OOM OIG Megeies y MAL peggy ay a4 y ith SPIE GY , ata. , Ly ey oe YO Lede ¥ J i YY Le ae Yi So SO BGK SSS SRR SS SSH EK mS Yi hy SS lef, y Ye j Yi SSS “Gif, tp S ys SESH a SO So SSO SSS SIN nS SoS Ss : SST SRS S WS SEV 3 Vi WERE a > SS SASS Me AN 26 R26. Ly “OLOGICAL sean BrecOte GS 5) Gruber, L. Franklin 1870- OAs What after death? oy i q »! 7 ae cue ht ot no ae gi - JAP 26 192F a OP? A Al Be 5 ahi SN BS WHAT AFTER DEATH? An Examination of Several Theories of Fu- ture Retribution and an Exposition of the Teaching of the Scriptures as to the State of the Lost and the State of the Saved / / ve B LePRANKGIN’GRUBER DD. LED: Associate Editor, Bibliotheca Sacra Author of ‘‘Whence Came the Universe?”’ “The Theory of a Finite and Developing Deity Examined,” “The Truth About Tyndale’s New Testa- ment,’ ‘“The Einstein Theory,” Etc. a 1925 THE LUTHERAN LITERARY BOARD Burlington, Iowa — a Copyright 1925 by R. NEUMANN, BURLINGTON, IOWA FOREWORD There is no subject that has more persistently occu- pied the mind of man than that of his state in the future world. ‘‘What after death?” is a question that has been raised and discussed by Jew and Gentile, by Christian and heathen, alike. It involves man’s hap- piness not only hereafter, but even here. It implies, of course, an “after death’ or that death does not end all. So solemn a subject, one that deals with man’s eter- nal interests, must be approached with reverence. The torch of human reason may be used to throw some light along the pathway; but only as one is led by the light of revelation can he be safe against the pit- falls of error. And, indeed, only by that divine light will the subject be sufficiently illuminated to see and understand aright some of its dark and shadowy mys- teries. Nor can mere feeling or sentiment be relied upon in such an investigation. Truths and facts, not feeling, must determine conclusions; and these only in so far as they can, with some degree of certainty, be confirmed by incontrovertible arguments from the Scriptures, illustrated and enforced by reason based upon universally accepted laws. As Holy Scripture, however, is so explicit, and as its contents should naturally be taken at what the lan- guage seems very clearly to convey, it would hardly seem necessary to discuss at any great length its teach- ings as to the state of the departed. Nevertheless, because of many erroneous and conflicting theories as to the same, we believe that the following fresh dis- cussion will be welcomed. Throughout the whole, we have aimed at perspicuity and simplicity. The subject, however, necessarily demands an occasional reference to the Greek and Hebrew texts and an explanation of terms used there- in. But whenever Hebrew and Greek terms are used, they are given in English or Roman letters, for the better understanding, by the general reader, of the points discussed. We shall now send this book on its intended mission ; namely, that of helping to correct some of the errone- ous ideas as to these matters. And if, by the grace of God, it will be a means of leading honest seekers after truth to a better understanding of the teaching of God’s Word on this solemn subject, and thus afford new hope and encouragement to the faithful and also prove a warning to heedless individuals, we shall con- sider our labors amply repaid. To this end we now commend it to the candid reader; and may the Divine blessing attend its reading to the spiritual edification of many and to the glory of the triune God. Lt 3G: St. Paul, Minnesota, February, 1925. CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE FoREWORD . 3-4 I INTRODUCTORY: Wi THERE Te Reericriog AFTER DeatTH? . Wise, eet Si Pa 9 I Retribution Illustrated in Nature . 9 II The Testimony of the Scriptures .. 11 1 Evidence from the Old Testament 12 2 Evidence from the New Testament . 13 (1) Christ’s Teaching on the Subject in Para- bles. . 14 (2) Christ’s Direct Teaching on the Subject 15 (3) Other New Testament Evidence 17 3 Terms Used . rap Ye (1) Sheol . . 18 (2) Hades . ed (3) Gehenna . 23 II ANNIHILATIONISM: WILL THE Wrceen Br arerats bie STROYED? . 27 I Philosophic Annihilationism—A Preliminary | Consideration . Sp oy ate: a} A Materialistic Theory (Haeckel) 28 B Pantheistic Theory (Hegel) 29 II Penal Annihilationism . bated 30 1 Conditional Immortality : 31 (1) The Soul an Entity Distinct from the Body, Its Necessary Organ of Opera- tion 31 (2) The Soul But a Function of the Physi- cal Organism pated See’ 30 2 Annihilationism Properly So Called . 37 (1) Sag aeatt: of Annihilationists Falla- r 0 (2) TeacHiite ‘of the Scriptures as to Death and Destruction and Continued Exis- tence. 42 A Death Primarily a Separation . . 44 B Both the Righteous and the Un- righteous to Share in the Resur- rection and the General Judg- ment . 45 C Both to Be Consigned to Abodes for Continued Being . 45 D Continued Being of Both Equal i in Duration . 45 E To Both, Continued Being a Con- scious One . 46 (3) Continued Existence in Punishment Not Inconsistent with God’s Love 48 Contenis TI] Pavcnorannyrcaism: Is tun Sout ASLEEP BETWEEN DEATH AND THE RESURRECTION? T Alleged Scriptural Evidence for Psychopannychism Not Applicable . , 1 Passages That Speak of the Dead as ‘Asleep ; 2 Passages That Speak of the Dead as at Rest . II. Other and Direct Evidence of Scripture Against This Theory . III Psychopannychism Based upon False Premises as to the Nature of the Soul . IV PRoBATIONISM: WILL THERE BE AN Ones OF 88) Gave TION AFTER DEATH? . I Theory of Future Probation for the Heathen pone: 1 Reasoning of Exponents of Theory of Future Probation for the Heathen Fallacious . 2 The Question of a ‘Fair Chance’ Considered II No Future Probation for Those Who Die Impeni- ey OL 1 Failure of t Supposed Scripture Proofs to Prove This Theor 2 This Theory Dircotty Disproved by Scripture 3 Evidence from the Element of Fixedness in Character V OR eeae et ioy Is THE ocr OF mnaeneuaee:. Tae ABLE? . a I Authoritative Statement of the Doctrine . 1 As Given in Earlier Official Documents . 