p. 274 | THE SOUL by N. Wardner

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · April 29, 1880

FromAdvent Review and Sabbath Herald, Vol. 55, No. 18

THE SOUL.

By N. Wardner

The Third of the Series of Discourses on Life, Soul, Death, and the Resurrection.

BY REV. N. WARDNER, D. D.

"I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ"—spirit and soul, not spirit or soul. 1 Thess. 5: 23.

DR. KELLOGG, and those whom he represents, make but little distinction between soul and spirit, but generally use them as synonymous terms. Such a confounding tends to confuse and mystify, instead of elucidating the teachings of Scripture. He treats of life, mind, and soul, first as scientific questions, and then quotes Scripture to corroborate his conclusions. But our best scientists and philosophers decide that the origin, nature, and destiny of the soul and spirit, do not come within the jurisdiction of science, as shown in my last sermon, and in Bro. O. U. Whitford's essay in the Recorder of March 18; therefore, the Bible, and it alone, can settle this question. The apostle says: "The word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Heb. 4: 12. "Reaching through even to the separation of the animal soul, the lower part of man's corporeal nature, the seat of animal desires, which he has in common with the brutes."—Faussett.

Hebrew and Greek scholars agree that the original words for soul and spirit are distinct, and never translated interchangeably. The term soul is, however, sometimes used figuratively for spirit, a fact which no more proves identity, than in being thus used for body proves it to be flesh and bones, which Scripture clearly contradicts, as in 1 Kings 17: 21, 22: "And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the Lord, and said, O Lord my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again. And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah, and the soul of the child came into him again and he revived." See also Gen. 35: 18. The soul, being the connecting link between the spirit and the body, is sometimes used figuratively for each; and it is a significant fact that when it is so used for spirit, it does not admit the idea of its perishing with the body, as in Matt. 10: 28: "God is a spirit." This is the essential element of his being. He "created" man in his image, but "formed" his body of the dust of the ground. "Therefore the dust shall return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to God who gave it." Eccl. 12: 7. God is not earth, therefore the spirit does not return to the earth with the body. "Create" signifies to produce what did not exist, in element, before. "Make," "form," signifies to mold out of existing materials. God, being pure spirit, can only be likened by spirit; and he has strictly forbidden our using any physical being or substance to represent him.

The spirit is the seat of all spiritual knowledge. "What man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of a man which is in him? Even so, the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." 1 Cor. 2: 11. This is, doubt- less, the reason why mortality, destruction, etc., are never, in Scripture, alleged of a spirit (pneuma). The Greek word psukee (soul) occurs one hundred and five times in the New Testament, and is never translated "spirit." Pneuma (spirit) occurs three hundred and eighty-five times, and is never translated "soul." The apostles used the word pneuma to represent the Spirit of God two hundred and eighty-eight times; but psukee not once. This shows a marked distinction of meaning, in their estimation. Nephesh in Hebrew, psukee in Greek, animus in Latin, and soul in English, mean the same thing,—animal life; while ruach in Hebrew, pneuma in Greek, spiritus in Latin, and spirit in English, represent the rational or moral nature of man. Hence, the Holy Spirit, the spirits of the just, angelic spirits, etc., are never represented by psukee. Such a distinction, so clear-cut and universal, could not be accidental with Infinite Wisdom. Again, pneuma is never, in Scripture, said to be mortal, or to die, or be destroyed. When Christ, or any saint, in dying, is said to commit his spirit to God, pneuma is always used—psukee never. Soul, being a lower term than spirit, and forming the connecting link between body and spirit, becomes the battle ground between the spirit and the flesh. This term is also used with much greater latitude, as the term God is used with more latitude than Jehovah, though often used in its stead. The term god may represent anything that is worshiped; while the term Jehovah is specific in its application. Also the word diamonion (demon), meaning a spirit, is often used for theos (god), as well as for angels and devils; but theos is never used for diamonion, because limited to the highest order of spiritual beings.

