Man not immortal: a review of "Rev." N. D. George on annihilation

Front matter

MAN NOT IMMORTAL:

A REVIEW OF

"REV." N. D. GEORGE ON ANNIHILATION.

CHAPTER II. "CAisJI^s^OT KILL THE SOUL.^

We now proceed to examine tne one passage ^hich the author of the v\^ork under notice relies on to prove the doctrine of inherent immortality, and also the very few prominent passages wh-ich he believes support his exposition of the one. That we may not be misapprehended in any of our observations, we remark, in the language of Mr. Read, Bible vs. TRADixiOiq-, that the Bible meaning of soul is, a creature that lives by breathing; and as the essential endowment of such a creature is life, so life will stand often as a correct meaning of soul. When soul is applied to man, it may be translated life^ SOUL, man, you, yourself, person, myself thyself, etc., according to the text.^^

Nephesh is the Hebrew term generally translated soul. It occurs about seven hundred times, and is rendered soul four hundred and seventy-one times; life and living, about one hundred and fifty ; and is also rendered a man, a person, self, they, me. Mm, any one, Ireatli, heart, mind, ap)petite, the dody (dead, as well as alive,)

MAiT IsOT IMMOETAL.

efcc. It is also twenty-eight times applied to beasts, SLud to every creejmig thing. The Greek term corresponding to the Hebrew nejoliesli, is pmclie. It occurs one hundred and five times, and is translated soul fiffcy^nine timeS;, and life forty times. It is also, like nepliesli^ otherwise variously translated, twice being applied to beasts. The foregoing renderings of the Hebrew and Greek terms mentioned, are given on the authority of Bible V8, Teadition, an excellent work.

Dr. Parkhurst says Nepliesli, as a noun, hath been supposed to signify the spiritual part of man, or what we commonly call the soul. I must confess I can find no passage where it hath undoubtedly this meaning.^' What do our present-day theologaes K:;ay to that ? The term which is four hundred and seventy-one times, in our English version, represented by a word, the very use of which is believed to confirm the view that man is possessed of a spiritual entity capable of separate conscious existence, cannot be found by a learned writer to have that meaning in any instance.

The one passage, upon his explication of which Mr. George stations himself, and strives to make everything bend to it, is Matt. x. 28 :

"And fear not them which "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.^^

The corresponding passage in Luke reads:

"And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. Bat I will forewarn you whom ye fehallfear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath

EEYIEW OE "KEY. D. GEORGE/^ 33

power to cast into hell; yea^ I say unto yon, Fearhim/^ — Luke xii. 4, 5.

We are quite willing to admit that there is no passage in the Bible more difficult to explain to the satisfaction of believers in the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, than the one first quoted aboye. But let it be borne in mind, that the seeming sentiment of no one, two or three passages of Scripture may safely or wisely be held to teach what the yery many others manifestly, nay, undeniably discountenance and oppose, and especially when the few are susceptible of a reasonable ex* position in harmony with the manifest sentiment of the many. The ignoring of this just principle has produced lamentable results : its fruits are eyil, and only eyil. That this passage is susceptible not only of an explication in entire harmony with the multitude that oppose what it is by many supposed to teach, but one which is more reasonable also than that giyen it by theologists generally, we design to sufficiently show.

Whatever teaching may be credited to the passage, it cannot consistently be held to teach the immortality or indestructibility of any thing connected with man by nature. The very opposite is true of the text, for the exhortation is, fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but fear him which is aUe to destroy both in hell. Wliatever sotily here, means, the fact is expressed that, though men cannot kill or destroy it, God ca7i. Since, then, this text unquestionably teaches that God can kill the soul, whatever is here meant by the term, the question arises, will He under any circumstances do so ? The language of Jesus certainly implies that God is not only able to do

MAK KOT IMMOETAL.

it, but that He will do it. To the question there can be but one reply. Scripture testimony is too plain to admit of doubt. " The soul that sinneth, it shall die.'^ " Oh/^ says the objector, "this is spiritual death.^^ Far from it. The yerb shall, in the text, makes the death threatened to the sinning soul an event future to the act of sin, whereas the act of transgression, and the introduction of what is denominated spiritual death must of necessity happen cotemporaneously.

Latter-day theologians contend that the soul is immortal, indestructible. If this were so then God Himself could not destroy it any more than could man. To meet this objection, it is asserted that deMroy has not in this text its usual signification, but is used tropically. Is it so? Then how may we know that ^^^7Z, soul, lody, fear are not also thus used ? To urge that these terms are here used in a figurative sense would be to insist that the text teaches nothing: and yet it would be no more unreasonable to affirm they are used tropically than it is to so afiirm of destroy. It should have been frankly said, "the term destroy cannot just here bear its usual signification without doing great violence to our theory." Of course it cannot. Give it just as literal an interpretation as is claimed for every other word in the text, and it will do for the popular theory what Jesus affirmed men can only do to the creature, viz., Mil it.