2 As Given in Later Approved Works . I Brief History of the Doctrine . III Rome’s Direct Proofs for the Doctrine and Our Answer IV Rome’s Arguments ‘from Her Associated Doc- trines Equally Groundless 1 Human Satisfactions, Penance, Good Works, Works of Supererogation : 2 Indulgences, the Power of the Keys, Con- fession, Papal Infallibility : 3 Prayers for the Dead . V Direct Evidence of Scripture against the Doctrine of Purgatory . VI Unrversauism: Arg ALL Men Frnauiy To Br Savep? Brief Outline of Its ae II Its Forms : III Its Basis. IV Arguments in Defense of Universalism Considered 1 Argument from God’s Goodness 2 Argument from Christ’s Atonement . 3 Argument from the Omnipotence of God 4 Argument from Supposed Philosophie Neces- Sh oe Mee eee eth are hy © Lesam Ceres 5 Argument from the Justice of God . Contents 6 Argument from Supposed Sympathy of the Saved with the Lost . 7 Argument from the Very Nature of Scripture upon This Fomt:34¢3 : 8 Argument from History and Tradition . V Universalism Further Disproved by Its Ground- lessness and Inherent Weaknesses . 1 Universalism in Conflict with Both Con- sciousness and Scripture . : 2 Concessions of Its Exponents ‘ 3 Moral Dangers Involved in the Theory ; 4 Its Fundamental Fallacies . a VII Erernatism: Witt Future PunIsHMENT BE Enpres? I Phenomenal Nature of Language Considered II Current Jewish Belief and the Teactiney of Bon ture . , III Objections Answered A That Eternal Life ie Eternal Death Have’ Reference to Quality Rather than Duration B That Endless Punishment Would Be in Con- flict with both God’s Mercy and Justice C es the Number of the Lost Would Be Too reat : D That the Happiness of the Saved Would Be Marred if Some Were Eternally Lost . E That Eternal Death Means Eternal Non- Existence IV Eternity of Punishment Logically Necessitated by Other Doctrines .. A To Minimize the Greatness, or to Shorten the Duration, of Future Retribution, Is to Minimize the Greatness of Sin . B To Minimize the Greatness of Sin Is to Mini- mize, or Even to Deny, Christ’s Sacrifice TOM bina. C To Minimize Christ’s Sacrifice for Sin Is to Minimize the Greatness of His Person D To Attempt to Shorten the Duration of Fu- ture Retribution Is, therefore, to LERy Christ’s Deity Pat SPs eit ra ALES VIII Tue Nartoure or Future PUNISHMENT: Wuat Is THE STATE OF THE LosT? ... tah ag: ears , I Elements of a Negative Nature . II Elements of a Positive Nature . 1 Objective ; ‘ (1) Expressions or Terms Used (2) Meaning of These Terms . 2 Subjective . CARTS IX Tur NATURE OF FUTURE Barer nance: Woo IS THE STATE OF THE SAVED? ; : I No Intermediate State of Unconsciousness ; N Contents II ee Direct Knowledge and Better MLE E es ing : III Future Recognition and Fellowship ; 235 IV Satisfying Activity and Pian aene Development 237 V TheGlory ofthe Redeemed. . . . . . 238 VI Different Degrees of Glory . sitar See ie 2a VII Heaven a Place, as Well as a tate: foe 241 InpEx . Ee pote RAT Rr YS. ye : ; » 41245-2563 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTORY WILL THERE BE RETRIBUTION AFTER DEATH? It may truthfully be said that everything is gov- erned by law. Indeed, what is law but the expression of the will of God? Thus all laws are meant for the carrying out of His righteous purposes. I RETRIBUTION* ILLUSTRATED IN NATURE The whole of external nature, even to its last detail, illustrates this universal government by law. And this is true also of our own beings. Thus bodily pain and pleasure, and misery and happiness of mind or soul, are governed by law. Pain and misery are the im- posed penalties for direct or indirect transgression of law, as pleasure and happiness are normally the re- wards for obedience. Indeed, it may be said that law governing man implies also possible transgression, and has, therefore, necessarily associated with it the idea of rewards and punishment. Thus that punishment in- errantly follows any transgression or breaking of the laws of nature, is a fact that is so patent as to be almost instinctively recognized. Even to the little child this law manifests itself on attempting to touch a hot stove with unprotected fingers. Nor is there any forgive- *Although the term retribution. in its wider theological sense, includes both punishments and rewards, it is used rather in the narrower sense of punishments in this chapter. 10 What after Death? ness of such transgression of nature’s laws, except what may be afforded by the laws of healing and restoration in our. own beings. That life here is thus governed by law with asso- ciated rewards and punishments, no one will deny. And if government by law is universal, it must in- clude the psychical and spiritual spheres, the future as well as the present. As human personality con- tinues its identity, so must the possibility of misery extend beyond this sphere as really as does the pos- sibility of blessedness. The belief in future punishment is held by prac- tically all nations and races, and is, therefore, probably a moral instinct associated with an accusing con- science. And this universality of belief, or moral in- stinct, cannot easily be set aside even by the disbe- liever in the Christian Scriptures, as it unmistakably implies an objective reality. To object that such punishment could not be pos- sible on the part of a merciful God, and that surely He could and should have created the universe so as to preclude such a possibility, is to presume to know all God’s infinite purposes in creation. It is further- more to pass judgment on what He should have done, rather than to accept His own unmistakable revelation (to be set forth later), and His created universe for very plain illustration, that punishment awaits the wicked in the future world. Indeed, such future pun- ishment is just what we should expect from a perfect Being. To love righteousness is to hate evil; and the punishment of the evil doer is implied in divine mercy to the penitent. And that such punishment is just, our own consciences clearly testify. In line with what we have said above are the Introductory rye following emphatic words of Dr. Austin Phelps: “Though it [the doctrine of future punishment] is the doctrine of the Book, yet we do not depend for it on the Book alone. We depend on the nature of the mind of God for its groundwork; on the moral forces of the universe for its auxiliaries; on every prophetic men- ace of a human conscience for its confirmation; on the moral sense of every new-born child for proof that it will come direct and fresh from God, to the end of time; and on the analogies of human law for assur- ance that moral government can exist