The soul is represented in Scripture as capable of perishing; but spirit (pneuma) never. When Stephen was dying, he said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit" (pneuma). Jesus, when dying, said, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" (pneuma). Why thus, if they believed that their spirits perished with their bodies in the grave; especially if they considered them to be simply products of their bodies; and why did they not use the word "soul," instead of "spirit"? Peter said, "I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance, knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath showed me." Here he says I must put off my tabernacle. Does this look as though he thought the tabernacle were one and the same? He refers to the tabernacle as a figure of his body. The tabernacle was built, by command of God, to inclose the ark and the law. The ark and law were not produced by the tabernacle, but remained the same after the tabernacle was taken down. Paul talks in the same way, in 2 Cor. 5: 1–8. Now, if Peter and Paul thought they should go out of existence when their bodies were dissolved by death, they used the most unfit and deceptive illustration imaginable. Paul says that while he was at home in the body, he was absent from the Lord; and therefore was willing to be absent from the body, that he might be present with the Lord. This is very strange language, if he believed he could not exist outside of his body. In Phil. 1: 23, he expresses a desire to depart, i. e., to die, that he might be with Christ, which he said was "far better" for him than to remain in the flesh. How so, if to die was to go out of existence? "Nevertheless," he says, "to abide in the flesh is more needful for you." How could he have used language that would express more clearly the expectation of a conscious existence, separate from the body? In harmony with this idea, he says: "I knew a man in Christ, about fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell; God knoweth), such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man (whether in the body or out of the body, I cannot tell; God knoweth), how that he was caught up into Paradise and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." 2 Cor. 12: 2–4. Here he speaks of an experience that he positively knew, and repeats the statement that he did not know whether he was in the body or out of it when he heard these things. He must have thought it possible to exist, consciously, out of the body, or he would not have made such a statement. Had he believed as our Advent brethren do, he certainly would have used different language from this. Again, Paul contrasts what he expected to enjoy out of the body, with what he would enjoy by continuing in the body; and decided that to leave it was gain. Did he believe that to be out of all communion with Christ, was a more blessed state than to enjoy such communion, even amid persecution? Would he have exchanged even the joy he experienced in the prison at Philippi (Acts 16: 25, 26) for a state of "non-existence"? We are told that it will make no difference to a saint how long he has been dead, since a thousand years will be only as a second of time to him. But, could Paul have looked forward to two or three thousand years of unconscious idleness, cut off from all communion with his Lord, and activity in his cause, with triumphant rejoicing? If so, I have entirely mistaken his character. He who counted all the good things of earth, and the evils of persecution as nothing, that he might win Christ, would count them as nothing that he might enjoy Christ.

Again, the New Testament teaches that demons, or evil spirits, sometimes possess men. Christ testified to the fact, and cast them out; and he said, "A spirit hath not flesh and bones." Luke 24: 39. If they had no flesh and bones, they had no brains; yet they existed, and had intelligence, character, and force. Whenever Christ or his apostles spoke of an evil spirit, they used the word pneuma, but meant pneuma, and the literature and history of that age show that they were understood both by Jews and Greeks to be the spirits of dead men.

I quote the following from Dr. Kitto: "Plato says, Demons are reporters and carriers from men to the gods, and again from the gods to men, of the supplications and prayers of the one, and of the injunctions and rewards of devotion from the other." "And this, says the learned Mede, was the ecumenical philosophy of the apostles' times, and of the times long before them." "Demons were of two kinds, the first were the souls of good men, which, upon their departure from the body, were called heroes, and were afterward raised to the dignity of demons, and subsequently to that of gods." "Plato says that souls, demons, and angels are only different names to imply one and the same substance; and he affirms that Moses calls those angels whom the philosophers call demons. It was also believed that the souls of bad men became evil demons. . . . The other kind of demons were of more noble origin than the human race, having never inhabited human bodies. Josephus uses the word demons in a bad sense. He held that they were the spirits of wicked men."

