Biblical eschatology

Preface

A few words of explanation may perhaps be welcome to the reader of these pages. They will refer to the scope of the work, to the authority of Holy Scripture, and to the interpretation of prophetic language.

Biblical eschatology is understood by the writer to be an exposition of what the Bible teaches in respect to the end of this life and the conditions of human existence after death. It involves no defense or enlargement, no modification or refutation of that teaching : its only task is to ascertain and explain. If the treatment is more or less controversial, it is made so by the necessity of opposing certain interpretations of Scripture, and of defending others : only in two or three instances is there any turning aside to repel scientific or rational assaults upon the plain meaning of the Word. Many good reasons might be given for making this investigation Biblical ; but it is needless to mention more than one, the fact that apart from the Bible we have no trustworthy source of knowledge

4 PREFACE.

respecting the life to come. All other voices are faint, confused, uncertain. One whispers hope, another murmurs despair. The only testimony worth having comes from the sacred writers.

But alas, these are no longer " sacred " to all who bear the name of Christ. Their authority is called in question, and the distinctive quality of their inspiration denied. Men are taught to rely upon their Christian consciousness as firmly as upon the word of these writers. Objection is even made to the venerable custom of calling their writings " sacred," because this custom is supposed to rest upon too high a view of their authority, and to foster that view in the hearts of the people. With this trend of religious speculation the writer of the following pages has no sympathy. To him Jesus Christ is a Teacher of divine truth unmixed with human error, and the apostles men filled with the Holy Spirit, working as the Spirit of truth, and qualifying them to proclaim with authority, by tongue or pen, " all the words of this life." Here is not the place to state the grounds of such a confidence in the New Testament, or to repel the assaults which are now made on its teaching. The task would require a volume. All that can properly be done in this place is to express a sincere conviction that an authoritative revelation of God's method of grace is

PREFACE. 5

much needed by men ; that the Bible has proved, and will prove itself to be, such a revelation ; and that low views of its authority tend to theological speculation and unrest, while theological speculation tends, in turn, to low views of the authority of Scripture. With this conviction, a Biblical eschatology is the only door of escape from utter agnosticism as to the conditions of men after death.

But assuming the divine authority of the Bible as a source of religious truth, the way to just conclusions respecting a future life is by no means easy. For nothing is more certain than these two statements, that the style of prophecy differs from that of history, and that the former is more difficult of interpretation than the latter. Why is this ? In what does the difference between them consist ? First, prophetic language is more figurative than historical language. This will doubtless be admitted. But prophecy is sometimes couched in terms so literal that, when it is fulfilled, the foreshadowing sketch seems to be remarkably exact. This, however, is the exception, not the rule. Secondly, prophetic language is often typical. Thus the Jews expected the reappearance of Elijah himself as the harbinger of the Messiah; but Elijah was but the type of John the Baptist, who was sent to prepare the way of the Lord. Again, prophetic language

6 PREFACE.

may be fulfilled many times over in essentially the same way.

Thus Joel predicted a wonderful outpouring of the Spirit of God, and Peter testifies that his words were fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost. But a similar manifestation of the Spirit was witnessed by the same apostle at the house of Cornelius, and there is reason to believe that his working has been equally gracious and powerful in many religious awakenings since the ascension of Christ. The external manifestations have been indeed various ; but the divine energy one and the same. From all this it may certainly be inferred that the interpretation of prophecy requires a very broad and patient study of the whole record, and a deep consideration of what may be called the method of divine grace. Many difficulties will also vanish when the typical character of prophecy is fairly recognized — e. g. y those which confront the interpreter of the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew.

Bearing in mind these things, the writer has endeavored to ascertain as far as possible the meaning of God's word in relation to eschatology, and to exhibit that meaning as clearly as possible in this little book, which is now commended to the favor of Christ and his people. Alvah Hovey.

Newton Centre, August 1^ 1888.

Contents

PAGE

Introductory paragraph 11

Chapter I. Natural Death 13-22

1. Is the death of the body as a living organism 13/

2. Is the termination of animal life or living 16/

3. Is a separation of the soul from the body 17/

Objections to the last definition considered 19-22

(a) The soul lives in a body, and cannot live apart

from it , 19

(b) It becomes unconscious if the brain is greatly injured 19

(c) Its action improves with an improved brain 19/

(d) Nature has no breaks : continuity her law 20

(e) The soul must have a body to be related to space. 20/ Quotation from Prof. John Fiske 21/

Chapter II. Kesurrection of the Dead 23-78 Keason for the order of investigation adopted 23