nowhere with- out its majestic and imperative working. The re- ligious beliefs of mankind never can break loose from such underground anchorage, in the nature of things. That is a very sure thing in the destiny of one world, which has the moral gravitation of all worlds flank- ing it on every side to hold it in position. A mori- bund theology! Is the north star moribund?” (My Study and Other Essays, pp. 51-52.) Thus even from nature, including man’s own being, many arguments might be drawn to show not only that the righteous will be blessed hereafter, but also that the unrighteous will be punished. But as the word of God plainly declares such punishment beyond the grave to be a solemn reality, it is hardly necessary for our purpose to develop this line of argument any further, at least at this point of our discussion. Il THE TESTIMONY OF THE SCRIPTURES The whole of revelation with its unfolding plan of salvation implies the reality of future punishment. Why would it have been necessary for the Son of God to come to this earth, indeed why any method of sal- vation and even any revelation, if there would be no 12 What after Death? punishment after death? No, this is presupposed in virtually every warning of the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. Of the vast amount of Scripture evidence that might be cited, both from the Old Testament and from the New Testament, in proof of future punishment, we shall now proceed to give a few of the most important points. 1 EVIDENCE FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT As already stated, all the many warnings of Scrip- ture, with which the Old Testament abounds, imply impending punishment. But its reality is also explic- itly taught in a number of places. Some passages, such as, ‘“‘The wicked shall be turned back unto Sheol, even all the nations that forget God” (Ps. 9:17), could not be explained in any other way. The term Sheol here cannot mean death or the grave, or even merely the place of departed spirits, as has been con- tended; for then the passage would be equally true of the righteous and of those nations that do not for- get God. Very emphatic also are the following words: “Though hand join in hand, the evil man shall not be unpunished . .. ._ the expectation of the wicked is wrath” (Prov. 11:21-28). And very ex- plicit are the words of Daniel 12:2: ‘And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and ever- lasting contempt.” See also Numbers 32:23; Job 31:30; Psalm 1:5-6; 11:6; 16:17; 49:72; Proverbs 13:15; Ecclesiastes 11:9; 12:14; Isaiah 5:24; 33:14; 66:15; Ezekiel 18:4. Many other Old Testament passages in which the reality of future punishment is more or less clearly taught or implied might be cited, Introductory 13 but, as the New Testament is the inspired exposition of the Old Testament and as its teachings are more explicit, it is hardly necessary to do so. Thus from the account of man’s expulsion from Eden to the prophet Malachi, the reality of future punishment underlies the Old Testament, becoming clearer as the time of the coming of man’s Saviour draws nearer and nearer. The Old Testament is in- deed not as clear as the New Testament; but this is in accordance with the very nature of revelation, which is consistently progressive. Moreover, although the Apocryphal Books must not be quoted as inspired Scripture, even they are not without their testimony on this subject, as they at least mirror Jewish belief of their time and general Jewish interpretation of Old Testament teachings on the subject. See Judith 16:17; 2 Maccabees 12 :48-46; et al. Indeed, as is abundantly evident, the reality of future punishment was part of Jewish belief through- out their history. And this was not less the case at the time of our Lord than during any other period, if we except the sect of Sadducees, who virtually de- nied the existence of the spiritual world. 2 EVIDENCE FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT Coming now to the New Testament, we note that nowhere did Christ sanction Sadduceeism, nor did He ever attempt to gainsay the otherwise generally ac- cepted Jewish belief in future punishment. On the contrary, He repeatedly spoke in unmistakable terms about it, and, in fact, as of a reality that is so fun- damental as to need no proof. As Christ did not attempt to prove the existence of God the Father, which is fundamental to all other things, but only 14 What after Death? further revealed Him, so He did not attempt to prove the reality of the future world and of future punish- ment. (1) Christ's Teaching on the Subject in Parables So important did Christ consider this doctrine of future punishment that He was never more emphatic than when He spoke on this and kindred subjects. Indeed, He devoted to it more parables than to any other doctrine. Note the force of His words in the parable of the tares: ‘The harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are angels. . . . The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that cause stumbling, and them that do iniquity, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth” (See Matt. 13 :24- 30; 36-43). Not less emphatic is He in the parable of the drag-net: “So shall it be in the end of the world; the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the righteous, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth’ (See Matt. 13:47-50). Other parables of similar import might be cited, such as that of the marriage-feast (Matt. 22:1-14), and those of the ten virgins and the talents (Matt. 25:1- 30). And, surely, every one, whether he considers the passage a parable or not, remembers Christ’s explicit declaration about the rich man: “And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torments . . . And he eried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame,” etc. (Luke 16:19-31). Introductory 15 Some men object, however, that these are only parables; but they forget that the truth presented is not in the least lessened thereby. Indeed, Christ did not teach by parables to soften the truth but rather to make it more intelligible, as these solemn things of the spiritual world can, in their real essence, be de- scribed only in parable, or in the metaphorical terms of the language of this world, as we shall show in our chapter on EHternalism. Such things can