Pursuing the assumption that destroy was used by Jesus, in this instance, figuratively, the idea being that one can render soul and body utterly miserable in the theological hell, some commentators and others have taken the position that satan is the " him " referred to

REVIEW OF "EEY. D. GEORGE/^ 35

as able to do this. In this they are consistent. They do not charge God with rendering beings miserable in hell : no, they haye it that He at the judgment consigns them to that abode, and '*his satanic majesty" does the rest. Those portions of God's word, however, which testify to the final destruction of both hell and devil, are not in high favor with any of these eternal tormentists. Among those who have taken the position just mentioned, and have finally concluded it was satan that was said to be able to destroy soul and body, are Drs. Lange, Stier and others. Dr. Lange, however, subsequently changed his mind, and openly so avowed.

Oar Saviour was speaking to his disciples, his "friends.'^ He exhorted them to faithfulness in proclaiming the truth, under all circumstances, not permitting any fear of bodily injury to interfere with or prevent the prosecution of the work assigned them. He adds :

"Fear not them who apoMeinonton^ murder (in the sense of cutting to pieces) the soma^ body, but cannot apoMeinai^ (in the sense of utterly destroy) the psitclie, soul or being ; but rather fear him who is able apolesai, to destroy both {psucJie and so?7ia) body and being, in Gehenna. The meaning undoubtedly is, that wicked men can only destroy the present being of the righteous, and that God could raise them up again; but if they apostatized to save their present lives, that God was able — which implies that He would do it — to destroy their entire being in Gehenna.^' — BiMe vs. Tradi' Hon.

Jesus had said to them — "Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on." — Matt. vi. 25.

MA^T XOT IMMOKTAL.

The word here rendered life is the same {psiicTie) tliat is rendered soul in x. 28. Vv'hat determined the rendering of it life in the one case, and soul in the other?. Would it have been done had there been no soul-entity theory to serve? The reader cannot fail to perceive the true state of the case. Again: Christ said to the disciples, He that findeth his life, (^psuclie) shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake

shall find \iP — x. 39. Here is much the same sentiment expressed as in x. 28.

Yet again: ^'For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he gain the whole Vforld, and lose his own soul?^^ — Matt, xvi* 25, 26. Dr. Adam Clarke here remarks that he knows not on what authority many have translated the Greek term life in verse 25, and soul in verse 26 : ^-but,'^ says he, " I am certain it means life in both places.'^ Since the translators desired to have it soul in the last verse, why did they not so render it in the first ? The reason is obvious. They did not like the looks of a text which would express the possibility of a man losing his soiil for Christ's sake. Had they put it life in both verses the reading would have been consistent and sensible throughout; for what luould it profit any man, if he should gain the whole world and lose his life ? or what would a man give in exchange for his life 9 However the terms are rendered they make sad havoc with Mr. George's theory. He says the soul is the man, consequently the text as it stands represents the possibility of a soul losing its soul ; and if a soul possesses a soul, why may not the soul possessed possess a soul, and so

RETIEVY OF EEY. K. D. GEORGE.'' 37

on ad infinitum. On the other hand, if life be put in place of sou], as Clarke insists, then the difnculty is increased, for his real man, being immortal, can only die a spiritual death," and Christ is thus made to urge his disciples to a willingness to " lose the life of God," to enter a "condition of sin and wretchedness" for his sake. What a wretched theory that must be which is ever floating upon the surface of such absurdities. It is lamentable indeed that rational men are willing to grope about in that kind of darkness.

A fact w^hich we feel confident will not be denied by any well-informed person is, that the righteous are in the ISTew Testament said to have a life which the unrighteous are not said to have. In recognition of this the term " sleep " is frequently used with reference to the righteous dead, but it is never used with reference to the wicked dead. Understand, we speak of the. I^ew Testament. Says Dr. Lange — " The designation ' sleep ' is used in the ISTew Testament to denote the death of believers only."