Christ made a clear distinction between those afflicted with disease, and those possessed by demons. All his teaching and miracles show that he recognized the real existence of such spirits. He and his apostles could not speak of demons entering into a man, or of being cast out of a man, without indorsing the belief of the actual possession of the man by such evil spirits. The existence of such spirits after death was a characteristic belief of the Pharisees, and the chief point of difference between them and the Sadducees; and upon this question, Christ and his apostles sided with the Pharisees against the Sadducees. The inevitable conclusion from their teaching seems to be that the pneuma (spirit) of man is capable of conscious existence without a physical body. Whether it will exist eternally or not, depends upon God's will. He is able to put any being out of existence which he has brought into existence; and if he wills to do so, amen to it. If not, amen to that. Whatever he wills to do will be right. The only question for us is, What has he revealed upon the point? Secret things belong to him, and what he has revealed belong to us.

DR. KELLOGG'S REPLY.

Eld. W. begins his second article on the soul by stating that we "make but little distinction between soul and spirit, but generally use them as synonymous terms." The statement is both correct and incorrect. We are prepared to maintain that in their primary signification there is a distinct difference between the two terms, soul and spirit. Hence the first part of the statement does not properly represent us; but we admit that in the work which Eld. W. has undertaken to review, we have often used the terms interchangeably. Our reason for so doing is that they are thus understood by general readers, and are often so used in the Bible. If we are not greatly mistaken, not a few of the readers of his article will be surprised to learn that he believes otherwise than that the soul and spirit are essentially one and the same. We believe, however, with him, that the Bible recognizes a distinction between soul and spirit; but we shall show presently that not only the Bible, but candid reasoning, will neither sustain nor admit such a distinction as he endeavors to maintain.

Before proceeding further, we wish to say what seems to be demanded at this point—and we hope that neither Eld. W. nor his friends will take offense at the remark—that we have one criticism to offer respecting the method of reasoning of our reviewer, which affects nearly all he has said upon the subjects under consideration; viz., that he assumes, without offering logical proof, 1. That there exists an immaterial entity associated with man, called the spirit; 2. That this entity is the intellectual, rational, responsible part of man. We hold that in a candid, logical investigation of this subject, as with all other investigations, no position can be granted for which there has not been presented logical and indisputable evidence. This is lacking; and we have looked in vain for its presentation, both in the former articles and in the present one. We ask that Eld. W. shall prove by evidence possessing the character of logical consistency, 1. That such a thing as an immaterial substance or entity can exist; 2. That there is such an anomalous being, thing, existence, or whatever it may be called, connected with man; 3. That this immaterial something is the thinking, willing, reasoning part of man. If these three propositions were granted, it would be very easy to find in lexicons, commentaries, etc., any amount of confirmatory evidence, since these works were all prepared by men who held preconceived notions on these points. Any person who is at all familiar with the nature of the ancient languages, and particularly the Hebrew, the only genuine remains of which are represented by the Old Testament, will readily understand how easy it is to find among the various definitions of words given by lexicographers and the numerous renderings presented by various translators, seeming evidence in favor of even the most contradictory positions.

We are not surprised that our reviewer refuses to consider this question from a scientific standpoint.