best be taught by illustration, but all illustrations must be true to the real nature of things, or must really illus- trate the truth. (2) Christ’s Direct Teaching on the Subject It is, however, not only in parables that our blessed Lord plainly taught the reality of future punishment, but He frequently did so also directly, while He often clearly implied it. In sending out His disciples He charged them thus: “And be not afraid of them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell’ (Matt. 10:28). Nor is there any ground for the contention that the word hell (Gehenna) here means only the grave. If it meant only the grave, then the righteous would receive the same punishment as the unrighteous, as the grave is common to both. Indeed, the very con- trast between the killing of the body and the destroy- ing of both soul and body in hell, is meant to show that the latter is much more terrible than the former. And as the killing or death of the body already in- volves the grave, the destroying of both soul and body must involve more; and, therefore, hell (Gehenna) cannot mean the grave. The infinite power of God in | 16 What after Death? destruction beyond the grave is contrasted with the little power of man in bodily killing and bringing to the grave. The terms death and destruction will be explained in the next chapter. Equally groundless is the contention that the word hell here means anni- hilation in what is called “the second death,” as we hope conclusively to show under Annihilationism. Indeed, as will presently be explained more fully, the world hell (Gehenna) can here refer to nothing else than the place of punishment beyond the grave—even beyond the resurrection and general judgment—for the punishment is to be shared by soul and body. Very emphatic also are the Master’s words in His account of the last judgment: ‘Then shall the King say also unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. . . . Then shall he say unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels. . . . And these shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal life’ (Matt. 25:31-46). See also Matt. 5:20-22; 7:22-23; Mark 10:43-48; Luke 13 :24-28. Thus He who brought life and immortality to light, spoke of the punishment of the wicked in just as un- mistakable terms as He did of the blessedness of the © righteous. And this He did both in parable and directly. Thus in the parable of the ten virgins, the five foolish virgins are just as truly shut out as the five wise virgins are admitted; and in His account of the last judgment, those on the left hand just as truly depart into everlasting punishment as those on the right hand go into everlasting life. Introductory 17 (8) Other New Testament Evidence The apostles, who were under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, were no less explicit upon this subject. Thus St. Paul speaks of “punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of his might” (2 Thess. 1:6-9). See also 2 Cor. 5:10-11; Heb. 10:26-81. Very emphatic also are the words of Revelation 14:9-11: “And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a great voice, If any man worshippeth the beast and his image, and receiveth a mark on his fore- head, or upon his hand, he shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is prepared unmixed in the cup of his anger; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: and the smoke of their torment goeth up for ever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, they that worship the beast and his image, and who so receiveth the mark of his name.” See also Revelation 20:10-15; 21:8. & TERMS USED It is important also to add something in explana- tion of several terms used in various Scripture pass- ages on this subject, because these have been made the chief battle-ground by those who have attacked this doctrine. The history of these terms in their develop- ment they have often wilfully ignored. Thus they have failed to distinguish between primary and de- rived meanings of terms. In general, words may be regarded as the vessels of ideas. Their contents vary with the age in which they are used or by which they are filled, even as also 18 What after Death? they differ in their contents to different individuals. Thus the unqualified word law means a different thing to the scientist from what it means to the attorney, and to both it means much more than it means to the uninitiated. So the ideas conveyed to the father and his five-year-old son, by the words business, travel, and almost every other similar term, are very differ- ent indeed. But as the son grows to manhood the ideas conveyed are likely to approach ever more and more those of his father. This growth of ideas conveyed by various terms can not be ignored in such considerations. Thus the primary meaning of death was very different from various derived meanings that might be cited. The death of a man and the death of his pet schemes are very different things. Similarly might we speak of many other terms. Therefore, to read into Scripture the same meaning when it speaks of physical death as when it speaks of the death of the soul, can have no weight in the objector’s argument. Such arguing is as absurd as it would be to contend that the Spirit of God is the same as the wind; because such was the primary meaning of the Hebrew word ruach and the Greek word pneuma, which were used by the in- spired writers for the Spirit. Indeed, these writers always made use of such terms as they found at hand, and, placing them in new settings, or using them meta- phorically, they made them express the transcendental ideas of the spiritual world. But upon this point more will be said under Eternalism. (1) Sheol The Hebrew word Sheol is generally understood to have originally meant a cavity or a hollow, from a root meaning to make hollow, From this it came to Introductory 19 mean a subterranean place, and hence the underworld: and later it was used more specifically for the place of future punishment. It is, therefore, used in the Old Testament to express somewhat different ideas at different times or in different connections, which ideas can, in most cases, be determined from the con- text. Young cites thirty-one places where, in the Authorized Version, the word Sheol is translated hell, and an equal