Facts and
Theories as to a Future State
CHAPTER II - MAN A TRIUNE BEING
WE are now prepared for the question, What is this part of
man which dwells in the body? Or, What is the physical constitution of man as
defined by the Scriptures?
The answer from 1 Thess. v. 23, is, that he is
"spirit and soul and body" "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and
I pray God that your whole spirit, and soul, and body be preserved blameless
unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." The prayer is, manifestly, for the
sanctification of the whole man to God, and to emphasize it, as it were. it is,
that man is divided into his three constituent parts, and the sanctification of
the whole man is interpreted to be the preservation blameless before God of
"spirit, soul and body."
Of course this is denied on the part of those who
hold that the body is the whole man; but it is also denied by many others who
are far enough from holding their views. It is a point therefore, which must be
seriously weighed, and satisfactorily as possible decided, before we are
entitled to take is as a settled thing.
The objections of Annihilationists
need not detain us very long, as few indeed seem to have looked at the text in
question. The comment of Ellis and Read upon it is a remarkable specimen of
their style of reasoning, as well as (apparently) of how little they are
themselves convinced by it. "This cannot mean," they say, "that man has two
ghosts. Perhaps it may mean your disposition, and life, and person, the whole
compound nature of man, for spirit sometimes means person."* I should think, as
they have evidently translated "spirit" as "disposition" already, that
according to their interpretation, body ought to mean "person," and also, that
it would be in far better accordance with their views. But they can scarcely
expect others to be satisfied with what evidently fails to satisfy themselves,
for they add, in defiance of all criticism: "And 1 Thess. v. 23 may also have
been a. little amended by some officious copyist"! (p. 21). But even so, they
are not yet satisfied, and, having in the meanwhile forgotten that "spirit"
means person, they further add: "And the spiritual nature, be it remembered,
does not naturally belong to man, but is superinduced as a subsequent and
peculiar development in the cases of those who have submitted themselves to
Christ" (p. 22).
( *Bible vs. Tradition, p.21.)
Mr. Roberts,
disavowing "the uncertain and contradictory statements" of Ellis and Read,
tries to paraphrase the three words in the text by "body," "life" and "mind."
In this statement of his, "life" and "mind" answer, respectively, to soul and
spirit. But that they are not equivalents, according to his view, is evident.
We have but too lately been listening to his theories of thinking flesh, to be
able to accept his identification of the mind with the spirit. Truly, as these
may be identified, his views do not identify them. His own words in this
connection are: "Thought is a power developed by brain organization, and
consists of impressions made upon that delicate organ through the medium of the
senses, and afterwards classified and arranged by a function pertaining in
different degrees to brain in human form, known as reason." Plainly, then with
him, mind is only a power inherent in the flesh, though spirit be needed to
give vitality to the brain, just as it would be for the muscles. It is "the
flesh that thinks," as he quotes with approbation further on.
So, also, is
"life" with him not the equivalent of "soul." Of course he often has to
interpret it so, but he is inconsistent with himself in doing this. "Soul,"
again, is for Dr. Thomas and himself but "body" and the body cannot be the life
of the body. Soul is the bodys life, and, therefore, in a secondary
sense, is used for it in Scripture. In Dr. Thomas theory, no basis is
left for the secondary meaning. The life is with him simply the result of the
ruach or breath of life upon the body. It is not a third constituent that could
be set side by side with the body and the spirit.
There is then no
"combination of body, soul and spirit as constituting the whole man" in Mr.
Roberts system, anxious as be is to be apostolic in doctrine, and have it
appear so. Combination of body and spirit for him make the living soul, and the
combination of these two cannot become a third principle along with these.
There is no third constituent this way, and even one of these is only "an
element of the atmosphere."* These are the three things, then, that the apostle
prays may be sanctified or preserved blameless, the body, the breath of life,
and the vitality produced by it! It is plain then that Thomasism and the
apostolic statement do not agree.
( *Elpis Israel, p. 30 "In this
sense," says Mr. R., " we stand as stoutly as Mr. Grant by 1 Thess. v. 23.;"
awhile afterwards adds, "Mr. Grant is guilty of creating as a scientific
analysis of human nature the fervent HYPERBOLIC of an apostolic benediction"!
Why stand stoutly by a mere exaggerated expression? )
With the last
sentence quoted from Ellis and Read Mr. Morris is in near agreement. He also
interprets "spirit" here of a new and spiritual nature. Of John iii. 6 he says,
"That which is born of the flesh is a child, constituted of soul
and body; but that which is born of the Spirit is a new and
spiritual constituent of personal being. He who is born of the Spirit is
constituted of a spirit and soul and body. "*
( *What is Man. p.