Instead of noticing the arguments adduced, he dismisses them with the remark, "Our best scientists and philosophers decide that the origin, nature, and destiny of the soul and spirit do not come within the jurisdiction of science, as shown in my last sermon and in Bro. O. U. Whitford's essay in the Recorder of March 18." We noticed the assertions made upon this point by our reviewer and the writer referred to, but have not yet been furnished with proof sufficient to establish the point at issue. But let this be as it may, here is a point of great importance to which we would invite the attention of the reader. Scientific men, even according to the admission of Eld. W., agree in asserting that science affords no evidence of the existence of such a thing as the orthodox conception of an immaterial, conscious entity called the soul. Of this kind of a soul, science certainly knows nothing. Eld. W. is right. He cannot hope to find any scientific evidence in support of this view, and hence, as before remarked, we are not in the least surprised that he carefully avoids any scientific consideration of the subject. We hazard nothing in the assertion that all the evidence which science affords on this question, and it does afford some of a very important character, is directly and irreconcilably opposed to the view referred to. The theory of the soul offered by popular theologians for the acceptance of scientists is so utterly at variance with the recognized truths of science that it is no wonder the scientist exclaims, "This is a doctrine about which science knows nothing;" and "If such a thing as an immaterial substance, a conscious, thinking entity independent of matter, exists, the proof must be sought elsewhere than in the realms of science." A scientist who insists upon satisfying the law of consistency with reference to the beliefs which he entertains, never will and never can accept a dogma so utterly at variance with the evidence of his senses, and which rests wholly upon hypothetical grounds. This very fact affords one of the most potent reasons for the well-known skepticism of scientific men. Supposing that the theological dogma of an immortal, immaterial, conscious spirit independent of man's physical organism is based upon the Bible, and that it is a necessary inference from its teachings, they reject the Bible altogether rather than accept a doctrine which to them appears so monstrously absurd. We do not make this statement without having sufficient grounds for so doing. We have met many workers in science in the meetings of various scientific associations, and from conversation we have again and again received convincing evidence of the truth of this view respecting the cause of the great increase of infidelity among scientists. Not long ago we saw it stated by a reliable authority that at the University at Oxford, England, many of the young men who entered that institution to fit themselves for the ministry were renouncing not only the doctrine in question but the Bible also, by which they supposed it to be taught, and solely on account of the utter unreconcilability of the view in question with recognized scientific facts. We believe that the truth on this subject, as well as on all others, will agree with the facts of science, though it may disagree with some scientific hypotheses; since the God of nature and of inspiration is the same, and his revelations to man through the two sources ought to be in harmony. Notwithstanding the expressed desire of Eld. W. to confine the discussion of this question wholly to the Bible, we must insist that it is a legitimate subject of inquiry from a scientific point of view. Indeed, we believe that from science alone can a concise idea of the nature of the soul be obtained. The Bible leaves us considerably in the dark respecting many important questions. Although it treats of the creation of the world, it leaves man to find out by investigation the nature of the globe on which he lives, its shape, size, structure, and relations to other parts of the universe. It reveals somewhat more respecting the nature of man, but leaves much to be learned by him through his own investigations; and one of the most important subjects left for him to study is the nature of the soul. The Bible gives to man the assurance of a life hereafter, and gives some glimpses of the nature of that life; but it leaves him to find out by his own study, with the aid of slight hints from inspiration, how the present is to be linked to the future state of existence without loss of identity.

But now let us notice carefully the arguments adduced by our reviewer from the Bible, or supposed to be based upon the language of Scripture. He says: "Hebrew and Greek scholars agree that the original words for soul and spirit are distinct, and never translated interchangeably." By this statement we understand to be meant that the original words for soul and spirit are not only different, but are never used to indicate the same thing. As we shall show presently, this is true only in part. The original words are dif- ferent, but their use is by no means so distinct as represented.

"The soul," says Eld. W., "is the connecting link between the spirit and the body;" but no proof is offered in support of the statement. We ask for evidence of the truth of this theory. If none is produced, we must consider it in the light of an unproven hypothesis.

Our reviewer quotes John 4: 24, "God is a spirit," as the foundation for his next argument, adding, "This is the essential element of his being." We believe that numerous texts in the Bible show clearly enough that God is something more than "an immaterial entity." We cannot dwell upon this question at length here, but will ask the attention of the reader to the following texts: "Who [Christ] being the brightness of his [God's] glory and the express image of his person." Heb. 1: 3. "Who [Christ] is the image of the invisible God." Col. 1: 15. "Who, being in the form of God." Phil. 2: 6. Can an immaterial essence have the property of form? Certainly not; for form is a property of matter. Yet Christ asserts, in substance, that God has a form, and that he has the same form. Christ also says that he was the image of his Father's person. The Greek word here used for person is, in Heb. 11: 1, translated substance. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for." According to MacKnight the text means, "an exact image of his substance." From these texts it is very clear that the above argument is based upon a weak foundation, or at least, that before an argument can be legitimately built upon the immateriality of God, it must be shown that such is his nature—a position, which, as just seen, is contrary to the plain teachings of the Scriptures.