Another fact is that believers obtain /;hrough Jesus the principle of the resurrection. This 13 fully conceded by some orthodox commentators. Paul remarked: "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." — Eom. viii. 11. The marginal reading lor " by," in the text, is lecause of: and this reading is so well supported by MSS., that best critics adopt it, among them the translators of the Amerioak Bible XJkio^t. Dr. Hodge says of it — " The meaning is that the indwelling of God's Spirit is the

MA^ 2sOT IMMOETAL.

ground or reason why believers are not left in the grave/^ The mind cannot conceive just how the indwelling of God's Spirit is the ground or reason why believers are not left in deaths nor just what is that life in recognition of the existence of which the righteous dead are said, by New Testament writers, to "sleep/^ but we do know, because inspiration informs us, that the result, the effect is resurrection from the dead. We conceive it to be precisely this kind of life or leing which is meant in Matt. x. 28.

When Christ said, whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it^^ (life), he had reference, as none Will deny, to two hinds of life. Enemies of Christ are able to kill the natural life of believers, but that which shall be found is a spiritual life which they shall receive by being raised '^up at the last day.^^ Of course Christ's people do not have that life in its reality while the natural life is possessed, but they do have it as a seed or life-principle, and although they may be killed and given to the burning flame it will still exist and God will give them a life, by a resurrection from the dead, in full and glorious reality Iccaiise of its existence. Therefore, believers should not fear them which kill the soma, body, take away its life, but are not able to kill the jpsiiclie, life, which they possess by virtue of a living union with Christ: but they should rather fear him who is able and will be likely, should they forsake Christ and the gospel to save their present or natural life, to c7^5Z^;'6>?/ Soz^/^, giving them no resurrection from the dead. Says Luke, xii. 4, 5 : " Be not afraid of them that kill the body/' (destroy the natural life) " and after that have no more that they can do.

EEVIEW OF ^^KEY. N". D. GEOr.GE.'^ 39

But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear : Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell/^ {gelmi7ia,) where he will destroy you utterly.

Harwood renders Matt. x. 28, " Fear not those who can inflict npon you bodily pain and torture, and deprive you of a precarious being— but whose power extends no further. But let that great Being be the object of your fear, who can involve both soul and body in total and everlasting destruction. Let that great Being, I repeat it, be the object of your constant fear.''

"Every reasonable person must perceive that psuclie means a person's self. The learned know that Matthew — who probably wrote his gospel in Hebrew, uses a great many Heireiu idioms. Thus we find that Luke often explains Matthew. It was customary for the Hebrews to use the expressions, my soul, your soul, instead of the reflective pronouns, myself, yourself, etc.'' — BiUe vs. Tradition,

It is evident that all the gospel writers understood a man's soul to be himself, not a fancied something within him capable of being separated from him. Not only is this so, but it cannot be proved that any member of the Christian church believed otherwise for at least the first hundred years — it would be safe to name a longer period — of its existence. The popular theory of man's nature was introduced into the church at a much later period, as will in due time be^shown.

" Gr., fear not from those apoMeinonton to soma, but psuclie not being able aiooMeinai ; but fear rather that (him that) being able Tcai, both, the psuclie Icai, • and, the soma apolesai en geenne. The verb apokteino, of which apohtGinonton is the participle, and apoh^

MAi^ IsOT IMMORTAL.

teinai tlie infinitiye, is defined by the Hederici Lexicon, interficio, defined by Ainsworth, to kill, put to death, destroy, consume, occido, defined by AinsTvorth, to be extinguished, to die, to be slain, to perish, to be lost, to be wasted, and perino, defined by Ainsworth, to take away wholly, destroy, ruin, deface, to kill, slay. . . . AjJoUumi, of which ajjolesai (the other verb used in the yerse,) is the infinitive, is defined by the Hederici Lex., perdo, vasto, 2^ereo, disperdo, to abolish, to waste, to cause to be lost, to perish, to be annihilated: the reader has already had the meaning of the last three of these yerbs. . . . The reader perceiyes, that aiooJesai, applied in the yerse to lotli the psuche and tiie soria, is a much stronger word to express utter extinction than the yerb apoMeino^ applied in the yerse to soma. If among the definitions of apokteino, we take Icill, then the Greek of Matt. x. 28 will be, . . . fear not from those killing the soma, {L e,, the living person, for the body without j^^z^c/ze, breath, life, cannot be killed,) but the psuclie, breath, life, {psiiclie is here used Icat exoclien, by way of eminence, for breath, life, from the dead) not being able to kill ; but fear rather that (him that) being able both the Ijsuclie and the soma (2. e., the entire being) to abolish, waste, destroy totally, cause to be lost, to perish, be annihilated in geennaP — Theology of the Bible,