\ I. Evidence of the resurrection of the dead 23-31

1. Direct affirmations or predictions of the fact 23/

2. Argumentative statements respecting it 25/

Meaning and use of verbs and nouns denoting resurrection 29/

?.H. Properties of bodies given to saints at the resurrection, 31-46

1. Direct teaching of Christ and his apostles on the

subject 31/

2. Indirect teaching of the New Testament on the

subject 40/

8 CONTENTS.

PAGE

JUL Time of the resurrection 57-78

Four theories as to the time. The first two 47

1. Christ's answer to the question of certain Sad-

ducees 47/

2. Christ's words to the Jews in Jerusalem 51

3. Christ's words to the Jews in Capernaum 51/

4. Christ's words to Martha 52/

5. Christ's promise to his disciples 54

Result of our examination thus far. 54/

Next: the teaching of the apostles on this subject 55

1. In Paul's First Epistle to the Thessalonians 55/

2. In his First Epistle to the Corinthians 58/

3. In his Second Epistle to the Corinthians 60/

4. In his First Epistle to the Corinthians, again 83/

The first and second theories found untenable 64/

Arguments for the Premillennial Advent considered... 66

1. It is taught by Rev. 20 : 4-6. Reply 66/

2. Confirmed by texts which put the resurrection of

the righteous before that of the wicked. Reply 69/

3. The apostles expected the second coming in their

day 70

4. Or, taught that it might come at any hour. Answer 70/

5. No millennium before the Second Advent, accord-

ing to New Testament. Answer 72

6. The proper reign of Christ to begin at his second

coming. Answer 73

Further answer to this theory. The Second Advent

for judgment 74/

This Advent introduces "the last day" 76/

High character of most premillennialists 77

At all events there is a middle state for most men 78

Chapter III. Condition of Human Souls between Death and Resurrection 79-144

§ I. Human souls are conscious in the middle state......... 79

CONTENTS. 9

PAGE

1. The consciousness of departed spirits in general is

clearly taught 79/

2. The consciousness of unbelievers is taught 81/

3. The consciousness of believers also 84/

Objections to this view considered 90-95

(a) Death literally means extinction of conscious

being 90/

(6) Adam must have understood by it extinction of

conscious being ..*. 91

(c) The dead are asleep: therefore unconscious 91/

(d) Certain passages of the Old Testament affirm this 92/

(e) Accounts of the last judgment presuppose it 93

None of these objections conclusive 95

\ II. Human souls not on probation in the middle state..,. 95-144 Many suppose them to be on probation in that state.

The number of such increasing 95/

I. Passages alleged in support of their view 97/

1. The principal one, 1 Pet. 3 : 19, considered.. 97/

2. The second one, 1 Pet. 4: 6, also considered 107/

3. Paul's words in Eph. 4: 8, 9, examined 113/

4. Restoration supposed by some to be taught by Paul, 114/

5. The same doctrine discovered in another passage. 115

6. Also in yet another passage of Paul 115/

Exposition of this last passage 115/

7. Probation after death taught by Christ. Answer 119/

II. Passages opposed to the theory of probation after

death 121/

1. Those which represent the state of unbelievers

after death as already fixed 122/

2. Passages which describe the last judgment 127/

3. Passages which associate judgment with death 134/

Criticism of " Progressive Theology " 135 /

Wisdom of limiting probation to this life 1 39/

Chapter IV. The Last Judgment 145-155 Differences between judgment and the last judgment... 145

10 CONTENTS.

PAGE

1. The last judgment will be conducted by Christ,

with his saints 146/

2. It will be a universal judgment, or a judgment of

all mankind (and perhaps of evil angels) 148 f

3. It will be a righteous judgment 151/

Chapter Y. The Final State of Believers 156-160

Biblical representations of it figurative . 156

1. It will begin directly after the last judgment 157

2. It will continue the same in kind forever 157

3. Its blessedness will be enhanced by faithfulness

here 158

4. Its blessedness will forever increase 158/

Chapter VI. The Final State of Unbelievers 161-176

1. It will begin directly after the last judgment 161

2. It will continue the same in kind forever 161 f

3. It will be worse for some than for others 164/*

4i It will bring no useless suffering 165/

Conclusion 167

The vast preponderance of good over evil in the moral

government of God 167-176

Appendix 177-180

BIBLICAL ESCHATOLOGY.