Eld. W. continues, "He 'created' man in his image, but 'formed' his body of the dust of the ground. 'Create' signifies to produce what did not exist, in element, before. 'Make,' 'form,' signifies to mold out of existing materials." We are not quite sure that our reviewer himself has the utmost confidence in this argument, as he does not state it as fully as he might. The only way in which it has any force, to our mind, is when understood thus: The word create, according to Eld. W., means to produce something, even the material or elements of which did not exist before. Hence when used respecting man, it cannot have reference to his body, since his body was made of clay, which did exist before, but must refer to his immaterial spirit, his rational, thinking part, which was made in the image of God. That this is the sense of the argument cannot be doubted, since the word "form" is held up in contrast with "create." Now let us see how this theory will work. The same text which says, "In the image of God created he him," also says, "Male and female created he them." Now as our reviewer maintains that "create" does not refer to the material or physical nature of man which was "formed," to be consistent he must drop his belief in the trinity and adopt the views of those dualistic philosophers who maintain that God is male and female. He must also hold that the human spirit, instead of the body, possesses the property of sex. In no other way can his theory be made to harmonize with the text.

Again, in Gen. 1: 21 we read, "And God created great whales." Here again we have the very same original word, bara, used in each of the other instances. Now, if, as maintained by Eld. W., "create," cannot refer to the matter or elements of which the whales were composed, to what can it refer? If consistent with his theory, he must maintain with reference to the whales as he did respecting man, that the word refers to the production in them of an immaterial, conscious, thinking, rational, responsible entity, or what he holds to be the immortal spirit. We feel sure that no amount of credulity or prejudice in favor of a preconceived view will enable any person to accept or hold a theory which involves so insuperable a difficulty as this. We might adduce other cogent arguments on this point, but forbear for the present. Let us see for a moment, however, how beautifully harmonious with the Scripture language is the view that the thing created, the soul, was the organization. We agree with Eld. W. that "create" probably does not refer to the matter of which Adam and all other living beings were formed. The thing created was the organization of man and of animals. The creation of man was simply the organization of matter. The matter had existed before; the organization had not previously existed. Evidently the word create must refer to the thing which had not before existed, and hence it must refer to the organization. There is no means of escaping this conclusion. With this view the texts under consideration present no difficulty, since lower animals possess organizations as well as man.

Eld. W. says, "The spirit is the seat of all spiritual knowledge," and quotes in proof 1 Cor. 2: 11, "What man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." This text proves nothing, since the original word here used for spirit, pneuma, may with equal propriety be rendered mind, which is one of the principal definitions given to it by Robinson in his "Greek and English Lexicon." Paul used the same word in the same sense in 1 Cor. 5: 3, as follows: "For I verily, as absent in body but present in spirit." Eld. W. will not claim that Paul's spirit left his body and made a visit to the Corinthians while he was penning his epistle to them! The obvious meaning of the text is, that as no one can tell the thoughts of another's mind, so the thoughts and purposes of God are known only to his own mind.

Eld. W. next remarks as follows: "Nephesh in Hebrew, psukee in Greek, animus in Latin, and soul in English mean the same thing—animal life; while ruach in Hebrew, pneuma in Greek, spiritus in Latin, and spirit in English, represent the rational or moral nature of man." He then adds, "Such a distinction, so clear-cut and universal, could not be accidental with Infinite Wisdom." Here seems to be a strong argument in favor of the position represented by our reviewer. Let us examine it with care. He affirms that the distinction which he has made in the meaning of the original words referred to is "clear-cut and universal." Let us examine a few texts with reference to this statement. First we will notice the Hebrew word ruach. According to Eld. W., this word means "the rational or moral nature of man." In Eccl. 3: 19, 21, we read as follows: "Yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast: for all is vanity." "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?" The words breath and spirit in these texts are from the very same original word, which, according to Eld. W., means "the rational or moral nature of man." Let us see how this rendering would read: "For that which befalleth the sons of men, befalleth beasts. . . . Yea, they have all one 'rational or moral nature.' 'Who knoweth the 'rational or moral nature' of man that goeth upward, and 'the rational or moral nature' of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?'" No comments are necessary.

Eld. W. says that the Hebrew word under consideration means the same as the Latin, spiritus, but one of the principal definitions of the word given by Gesenius in his "Hebrew and English Lexicon," is anima, which Eld. W. says means animal life. Gesenius further defines the word as meaning "the vital breath," "the principle of life as embodied and manifested in the breath of the mouth and nostrils," in illustration of which meaning he cites the very text quoted by our reviewer as an illustration of an opposite meaning; viz., Eccl. 12: 7: "Then [not therefore as quoted by Eld. W.] shall the dust return to the earth as it was; and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." The opinion of the learned author quoted supports our view and wholly disproves the opposite, since it applies the term spirit in this text to the breath, or life imparted by the breath, while our reviewer applies it to "the rational or moral nature."

