then. Apart from the body therefore he was, yet associate with one who had
never passed through death, and though not in the likeness of Christs
glorious body, yet appearing "in glory", let men make of it what they
will; entering moreover into the "bright cloud" (as Peter calls it afterwards,
"the excellent glory "), the Shechinah of the Divine Presence.
*Roberts, in his comment upon this, falsifies the whole argument, asserting
that what is relied on to prove this no mere vision is simply the fact of their
being awake when they saw it; and of course evading the real point.
This is strangely taken by Mr. Roberts to be said of Elias, and here
again he argues upon a mere misconception.
The "first-begotten of the
dead," applied, to the Lord Jesus, will not allow his interpretation of the
first-fruits. It distinctly asserts that He was the first raised in the full
meaning of resurrection. Enoch and Elias were not begotten from the dead at
all.
"They (the disciples) feared, as those" - Moses and Elias."
entered into the cloud."
I confess I do not understand how it can
be plainer that we are here permitted to gaze upon one departed, and to realize
as far as we can how a departed Abraham, Isaac and Jacob still "live unto Him,"
who, as the Lord tells us, " is not the God of the dead but of the living." We
thus see how to Him they live who to men are dead. We learn to distinguish
between the language of sense and the language of faith. We learn how really
there is a departing and being with Christ which is, compared with life on
earth, far better. No argument that Annihilationists can bring against this
passage will avail for a moment. Their arguments have in fact been already
disposed of; as they either suppose on the one hand that Moses was raised from
the dead, which Scripture elsewhere confutes (Col. i. 18, 1 Cor. xv. 23, Rev.
i. 5), or that it was only a "vision" or appearance, which the passage itself
confutes* I may leave here then the question (though there be other texts) of
the consciousness of the separate state, with the full conviction of its
complete, manifest and divine answer.
*"Tell the vision to no man " is
somewhat urged, but the word is merely something seen, and raises no question
of reality.
Go To Chapter Thirteen
Home | Links | Literature