Few men pass through their earthly life without feeling at times a solemn curiosity in respect to its issues. Their consciousness of sin, and of its malign influence on their present condition, rarely fails to awaken apprehension as to the future. And if this apprehension is removed by whole-hearted trust in Christ, a presentiment of endless life takes its place, and kindles a strong desire to learn all that can be known concerning that unspeakable good. But there is only one source of knowledge which offers any satisfactory explanation of death, and of the states of being that follow it. That source is the word of God; and it will be the aim of the following pages to present the results of a careful study of that word, in so far as it sheds any light on the nature of death or on existence thereafter. The light may be less abundant than seems to us desirable, but it is all that the blessed Lord has seen fit to give, and it must, therefore, be enough for the discipline of men in their present state. " Lead kindly light amid the encircling gloom."

The topics to be considered are natural death, the resurrection of the dead, the state between death and resurrection, the last judgment, the final state of believers, and the final state of unbelievers. The reason for examining the testimony of Scripture as to the resurrection of the dead, before studying what is said of the state between death and resurrection, will be noticed at a later point.

Chapter I. Natural Death

To the question, What is natural death? the Bible appears to give the following answers :

(1) It is the death of the body, considered as a living organism.— This is shown by the language of Jesus Christ : " Be not afraid of them which kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do " (Luke 12:4). Three things are noticeable here: First, an implication that the body is not the whole man. If it were in strictness the whole man, killing the body would be killing the spirit also ; destroying the body would be putting an end to the whole being. But this was not the case, and therefore we know that Jesus Christ looked upon the body of man as only one constituent of his nature. Secondly, an implication that the life of the body may be destroyed, and yet some part of the being survive. For if this be not the case, the last clause — "and after that have no more that they can do" — would be without sense. Moreover, the surviving part cannot suffer injury unless it is alive. That which has absolutely ceased to live has ceased to be affected by gain or loss, by joy or pain. Thirdly, an implication that the part of man which survives the death of the body is the soul or spirit, and therefore the central and controlling element of man's nature. This is definitely stated in Matthew's Gospel : " Be not afraid of them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul" (10: 28). So the something additional to killing the body, which men cannot do, is killing the soul; and that which continues alive, when the body is crucified, or burned at the stake, is the soul ((puzyj). It is important to observe this use of the term soul, for it is sometimes employed to denote the animal life which perishes with the body. Here, on the contrary, it is synonymous with spirit, meaning the part of our being which the sword cannot harm. These two passages preserve to us a saying of the Lord Jesus, the value of which cannot be overestimated.

The same view of natural death appears to underlie the language of Peter : " But even if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye . . . For it is better, if it be the will of God, that ye suffer for well-doing, than for evil-doing. Because Christ also suffered * once for sins, the just for the unjust, . . • being put to death in flesh, but quickened in spirit " (3 : 14-18). That is to say, the followers of Christ ought not to look upon martyrdom as the greatest of

* Whether the original text read "suffered" (inaSev with B K L P and many cursives) or " died" {an&avev, with X A C and many cursives, etc.), is not perfectly certain, and does not affect the meaning. Perhaps the circumstance that the former verb is frequently used by Peter in this Epistle, and the latter nowhere save in this passage, renders it probable that the change was made from the latter to the former in copying. But I have allowed the common reading to stand.

evils. Nay rather, if. they should suffer death while engaged in well-doing and because they adhered to righteousness, the way to bodily death would be the way to a higher life of the spirit — even as it had been in the case of their Lord. If Peter does not in this language assume the truth of Christ's representation in regard to the power of man to kill the body without killing the soul, it is difficult to discover any consistent meaning in his words. But if he entertains the precise view expressed by Jesus, his language is perspicuous and forcible.

In his remarks on the relation of faith and works, James makes use of this language : " For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead " (2 : 26) ; and this implies that, in his opinion, death might be predicated of the body in distinction from the spirit. With these expressions may be compared the words of God to Adam : " In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground ; for out of it thou wast taken : for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return " (Gen. 3 : 19). One or the other of two interpretations must be given to this language ; either it refers to the whole nature of Adam, and pronounces it material, or it refers to his body only, and pronounces it earth-born and earth-bound. But the former explanation is inconsistent with both accounts of the man's creation (Gen. 1 : 26, 27 ; 2 : 7), one of which declares that he was created in the image of God, and the other that when God formed him of the dust of the ground, he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. For it is impossible to read the book of Genesis and believe that its author considered God a material being, or to interpret fairly the words of Gen. 2 : 7, without admitting that God imparted to man something more than a physical nature. On the other hand, there is no real objection to the view that the words of God, " dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return," refer to Adam in so far as he was a physical being; in other words, to the bodily organism on which his earthly life depended. For men may be called dust, or flesh, or flesh and blood, when the context readily guides the mind to their outward being or organism, just as properly as they may be called souls, when the context suggests their inward nature, or spirit.