Again, it is claimed that the Greek word pneuma, means the same as the Hebrew ruach, viz., "the rational or moral nature of man." Let us examine this point a moment. In Gen. 7: 15 we read, "And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life." In the Septuagint version the word translated breath is pneuma. The very same word occurs in its poetic form in Gen. 2: 7: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life." It is evident, then, from our reviewer's own reasoning, that if pneuma means the "rational or moral nature" which was breathed into man's nostrils by the Creator, beasts of all classes, from the highest mammal down to the lowest insect, are man's peers, since according to Gen. 7: 15 they also possess the very same pneuma.

It is worthy of mention that the same word is also used in the original in Eccl. 12: 7, "The spirit shall return unto God who gave it." It thus appears that if Eld. W.'s reasoning proves anything, it proves too much, more than either himself or those whom he represents will be willing to admit. We are willing, however, to admit all that is proven, provided that we may substitute different definitions for the terms spirit and soul. We define the word spirit as used in the Scriptures to mean the breath or that which is dependent upon it, life, and mind with its various attributes, which result from life. The soul we define as the organization (not the organism, which includes the matter organized), and the various attributes and products of organization, chief among which are life,

mind and body. Each word has its primary and its secondary or figurative signification.

Again, it is said, "pneuma is never, in Scripture, said to be mortal, or to die, or to be destroyed." Certainly not. The pneuma is never represented as having life. It is the means of imparting life, but does not itself possess life or intelligence, and hence it has no life to lose, and it would be eminently improper to speak of it as dying. Money possesses the power to make its possessor rich, but it is not itself rich, neither can it be said to become poor.

It is further remarked that "when Christ or any saint, in dying, is said to commit his soul to God, pneuma is always used." The very obvious reason for this is that the dying person gives up the very same thing God gave to man at his creation, the breath or life-giving element. We would suggest as a thought worthy of the reader's attention that if it be true that "death is the gate to endless bliss,"—that at the moment of dissolution the spirit escapes from its earthly tenement and with untrammeled wings soars away to glory,—if this be true, the spirit is better prepared than ever to care for itself, and the special prayer to God to receive and care for it is in the highest degree inappropriate. If, however, the view be held that at death consciousness is suspended, and all that represents the individual is left in the keeping of God in the form of a complete life-record, constituting a description of the organization,—we say if this view be held, then it is in the highest degree appropriate that at death the soul or spirit should be commended to the care of Him who created man, and who alone has the power to restore him to life in the resurrection. Eld. W. asks, "Why did they not use the word 'soul' instead of 'spirit'?" The obvious answer to this question, as already observed, is that since the thing given to man by the Creator was the pneuma or life-giving breath, it is the same pneuma that is given up at death. The thing that goes back to God is the same thing that came from him, which, as elsewhere shown, is the life-imparting breath, that which sets in motion the vital machinery, the very same thing that was given to all living animals. The breath goes out of the body, and life ceases. The close relation between the breath and life has caused it to become a sort of symbol for life itself, and it is so used, not only in the Bible, but in common parlance at the present time. For example, a man in dying is said to "breathe his last," to "breathe out his life," etc. The same could in no sense be said of the soul, or organization, hence the appropriateness of the usage.

Eld. W. refers to 2 Cor. 5: 1–8, in which passage Paul says, "For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the Heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from Heaven: if so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked." A parallel text is cited from 2 Peter 1: 13, 14. It is argued that Paul makes a sharp distinction between himself and his body, and Peter likewise. We readily grant that this text contains some somewhat obscure expressions, and at first sight seems to contradict the views which we have endeavored to maintain; nevertheless we believe that the language can by fair interpretation be reconciled with the views in question. Let us, however, consider for a moment some of the difficulties which the text will involve as interpreted by Eld. W.