All will surely perceive, we think, that the psuche, (rendered soul) life, which Jesus affirmed men cannot kill, is something peculiar to the believer, and possessors of it are warned against disobedience, or in any way whatever seeking to save their natural life at the expense of the precious faith committed to them, lest, offending him who is able to destroy the ichole being, they be not raised from the dead to everlasting life and glory. To deny the truth, knowing, or believing it to be

EEYIEW OP "EEY. D. GEOPwGE/^ such, is to deny Ckrist, and he has said, '^whosoeyer shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven/^ To be renounced by Christ, is to haye him neither for a mediator nor Saviour. To so apostatize as to be thus separated from Christ, the Liee-giyee, the "author of eternal life,'^ the "resurrection and the life,^' is to be destroyed utterly. If a man sacrifice his life for God, it is not lost, for God will give him, the mauy a future life in infinite glory.

That part of the text. Matt. x. 28, which, rightly understood, positively prohibits the interpretation insisted on by Mr. George and others, we haye hitherto refrained from noticing. It is the expression, " in helL^^ The word rendered hell, is gelienna. It occurs twelye times in the received Greek text, and is translated liell in every place. It is not itself a Greek word, but is simply the Grecian method of spelling the Hebrew words which are translated " The Valley of Hinnom.^^

" Parkhurst considers that as the Septuagint translate, or rather spell in Greek letters, without translating gee or gai, a valley, and Hinnom, a man^s name, in Job xyiii. 16, by Gaihenna, so the Gehenna of the N". T. is in like manner a corruption of the same Hebrew words. Gee, a valley, and Hinnom, the person vdio was once the possessor of it. So we may consider the word as Hebrew with nothing of Greek about it, except the spelling. Our translators have no more authority for translating gelienna by lull, than they would haye had for translating Sodom or Gomorrah, Tiell. All critics are agreed upon the origin of the word.

The yalley of Hinnom was a delightful yale planted with trees, watered by fountains on the south-east of Jerusalem, by the torrent Kedron. Here the idolatrous

MAK IsOT IMMOETAL.

kings of Judah placed the brazen image of Moloch. The idolatrous Jews were accustomed to sacrifice, not only doYes, rams, calves, and bulls, but often their own children. . . . The pious king Josiah caused it to be polluted, and made a place of desecration, of loathing, and horror. There were cast all kinds of filth, together with the carcasses of beasts, and the unburied criminals who had been executed. Continual fires were necessary, in order to consume these; and there worms were always feeding on the remaining relics.^^ — B. vs. T.

The author of Theologt of the Bible, after remarking upon the use of the word in the various versions, says:

" Our orthodox editors give in the margin a note to the E. V. words, the valley of Hinnom, in Josh. xv. 8, thus, ' Memorable for the worship of the idol Moloch with human sacrifice; and as having given occasion to the New Testament name for the place of future punishment, Gehenna.^ Thus early in the Bible do our orthodox editors say to the readers of the note, that Gelienna in the New Testament is a name, and a name for orthodoxy's place of future punishment. But the Eheims version, and James' orthodox ecclesiastics, have not ventured once to use the word Gehenna in their version of the K T. It was so plain that the Gr. geenna, Lat., gelienna, Ital., geenna, of the New Testament was the valley of Hinnom of the Old Testament, that they entirely avoided the word gelienna.^'

Let us further examine concerning gehenna, valley of Hinnom. "What is its locality? In Josh, xv. 8, we find the situation of the lot of Judah described as follows: "And the border went up by the valley of the son of Hinnom unto the south side of the Jebusite; the same is Jerusalem : and the border went up to the

REVIEW OF "KEY. ]Sr. D. GEORGE."

top of the mouDtain that lieth before the valley of Hinnom westward, which is at the end of the valley of the giants northward/' In chap, xviii. 16, we find the inheritance of Benjamin described thus : " And the border came down to the end of the mountain that lieth before the valley of tlie son of Hinnom, and which is in the valley of the giants on the north, and descended to the valley of Hinnom, to the side of Jebusi on the south, and descended to En-rogel." In the word of the Lord commanding Jeremiah to warn his disobedient people of evil that should come upon them unless they repented, we find the following : . " And go forth unto the valley of the son of Hinnom, which is by the entry of the east gate, and proclaim there the words that I shall tell thee." — Jer. xix. 2.

Is it true that this once beautiful valley became the scene of awful abominations ? " Moreover, he" (Ahaz) "burnt incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and burnt his children in the fire, after the abominations of the heathen, whom the Lord had cast out before the children of Israel." — 2 Chron. xxviii. 3. Also xxxiii. 6 : " And he " (Manasseh) " caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of HinnomP "And he" (Josiah) "defiled Topheth which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Moloch." — 2 Kings xxiii. 10.