(2) It is a termination of animal life, or living. — This life is sometimes denominated "psyche" (<poxy]) by the sacred writers. Thus : " For they are dead who sought the young child's life " (Matt. 2 : 20) ; " Is it lawful on the Sabbath day ... to save a life, or to kill ? " (Mark 3:4); " To save a life, or to destroy it ? " (Luke 6:9); " If a man cometh unto me, and hateth not ... his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" (Id. 14: 26); "He that loveth his life, loseth it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal" (John 12: 25). See also John 13 : 37, 38 ; Acts 15 : 26 ; 20 : 24 ; 1 John 3:16; Rev. 8 : 9 ; 16 : 3. In all these passages the animal life is called psyche, and in most of them there is some reference to its termination or loss at death. In a few of them, however, the word is used in a higher as well as in the lower sense — that is, as meaning true spiritual life contrasted with physical life, or perhaps with living in flesh. (See Phil. 1 : 21, 22.)

(3) It is a separation of the soul from the *body. — This, too, is clearly revealed by the Holy Scriptures. Thus we read that "the dust shall return to the earth as it was, and the spirit unto God who gave it " (Eccl. 12: 7), a passage which is probably founded on the record in Gen. 2 : 7, and which strongly confirms the interpretation of Gen. 3 : 19, given above. "And he bowed his head, and gave up his spirit " (John 19: 30), where "gave up" represents a Greek word (-apidwxsv), which probably signifies delivered up. " The verb used for 'delivered up' is peculiarly important" (Schaff ). " The choice of the word leaves no doubt as to the meaning of the Evangelist ... It was his own free will to die." Compare the language of his dying 'cry, recorded by Luke: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" (23 : 46). See also the record of Stephen's language: "And they stoned Stephen, calling on the Lord and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit" (Acts 7: 59). Surely this is conclusive as to Stephen's belief in the existence of his spirit when separated from the body. Equally clear is the sense of Paul's words : " I am in a strait betwixt the. two, having the desire to depart and be with Christ; for it is very far better. Yet to abide in the flesh is more needful for your sake" (Phil. 1: 23). Here the real self, the spiritual personality of the apostle, is represented as being now in the flesh, but as able to depart from the flesh, in order thereby to be more immediately with Christ. And this departing out of the flesh to be with Christ, is but another expression for dying — "for me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."

The word translated to depart (avakvaai) means to weigh anchor , or to break up (one's tent). Paul uses the corresponding noun in writing to Timothy : " The day of my departure is at hand " (2 Tim. 4 : 6). It will also be recollected that, according to Luke, Moses and Elijah conversed with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration concerning " his exodus, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem" (Luke 9: 31). So, likewise, Peter says of himself : " Knowing that the putting off of my tabernacle cometh swiftly," and adds in the next verse : " I will give diligence that at every time ye may be able after my exodus to call these things to remembrance" (2 Pet. 1 : 15, 16). Further examples are unnecessary.

Thus the Scriptures are clear and consistent in their teaching .about death. It is a change in which the body dies, in which the organic life terminates, in which the spirit is separated from the body. And this teaching of Scripture is readily accepted by the judgment of mankind, especially as to the first two particulars, which might without much difficulty be reduced to one. But as to the separation of the soul from the body, and its existence as a pure spirit, the opinions of thoughtful students of life are various, and it seems necessary to look at certain objections to the obvious meaning of Scripture. These objections are founded on the vital connection which now exists between the soul and the brain, and are urged by a considerable number of physiologists.

It is said (a) "that the soul now lives in a physical body, and therefore it cannot live apart from such a body." But the inference is plainly illegitimate. The only legitimate inference would be that the soul cannot live just such a life as it now lives apart from such a body as it now has. Whether it can or cannot live at all without a body must be learned from something besides the mere fact that it now lives in a body.

(6) "That the soul becomes unconscious when the brain is greatly injured : hence it must be unconscious if the brain is destroyed." This, too, is a false inference ; for the soul is still organically connected with an injured brain, while there is no reason to suppose it organically connected with a destroyed brain. While the spirit acts by means of a living organ, that organ must be in a condition for use ; but this does not show that the spirit cannot live or act apart from a physical organ. If I am in a house, I can only look upon the surrounding objects through its windows; but open the doors and let me go out of the house, and the windows are no longer of any use to me. I can see in every direction, though they are destroyed.