1. If the house or tabernacle spoken of by Paul means the body, then we are compelled to believe that not only Paul but every Christian, at least, has two bodies, an earthly body and a heavenly, at the same time, which is certainly absurd.

2. It will also be necessary for those who hold this view to accept the position that the soul will require a body in the future world as well as in this, which many who believe with Eld. W. respecting the nature of the soul will be unwilling to do.

3. If the language employed by Paul and Peter necessarily implies that there is a spirit separate from the body, such expressions as "the Spirit of the Lord," "My [God's] Spirit," etc., which abound in the Scriptures, as certainly imply that God possesses a body distinct from his spirit, which Eld. W. cannot allow, since he holds that God is "pure spirit."

Peter's meaning when he says, "I must put off my tabernacle" is evident from the very next verse, 2 Pet. 1: 15, in which he refers to the same event as "my decease." Whatever is meant by the highly figurative expression employed by the apostle, it is evident that it does not imply the survival of his conscious, thinking part, "his rational or moral nature," since he spoke of his death; and Solomon says, Eccl. 9: 5, "The dead know not anything;" and in Ps. 146: 4 we read, "His breath [ruach] goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish." If Solomon had believed as does Eld. W., he would have used a very different expression. We should expect that he would have said, instead of, "The dead know not anything," When a man dies, he becomes wiser than ever before. And the psalmist should have said, instead of, "In that very day his thoughts perish," He begins to think as he never thought before.

The difficulties in these texts disappear when we consider the language to be of a figurative character, the terms house and tabernacle meaning state or condition rather than the body.

2 Cor. 12: 2–4 is quoted in the same connection to show that man may have an existence independent of the body. The text referred to gives an account of a vision in which the apostle Paul heard "unspeakable words," etc. The particular language made use of by Eld. W. is the expression, "whether in the body I cannot tell, or whether out of the body I cannot tell." In 1 Cor. 5: 3 we have a text which is exactly analogous. Paul, in writing to the Corinthians, said, "For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit." Paul says, Though my body is absent from you, my spirit is present with you. Ignoring the figure employed, as is done in the parallel passage by those who use it to sustain the doctrine of an immaterial conscious entity in man, called the spirit, we should understand this text as meaning that Paul's spirit was in Corinth, while his body was several hundred miles away, in Ephesus. This must certainly be the condition referred to by Paul as "out of the body." Certainly Paul's immaterial spirit, his "rational or moral nature," would be as much out of his body if in Corinth while his body was in Ephesus as though it were in Paradise. Will it be admitted that Paul intends to say that his "rational or moral nature" was actually in Corinth at the very moment when he was writing his epistle? Hardly, we suspect. What Paul meant was that his thoughts were with his brethren at Corinth, that he was with them in imagination; and this is just what he means in 2 Cor. 12: 2–4. He intimates that he may have been "out of the body" in the same way that he was out of the body when present in spirit at Corinth. The experience which he had was so real and lifelike to him that he could not tell whether he was actually taken up to Paradise bodily, or only in imagination or in vision.

An argument is built upon the hypothesis that Paul would not have said "to die is gain," if he had supposed that he would be obliged to lie unconscious in the grave for two or three thousand years; but John the Revelator says that he heard a voice from Heaven saying, "Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord," and the reason of their blessedness given is that "they may rest from their labors." Paul would really gain, then, in that he would enjoy a blessed rest from the trials and tribulations with which he was beset on every hand, even though he should lie in the grave. That Paul did not expect to "depart and be with Christ" at his death, however desirable he may have thought it would be to do so, is evident from the fact that he looked forward to the coming of Christ as the time when he should receive his reward. "And when the Chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away," 1 Pet. 5: 4. "Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day; and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing." 2 Tim. 4: 8. "For the Lord himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the Archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." 1 Thess. 4: 16, 17. From the above texts it is clearly evident that the time when Paul expected to receive his reward, and to "be with Christ," was at his second coming, when all the righteous dead will be resurrected, and the righteous living "changed." Whether or not Paul expected to be among the living at that time it is not essential for us to decide.