Kitto says of Hinnom : " When Josiah overthrew this idolatry, he defiled the valley by casting into it the bones of the dead, the greatest of all pollutions among the Hebrews ; and from that time it became the common jakes of Jerusalem, into which all the refuse of

MAK KOT IMMORTAL.

tlie city was cast, and where the combustible portions were consumed by fire/^ Prof. Stuart remarks concerning itt "The pious king Josiah, caused it to be polluted, i. e., he caused to be carried there the filth of the city of Jerusalem • . . Perpetual fires were kept up in order to consume the off*al which was deposited there, and as the same offal would breed worms, (for all putrifying meat of course does,) hence came the expression, ^ where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.^

This valley became a place of punishment. " For the children of Judah have done evil in my sight, saith the Lord: they have set their abominations in the house which is called by my name, to pollute it. And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of tlie son of Hin7iom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart. Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall no more be called Tophet, nor the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaugliter ; for they shall bury in Tophet till there be no place,^^ — Jer. vii. 30-32. In chap. xix. the above is substantially repeated ; and it is added: "I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place; and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hands of them that seek their lives ; and their carcasses will I give to be meat for the fowls of heaven, and for the beasts of the earth.^^

Much other testimony might be adduced to prove that Geliemia, the valley of Hinnom was formerly a place of punishment by fire, etc., and certain portions

BEYIEW OP "EEY. K ^ GEOEGE." 45

of Scripture indicate that it may again be a place of punishment by fire or otherwise unto destruction. It is not, however, anywhere intimated that it is a place where the wicked are being punished at the present time, nor that any wicked ones will eyer be long kept aliye in it. To assert that they will be is to speak against God, for He has called the place. The Valley of Slaugliter,

I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of J ehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.^^ — Joel iii. 2. The valley of Jehoshaphat lies on the east of Jerusalem, and is called the valley of judgment. Jehoshaphat, it is said, we presume truly, means " The Lord Judge." If this prophecy of Joel relates to events yet future, then Mr. Eead well observes : " As the feet of Christ are to stand on the Mount of Olives ' in tliat day^ we can perceive, that as the mountains rise behind, his face will be toward Jerusalem; and if the nations are gathered before him, in the valley of Jehoshaphat, Gelienna will be on his left hand; and there probably many of the wicked will be consumed with fire from Heaven,^^ In such an event Gehenna will be a place of future punishment. If this be so, w^ill the fires of Gehenna be eternal? There is no passage of Scripture which teaches any such thing.

If we except the one instance of its use by James, and it is questionable whether it is really the word James used, Jesus is the only one who ever made use of the term Gehenna, in the whole New Testament, and he only used it in speaking to Jews. It wag familiar to them, not only as a place where human sacrifices

MAK is^OT IMMOETAL.

were at one time offered; but also as a place of punishment by deatli^ we may fairly presume, since tlieir Scriptures speak of it as such. They were familiar with it, too, as the place where the offal of the city was thrown, as also not unfrequently the dead persons of malefactors, and where fires were kept constantly burning to destroy whatever was thrown there. They esteemed a denial of burial one of the very greatest of indignities, Solomon says, if a man "have no burial, an untimely birth is better than he.'^ In addressing the Jews, therefore, no stronger expression could be used to represent extinction of ieing, nor one better calculated to be so understood than being cast into Geliennay valley of Hinnom, or gehenna fire. As nothing cast there ever came out alive, but was wholly consumed^ for what the fire did not burn, the worms destroyed, so when gelienna punishment was threatened they well knew it meant utter destruction.

Another fact must not be overlooked. Christ sometimes used the term Gelienna in denouncing judgments against wicked Jews. The following is an instance: '^Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell (Gehenna.) — Matt, xxiii. 33. The word translated "damnation,'^ is IcriseoSy meaning judgment. The text more properly rendered, would read, " Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the judgment of {gelienna) the valley of Hinnom ? Gehenna, valley of Hinnom, is here-named as the place of punishment of those wicked Jews, and the punishment was, of course, then future. Jesus said unto them : " Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes:

KEYIEW OF "REV. D. GEORGE/^ 47

and some of tbein ye shall kill and crucify ; and some of them ye shall scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias ison of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, all these things shall come upon this generation/^ — Matt, xxiii. 3-4, 35, 36. "And when ye^^ (believers) "shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let theni^^ (believers) "which are in Judea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. Tor these be the days of vengeance, that all things w^hich are written may be fulfilled.^^ — Luke xxi. 20, 21, 22. All this refers directly to the judgment in Matt, xxiii, 33.