(c) " That the souPs action improves with an improving brain ; hence its action after death cannot be better than it is here, unless it has a better brain than is possessed in the present life." But this inference is just

20 BIBLICAL E8CHATOLOGY.

as uncertain as the preceding one. While the soul is in its body much will depend on the excellence of that body; but this fact neither proves nor disproves its power to live and act apart from a body.

(d) " Nature has no breaks; continuity through evolution is her law. Hence, the new body must spring out of the old, as the butterfly springs out of the chrysalis." To this statement we reply that science teaches nothing whatever as to the effect of death upon the continuance of individual life after that event; for the worm in becoming a butterfly does not die, as the butterfly afterwards dies. The illustration fails at the very point where it is supposed to be of use.

Thus it appears to be impossible to reason from the condition of mind in its present material organism to its condition when released from that organism. From the fact that an injury to the brain interferes with the action of consciousness, it cannot be inferred that a destruction of the brain must be a destruction of conscious existence, or of the soul. The most that can be admitted is this, that at present, while the vital connection between them subsists, the action of the soul may be associated, either as cause or consequence, with the action of the brain. The soul now exists, whether conscious or unconscious, in close union with a bodily organism ; but who can show that it cannot exist without the support or the incumbrance of a material organism ?

(e) If it be affirmed that "the soul must have a body of some kind, in order to be related to space, and to have a point of support in the same," we ask how it is known that the only possible connection of spirit with matter is a vital one? A different connection is just as conceivable as the one with which we are most familiar.* Moreover, the assertion that a being is purely spiritual is not equivalent to the assertion that it is unrelated to space. The nucleus of the energies of a spirit may be a point of consciousness, and the going forth of those energies be limited by the nature of the being, so that it is cognizant of space, f And as to support for a disembodied spirit, we need not be anxious. Till we know what attraction is, the power which is said to hold the planets in their orbits, we need not deny the possibility of other than material support to a spiritual being. Perchance a divine energy, in a way incomprehensible to us, upholds the planets; and if so* it may surely be the support of disembodied souls.

The words of Prof. John Fiske are directly appli-

* The connection of oxygen with hydrogen in water is wholly different from its connection with nitrogen in air. So the unknown power which, under certain conditions, appears as electricity, is supposed to appear under other conditions as galvanism, or even magnetism. How rash, then, to assume that the human spirit can only act when it is in vital union with an organism ! As if one were to say that oxygen has no power or energy, unless it be chemically united with hydrogen I

t An expression suggested by Principal J. E. Walter's treatise on "The Perception of Space and Matter," p. 244 f., and by Prof. H. Ulrici's treatise, entitled "G-ott und die Natur," p. 312 f. Both regard the soul as extended, and their arguments are worthy of examination, though not essential to a comprehension of my statement. Cf. Lotze's Microcosmus 3: 2.

cable to the objection under notice : " Cerebral physiology says nothing about another life. Indeed, why should it? The last place in the world to which I should go for information about a state of things in which thought and feeling can exist without a cerebrum would be cerebral physiology. The materialistic assumption that there is no such state of things, and the life of the soul accordingly ends with the life of the body, is perhaps the most colossal instance of baseless assumption that is known to the history of philosophy. No evidence of it can be alleged beyond the familiar fact that during the present life we know Soul only in its association with the Body, and therefore cannot discover disembodied soul without dying ourselves. This fact must always prevent us from obtaining direct evidence for the belief in the soul's survival. But a negative presumption is not created by the absence of proof in cases where, in the nature of things, proof is inaccessible." (" The Destiny of Man," p. 110.)

From this excursion into the realms of science and philosophy, which have in reality nothing to urge against the testimony of Christ and his apostles, we return with unspeakable satisfaction to that testimony, and on the strength of it hold that human souls do not pass into a state of unconsciousness at death. But this subject we shall have occasion to examine more thoroughly in the third chapter.

Chapter II. Resurrection Of The Dead

We postpone a discussion of the questions relating to the state between death and resurrection until we have weighed the testimony of Scripture as to a resurrection of the dead : first, because the reality of an intermediate state depends (a) upon the fact of the resurrection of the dead, uniting soul and body once more, and (6) upon the existence of an interval of time between death and resurrection; and, secondly, because many Christians now believe that natural death and resurrection from the dead are contemporaneous events, or rather two sides of the same event, and it is important to recognize the points which awaken interest at the present hour. It will then be necessary for us to consider in this section the evidence of a resurrection of the dead, the properties of the bodies which saints will receive at the resurrection, and the time when the resurrection takes place. Our answers to all the questions suggested by these topics must be chiefly drawn from the word of God.