number of places where it is translated grave, and three places where it is translated pit. We are here referring to the Authorized Version as to one still quite commonly used. ; In most places where translated grave it more or less vaguely means what we understood by this term (Gen. 42:38; 44:29 and 31; et al.). And where trans- lated hell, it is in some instances used in a somewhat general way of the unseen world, or of the place of departed spirits, though often involving the idea of punishment; and sometimes it is more definitely used of the place or state of future punishment, as, for example, in Psalm 9:17. But it must be emphasized that wherever this word Sheol is used in the Old Testa- ment, whether for the place of future punishment or simply for the unseen world in a general sense, or for the grave, it always carries with it the idea of darkness or evil. Its idea is that of a place of destruc- tion, or one with which destruction is associated (See Job 26:6; Prov. 15:11; 27:20). Therefore, even the Christian shrinks from the grave. Its use for the grave is only natural, because sin is the cause of death, making the grave and hell the two abodes of punishment, the one for the physical body and the other more especially for the soul. And although the person is spoken of as being in Sheol 20 What after Death? where it is used for the grave—a fact that has been urged as an objection by some materialists and by those who hold to the sleep of the soul with the body during its death—-yet it is only the body that is there, as is clear from Ecclesiastes 12:7: ‘The dust return- eth to the earth as it was: and the spirit returneth unto God who gave it.” Even the Saviour speaks as about to be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matt. 12:40), and yet during that time He promised to meet the thief on the cross in Para- dise (Luke 23:43). Indeed, the soul is often spoken of for the man, as the man or person is spoken of for the body. It should also be noted that where Sheol is used more definitely for what we understand as a place of pun- ishment, it is used for the abode of the wicked, and that as a warning, as in Psalm 9:17: “The wicked shall be turned back into Sheol, even all the nations that forget God’; Proverbs 5:5: “Her feet go down to death; her steps take hold on Sheol’; etc. To say that the wicked go down to, or are turned into, Sheol (hell), implies that, in this sense of the word Sheol (place of punishment for the soul), the righteous do not go down to Sheol. To argue against future punishment, therefore, by trying to explain away the term Sheol as meaning merely the grave, is totally to ignore the difference be- tween various uses of this term, which a little exam- ination would make very evident. It is true that the translation of the Authorized Version cannot be de- fended in all cases as the most accurate and explicit, yet careful examination, in the light of contexts, shows it to be in the main correct (See terms grave, pit and hell in Young’s Concordance). The Revised Version, Introductory 21 American Standard Edition, simply carries over into the English translation the original word Sheol. And this would be all right, if that term were universally understood, and if all readers considered it in the light of contexts. But as this is not the case, it thus un- fortunately furnishes the occasion for various misin- terpretations. (2) Hades The word Hades also has various uses. Etymolo- gically it means the unseen, and therefore the invisible world. In the Greek classics it is used of the place or state of the dead, and in the Septuagint it is used as a translation of the Hebrew word Sheol, and there- fore has several different meanings, as is noted under Sheol above. This old and then well-known word was used by Christ and the apostles for a rather more definite idea. It is thus always used in the New Testament of a place with which terror is associated, and in some instances it is clearly used for a place of retribution, as in the case of the rich man, who opened his eyes in Hades, a place of anguish (Luke 16:238-24). In Matthew 11:23 and Luke 10:15, it is a place the very opposite of heaven, and therefore a place of punish- ment. And in Matthew 16:18 it is clearly used fig- uratively for the realm or power of Satan, as follows: “And the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it [the Church].” In only one place in the Authorized Version (I Cor. 15:55) is it translated grave, but here the word, in the oldest and best manuscripts (followed by the Revised Version), is not Hades but thanatos (death). Thus in ten places in which it is found in 22 What after Death? the Authorized Version, it is translated hell (See Con- cordance). In Revelation 20:138-15 we read: ‘‘And the sea gave up the dead that were in it; and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the sec- ond death, even the lake of fire. And if any was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire.””’ From this it is clear that, as the sea and the grave gave up the bodies, so Hades gave up their souls, for judgment. And although the language is figurative, it thus appears that the Hades of the lost no less than the graves of their bodies will, at judgment, be superseded by the lake of fire. Hades, therefore, seems to be used of the place of the punish- ment of the lost soul between death and the resurrec- tion of the body, after which the reembodied soul will be consigned to the lake of fire, the final hell or Ge- henna of eternity, for body and soul. Thus Christ says, “And be not afraid of them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28), using the word Gehenna (translated hell) of this place of punishment for body and soul. Thus Hades is undoubtedly used in the New Testa- ment for the place of the disembodied spirits of the unrighteous between death and the resurrection, as Abraham’s bosom or paradise is used for the place of the disembodied spirits of the righteous. Hades in the New Testament, as also Sheol in the Old Testa- ment, is not divided into two parts, the one for the blessed, called Elysium and the other for the lost, called Tartarus. This was indeed the conception of Introductory 23 heathen mythology, but the inspired writers did not so use the term Hades. There is, therefore, no inter- mediate