57.)
I shall be obliged to reserve to another chapter the
consideration of what "spirit" is, and whether his proposition, that it is
never applied to man as such "in a substantive sense," is warranted by
Scripture usage. That the new nature of the children of God is "spirit,"
according to our Lords words, is what none can with appearance of truth
deny; but. upon the face of what he says himself, his explanation of the text
in this way is thoroughly inconsistent and untrue. For the "flesh," he says, in
the words of the Lord, John iii. 6, is "the whole natural man, and the entire
offspring of the natural man, soul and body" (p. 37). The apostle then puts
down this soul and body, of which nothing good can come, side by side with the
new and spiritual nature, which (still according to Mr. Morris citation
of Gal. v. 17, 22-25) it lusts against, and is contrary to, - praying that they
may be sanctified together! If this be his deliberate doctrine I cannot tell.
It is the doctrine of his follower, Mr. Graff,* who has only carried out his
views to their necessary conclusion. Whether or no, I would refer him to Rom.
viii. 6-8 for his answer, that "the mind of the flesh is enmity against
God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed CAN BE," and that
is why "they that are in the flesh cannot please God." Even the one who in the,
seventh chapter could say, "with the mind I myself serve the law of God," had
to add, "but with the flesh the law of sin," and if soul and body have this
character, poor hope would there be of their being "preserved blameless to the
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ!"
( *In "Graybeards Lay Sermons."
In the margin "minding" ).
The grossness of this mistake lies in
its materialism. Even Mr. Morris, little as he would like to be identified with
this, cannot see in the "flesh" anything less material than the body, although
perhaps in connection with the soul, which he allows to be in it. All is
referred to mans physical constitution, but with this glaring
inconsistency with Scripture, that, whereas the word of God condemns the flesh,
with its utter evil, to hopeless destruction, Mr. Morris doctrine puts
the old nature along side of the new, to be sanctified.
Now, in the text
as to which I have been speaking, I Thess. v. 23, it is plain by the terms
"soul" and "body," which are used, that the physical constitution of man is
spoken of: and it must be equally plain that "spirit," therefore, also refers
to his physical constitution. The very pains which Ellis and Read have taken in
their interpretation to blot out all thought of the body in the passage, is a
proof of it. It would have been an incongruous jumble, indeed, to have said
"disposition, and life, and body;" and they felt it. Body in Scripture in such
a sentence requires "soul" as its natural antithesis. "Body and life" make no
sense, for the sanctification of the body and its vitality (which life here
must mean) is scarcely such. And if, according to Dr. Thomas, it is the "flesh
that thinks," and the brain is the fleshy tablet of the heart, let the body be
sanctified, and all is done. And it will not avail to say that the body needs
spirit and soul to make it capable of sanctification, for that still leaves it
true that the body is the only part that can be sanctified, and there would be
no sense in talking of the sanctification of the mere agency in giving it life.
But still - and this is the only question we need further ask at present -
may not the "spirit" here refer to the new and spiritual nature, which,
confessedly, the child of God has? I answer that, as far as this passage is
concerned, the fact that the apostle prays for the sanctification of the
spirit, is proof positive that the new nature is not meant.* For the Scripture
doctrine is that, inasmuch as "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit,"
"whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him,
and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." I am well aware that I touch
here upon ground not familiar to many a Christian; nor can I do more than touch
upon it either. I would only say that the one born of God is here looked at
simply in his character as so born. The flesh is not seen, being, indeed, in
the believer, but as a foreign thing: "Sin that dwelleth in me" (Rom. vii. 17),
in that sense, not myself. The new nature owns no brotherhood with it. As born
of God the believer does not sin - cannot. The new nature thus, as proceeding
from God, is altogether according to God. He could not communicate a half-evil
thing: "that which is born of the spirit is spirit " - partakes, i. e., of the
nature of Him from whom it came. Mr. Morris himself says of it most truly: "All
the moral qualities of it answer to the moral perfections of God." If so, sin
cannot come from it, because it is of God; and, as born of God, we cannot sin.
Therefore you cannot talk of sanctifying it. It is of God: therefore already
wholly good.
(*The new nature is "spirit" but never called "the
spirit." )
And " spirit" is not here the "motion of the soul, as Mr.
Morris elsewhere strangely defines it, for the soul is mentioned apart, and
there would be no sense in speaking of the sanctifying of the soul and of its
motions. Sanctify it, and its motions will be sanctified.
We return then
with confidence to our first conclusion: "Spirit and soul and body" are the
man. The ample confirmation of this by every part of Scripture will come out as
we now take up in detail these constituent parts.
Go
To Chapter Three
Home | Links | Literature