The next and last argument offered is based upon the existence of evil spirits, and the fact that Christ recognized that human beings were sometimes possessed by them, and that he, in many instances, "cast out devils." Eld. W. quotes Luke 24: 39, "A spirit hath not flesh and bones," and adds, "If they had no flesh and bones, they had no brains; yet they existed, and had intelligence, character, and force." This is seemingly a strong argument for the possibility of conscious existence independent of a brain or mind organ; but a little attention to the original words employed will relieve the difficulty. The words of Christ were uttered for the purpose of quieting the fears of the trembling disciples, who "supposed that they had seen a spirit." According to the learned Griesbach, the word rendered spirit in verse 37 is not pneuma, but phantasma, or phantom, which, according to Webster, is "that which has only an imaginary existence;" "an airy spirit." In his remark, "A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have," Christ evidently referred to the very same kind of a spirit which the disciples supposed they had seen, viz., a phantom. Such a spirit would, of course, not only be utterly devoid of flesh, bones, and brains, but equally so of tangible existence. The kind of spirits which Christ cast out must have been of a very different order; and, as shown, his remark has no reference to them. He only said, A phantom has not flesh and bones, which is evidently true, since it is only an imaginary existence. Again, Christ, after his resurrection, was himself a spirit, according to Eld. W.'s view, since he laid off his material body at death; but he said distinctly that he had both flesh and bones, and undoubtedly had brains also. Here, then, even according to our reviewer's view, and the testimony of Christ, we have an example of a material spirit. Christ did not deny that he was a spiritual or heavenly being, but asserted that he was not a phantom, and proved that he was not such, by calling attention to his materiality. What more convincing evidence could be required?

If it be inquired how a material spirit could enter into a man, we answer, We believe the language employed to be highly figurative. Of the nature of spirit possession we may perhaps gain an accurate idea from the following texts: "Until Christ be formed in you." Gal. 4: 19. "Christ in you, the hope of glory." Col. 1: 27. It will not be urged that Christ was actually formed within the person. The language is figurative, evidently referring to the mental condition of the individual, having particular relation to the purposes and motives. A person in this condition would be really possessed by Christ, having become, as expressed in 2 Cor. 5: 17, "a new creature." Just so with demoniacal possession. The evil spirit did not actually enter into the person possessed, but controlled him by filling his mind with evil thoughts and purposes. Casting out an evil spirit was simply delivering an individual from its influence, and thus actually casting out of the mind the evil designs and purposes placed there by it.

The fact that a Jewish sect believed that the spirit might exist independent of the body after its death proves nothing, since certain sects of the Jews believed not only in the future existence of the spirit independent of the body, but also in its past existence, before it was connected with the body, which is certainly more than our reviewer would admit. We do not find the evidence that either Christ or the apostles sided with any one of the various sects which existed among the Jews at the time of the first advent, or indorsed any of their notions which were contrary to the Bible.

Let us notice briefly the various arguments which have been adduced by Eld. W. in this article, and considered in reply.

1. We do not make proper distinction between the soul and the spirit.

Ans. Eld. W. has misunderstood us. We make as wide a distinction, in fact, as he does, but use the terms interchangeably because they are often so used in Scripture and usually in common parlance.

2. The subject under consideration does not come within the jurisdiction of science.

Ans. Science does ignore the existence of the soul or spirit as an immaterial entity, but affords strong evidence of the existence of a soul of a more rational character. The question is peculiarly a scientific one.

3. God is "pure spirit."

Ans. The Bible represents God as something more than an immaterial spirit, and Eld. W.'s mode of argument proves the same.

4. In Gen. 2: 7, create refers to the spirit, not the body, since "create signifies to produce what did not exist, in element, before."

Ans. Then sex is a property of spirit, and God is male and female.—"Male and female created he them," and whales have spirits as well as man. Gen. 1: 21.

5. The use of the Hebrew ruach and the Greek pneuma show that the spirit is the "rational or moral nature of man."

Ans. If they do prove this, they also prove that lower animals have the same "rational or moral nature," being used for both man and beasts.

6. Pneuma, spirit, is never said to die.

Ans. The reason is obvious. Nothing can die that has not life. The spirit or pneuma is never represented as having life. It is a means of producing life, but does not itself possess life.

7. Peter speaks of putting off this tabernacle, and Paul of being unclothed.