state or place that is common to spirits of both the saved and the lost, according to both the Old Testament and the New Testament. As already said, the two abodes of the blessed and the lost respective- ly between death and the resurrection, according to the New Testament, are Paradise or Abraham’s Bosom and Hades. And in how far these are identical with the final heaven and hell (Gehenna), is not revealed; but it must be evident that the state of punishment or of blessedness will not be complete until after the resurrection of the body and its reunion with the soul, that is, in the post-judgment heaven and hell (Ge- henna) of Scripture. We are told, however, that the blessed in Paradise are where God or Christ is, as Christ said to the thief on the cross, “To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:48); and as Paul so definitely says that “to be absent from the body” is “to be at home with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8) ; and as is seen from other passages that might be cited, if necessary for our purpose. (3) Gehenna To the south and west of Jerusalem there was a deep rocky ravine, which for centuries was known as the Valley of Hinnom. At the southern brow of the east- ern extremity of this valley, Solomon erected high places for Moloch, where, under Ahaz and Manassah, Children were offered to this idol. This valley, there- fore, later came to be so hated by the Jews that they used it as a common cess-pool for the city. There, perpetual fires were kept up for whatever of the de- 24 What after Death? posits was combustible, especially such as bones of criminals. | The Greek form of the name of this valley, Gehenna or Geenna, as it came to be called, from its ceremonial defilement and from its ever-burning funeral piles, was used metaphorically to denote the place of the con- demned. For this our Saviour used it ten times in Matthew, three times in Mark, and once in Luke. Thus in Matthew 10:28 He says, “Rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Gehenna). Indeed, with the exception of James 3:6, this word Gehenna is used by the gentle Jesus alone. And no one should attempt to explain away these solemn uses of the word by the Master Himself. The distinction between the use of Hades and Gehenna has already been given. We might also speak of other terms or expressions used for future punishment, but such consideration is hardly necessary for our purpose. It should, how- ever, be said that in 2 Peter 2:4, the word tartarasas, cast down to hell (Tartarus), is used, but evidently of the fallen angels alone, who are there reserved unto the final judgment. Enough has now been said, we believe, to show that all attempts, on the part of those who deny the reality of future punishment, by trying to explain away or to weaken the force of the terms used in Scripture on this subject, are utterly valueless as arguments in proof of such contentions. But there are several well-defined theories as to the fate of evil doers. And, as in the case of some other conflicting theories, all are professedly based upon the Scriptures. Of these theories there are five that deserve careful and somewhat thorough exam- Introductory 25 ination. For the sake of uniformity in- nomenclature, these may be called Annihilationism, Psychopanny- chism, Probationism, Purgationism and Universalism. Under these terms, in their order, we shall therefore consider them, while under the term Hternalism we shall give in outline the unmistakable teaching of the Scriptures upon this solemn subject, followed by a brief discussion of the much-debated nature of future punishment. Then after this consideration of the state of the lost in the future world, we shall consider the blessedness of the saved. CHAPTER II ANNIHILATIONISM WILL THE WICKED BE UTTERLY DESTROYED? There are some who hold that the future punishment of the wicked consists either in being left, according to a Divine plan or law, spontaneously to pass out of existence, or in being blotted out by the external power of God. To those who are unwilling to accept either the doc- trine of the eternal punishment of the wicked or the theory of the certain salvation of all, this theory ap- peals very strongly. Indeed, the origin of this theory may be said to be traceable to a reaction against these two positions. Among those in England who have held this theory in some form have been the celebrated philosopher John Locke (d. 1704), and Archbishop Whately (d. 1863). In Germany, too, there have been eminent exponents of the theory of annihilationism, among them the philosophic theologian, Rothe (d. 1867). But its adherents, both in England and on the continent, as well as in America, have been, and are today, comparatively few; and this is emphatically the case among theologians and philosophers of first rank. Before we consider, however, the supposed blotting out, or the passing out of existence, of the wicked as a punishment, we shall briefly examine what might be called philosophic annihilationism, as this, to a cer- 28 What after Death? tain extent, forms the foundation of the theory or theories which we shall discuss more at length. { PHILOSOPHIC ANNIHILATIONISM—A PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION A The pure materialist of the Haeckelian school holds that all men pass out of existence at death. Ac- cording to him, the so-called soul, or the life, must cease to exist upon the dissolution of the body, though not as a punishment. Some eminent men have con- fessedly held this theory, among them Buechner, Fuer- bach and Moleschott. But, as we should like to show more fully, if space permitted, this view is founded upon a philosophically and Scripturally false concep- tion of the soul; namely, that what is called the soul is but a function of the brain, or at least of the bodily organism. That the soul is not a function of the physical or- ganism, is very clear from the account of man’s crea- tion, Genesis 2:7: “And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nos- trils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” And, surely, nothing could be plainer on this point than the words of Ecclesiastes 12:7: “The dust re- turneth to the earth as it was: and the spirit return- eth unto God who gave it.” That the soul is an entity different from the body, is not only directly and ex- plicitly taught in such passages as the above, but it is also everywhere else implied in Scripture. Indeed, this is generally assumed as so axiomatic and funda- mental to everything else pertaining to man as to need no proof. We shall, therefore, not multiply Scripture quotations on this point; and this seems all the more Will the Wicked Be Destroyed? 29 unnecessary, as the best results of modern psychol- ogy, as well as those of the physical sciences, confirm this teaching of Scripture (a point developed in the author’s Creation Ex Nihilo, Chapters II and III). As, therefore, the materialist’s fundamental assump- tion, that the soul is the product or function of the brain or of the physical organism, is erroneous or false, his theory of annihilationism cannot stand the application to it of science any more than that of Seripture. B The pantheist of the Hegelian school, who re- gards the so-called soul as only the individualized iso- lation of part of the general soul or universal whole, naturally holds that into this the soul is again merged or absorbed at the death of the body. The individ- uality, or personal identity, of all men is thus said to be equally lost, and therefore also without involving any idea of punishment. Associated with this form of what we are calling philosophic annihilationism, are such great names as Fichte, Strauss and Spinoza. But this view, to say the least; namely— “That each, who seems a separate whole, Should move his rounds, and fusing all The skirts of self again, should fall Remerging in the general soul,— Is faith as vague as all unsweet.” No, even personality, or our innate consciousness of personal identity, in no uncertain intimations sug- gests that “Eternal form shall still divide The eternal soul from all beside.” (Tennyson: In Memoriam) 30 What after Death? It is hardly necessary for our purpose further to answer these two forms of the theory of annihilation- ism, as they are in conflict even with the very con- sciousness, or intuitive belief, of the race. Moreover, they are purely philosophic in their nature and pro- fessedly not founded upon the Word of God, with whose every teaching on this subject, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, they are in con- flict. It may be stated, indeed, that even the most ardent defenders of philosophic annihilationism read- ily acknowledge that the Scriptures plainly teach the existence of the soul after death. But, of course, plac- ing their own conclusions above the teachings of in- spired prophets and apostles, they totally ignore the evidence of Scripture. As these two views do not, however, involve the idea of punishment, it might have seemed unneces- sary even to refer to them. But as they are partly fundamental to the theory which we'shall more espe- cially consider, and as their very absurdity or un- scripturalness is already a presumptive evidence against any theory of annihilationism whatever, we believe this reference to them here not to be amiss. II PENAL ANNIHILATIONISM We come now to a consideration of the theory of annihilationism as supposedly applied to the wicked and in which therefore the idea of punishment is in- volved. Of this also we note two forms. The one is based upon the assumption that the soul is by nature mortal, whether as a product or function of the body or as a separate entity, and that it would cease to exist upon the death of the body unless its life were Will the Wicked Be Destroyed? 31 supernaturally prolonged. The other form of this theory is based upon the assumption that the soul is an entity distinct from the body and is by nature im- mortal, and that its life would, therefore, forever con- tinue unless supernaturally extinguished. These two forms of the theory we shall now consider under the names conditional immortality and annihilationism properly so called. 1 CONDITIONAL IMMORTALITY The exponents of the first of these forms, assum- ing that immortality is a superadded gift conditioned upon proper use of means in this life, hold that future punishment consists in simply withholding this gift from the wicked. This form of the theory of anni- hilationism is therefore generally known as the theory of conditional immortality. According to this theory, man is by creation a mortal being, but he may by grace become immortal, by entrance into living communion with God. This was a favorite theory with G. Kunze and Edward White. Of this form of the theory there are also several varieties. (1) According to many of its advocates, the soul is indeed a distinct entity but the body is its necessary organ of operation. These hold that the soul, there- fore, is necessarily inactive or unconscious from the time of dissolution until the resurrection; and they might therefore also be classed among psychopanny- chists. And, pretending to follow Scripture, they hold that both the righteous and the wicked will rise, the one to immortal life, which will then be super- added, and the other, because of the withholding of the gift of immortality, to death and extinction. Some even think that the extinction or death of the wicked 32 What after Death? will take place gradually, or that it will take place as the result of sin or inherent sinfulness only after they have suffered their merited punishment. Advocates of this variety of the theory of condi- tional immortality cite many Scripture passages in proof of their contention. Among Old Testament passages they quote Gen. 2:17: “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Therefore, as they did eat, it is held, man is now naturally mortal both in body and soul, and there can be no immortality for him except as a superadded gift. In connection with the above pas- sage they also cite Gen. 3:4, 19, 22-24. And, as sup- posedly in line with their theory of man’s fall, they also quote Deut. 30:15: “See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil”; Ps. 37:20: “But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of Je- hovah shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall con- sume; into smoke shall they consume away.’ Among other Old Testament passages cited are Deut. 30:19- Z20n4Pse2te aces 7el0, So in the New Testament they pretend to find con- firmation of their theory in such passages as Matt. 16:26: “For what shall a man be profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and forfeit his life? or what shall aman give in exchange for his life?”; John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life’; Rom. 7:5: “For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were through the law, wrought in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.’ Among other New Testament passages they cite Matt. 7:13-19; 13:30, Will the Wicked Be Destroyed? 33 40, 48-49; Luke 18:4-5; John 3:6; 5:24, 40; 6:33-35; S-bls 10°28% 11:25; Rom: 6:21-238':8 :6,.11, 138.91 Cor: o11;2 Thess, 1:9: In these passages, however, without exception, the terms death, perish, etc., very clearly do not imply a passing out of existence, whether used of the soul or even of the body, of which they are apparently used in a few places. Indeed, these terms are used in a metaphorical or moral sense for the terrible evil that thus befalls the soul. In the case of some of these passages there is indeed a difference of opinion as to whether these terms are used of the body or of the soul. But if, or wherever, they are used of the body, they are not even applicable in any argument for an- nihilationism. And if, or wherever, they are used of the soul, they are used only metaphorically or analo- gically, physical death being the basis of the metaphor or analogy. In Deut. 30:15, noted above, life and good are associated, and so are death and evil. And as good is the fruit or accompaniment of life, so is evil the fruit or accompaniment of death. But as there could be no evil to one annihilated, since the idea of evil presupposes conscious existence, the language would be meaningless if death here meant annihilation. And, therefore, as in this passage life is manifestly a state of continued existence with its associated good, so also must death be a state of continued existence with its associated evil. Therefore, death here does not mean annihilation of being any more than does life. The other passages might be analyzed in a similar manner. These men must not consider such passages alone, apart from their contexts, and without the light of explanatory passages that very manifestly are in direct contradiction of their contention, and therefore 34 What after Death? conclusively nullify their arguments. Life is, indeed, existence, but it is more than mere existence; it is existence with the positive element of good or happi- ness in it. And so death, of whatever kind, is also existence; but it is existence with the negative ele- ment of evil, of unhappiness or misery, in it. And with this element of misery in it, it is existence with punishment. Thus the punishment of the future world, which is elsewhere called death (Rev. 20:14-15), is spoken of as being eternal just as truly as is life, as, for example, in Matt. 25:46: “And these shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal life.” Moreover, Jesus says, John 5:24: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believ- eth him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life.” Here the believer is spoken of as being “‘passed out of death into life,” and as already in this world to have “eternal life.” He had been dead, but not annihilated, before—spiritually dead, dead through trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1)—but now in believ- ing he is passed from death unto life; and that life is the foretaste or beginning of everlasting life. The same truth is elsewhere also clearly expressed, as in John 3:36: “He that believeth on the Son hath eter- nal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” Here also the believer is said to have eternal life. And the unbeliever is said not to see life, but to have the wrath of God abiding on him; and therefore, he is dead, and in that state of death he is under the wrath of God, and thus in a sense in punishment. And al- though thus dead—spiritually dead—he is nevertheless Will the Wicked Be Destroyed? 35 physically alive and psychically existing, as is also only too manifest by his unbelief and sad resistance to the Spirit of God. Among other passages in which is taught the same truth—that death is not non-exist- ence—are John 11 :25-26; Acts 1:25; Eph. 2:1-6; Col. Belo seooee ime o o>) Rev. 20210: But as we shall develop this point as to the mean- ing of the words death and destruction, etc., more at length later on, it is not necessary here to attempt a demonstration of the evident meaning of these terms. (2) According to a number of exponents of the theory of conditional immortality, even as according to pure materialists, the soul is but a function of the physical organism and with its dissolution ceases to exist. But those who at least pretend to follow Scrip- ture, generally hold that there will be a resurrection of both the good and the evil, the evil, however, pass- ing out of existence in a second or eternal death, and the good, in this resurrection, receiving immortality as a superadded gift. Some few, however, hold that only the good are thus raised, the evil having, from the very nature of the so-called soul, already passed into non-existence, out of which they are simply not called. And these latter are at least the more con- sistent in their theory. Indeed, there seems to be considerable haziness or confusion in the reasoning of all these various teachers, as the reader cannot fail to notice. But this view is plainly contrary to Christ’s own declaration: “All that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life: and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of judgment” (John 5:28-29). Other passages of sim- ilar import might be cited. The resurrection, these 36 What after Death? men, however, try either simply to spiritualize or al- together to explain away. Indeed, some advocates of other forms of the theory of annihilationism also deny or explain away the resurrection in their zeal to es- tablish their peculiar views. But the resurrection is not thus prevented nor the soul or life annihilated. This form of the theory of conditional immortality is not only contrary to Scripture, but it is also un- philosophic. In assuming that the soul is only a func- tion of the body, it necessarily regards death as the end of the whole being, of both soul and body, thus making its resurrection a virtual re-creation.