Your ShelfYour Projects

DEATH

2%

Seventh-Day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Thursday, May 6, 1880

FromThe Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Vol. 55, No. 19

Read the full edition

DEATH

By N. Waggoner

The Fourth of the Series of Discourses on Life, Soul, Death, and the Resurrection.
BY REV. N. WAGGONER, D. D.
“But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Gen. 2:17.
Dr. Murphy renders it, “In the day of thy eating thereof, die, surely shalt thou.” He claims to translate literally. The day of Adam’s eating was to be the day of his death. Did that mean 930 years afterward? Dr. Murphy says, “Death, in reference to man, is regarded, in Scripture, much more as a privation of life in the sense of a state of favor with God, and consequent happiness, than as the mere cessation of animal life.” Man dies, physically, like a beast; but spiritually, as a beast is incapable of dying, being destitute of a spiritual nature. According to Scripture, men can die a spiritual death without dying a physical death, and may die a physical death without dying a spiritual death; both of which would be impossible if spiritual existence depended upon the body.
In Gen. 3:14–19, we find an entirely different description of the result of the fall from that in our text, and an entirely different reason is assigned for it. A temporal curse is pronounced upon the serpent, the man, and the woman; and the curse differed according to the nature and relation of each to God and to the other, and was limited to the present state of existence. God winds up by saying to Adam, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” His returning to dust refers simply to his body, which came from the dust and was nourished by it. “The spirit returns to God who gave it.” Eccl. 12:7. God is not dust, therefore the spirit did not come from the dust nor does it return to dust. This death, also, was spoken of after the other death threatened had taken place, and was to occur at some indefinite future time, and happened 930 years afterward; while the other occurred on the day of his eating the forbidden fruit, as threatened. It is evident that Adam’s physical death was caused by being cut off from access to the tree of life, which, doubtless, would have had the same effect had he not sinned, it being said that he would live forever after the fall, as before, if access could still be had to that tree. But he died to fellowship with God before he was thus cut off from that tree, and was cut off for that reason, showing that physical death was not the primary penalty, but only a secondary result; for from that time unregenerate men are declared to be dead in trespasses and sins, while still alive physically, intellectually, socially, and as moral agents, which could not be if death means “a state of non-existence.”
Eld. Waggoner says that “since this time, this death temporal has not been the punishment for personal transgression. This is evident for two reasons: 1st. Infants die who never have transgressed. 2d. In the Judgment we stand to answer for our deeds, and the second death is inflicted for personal sin.”—Atonement, 2d. edition, p. 58. But how was it with Adam? Was temporal death the penalty for his personal transgression, or not? If it was, why should infants, who never sinned, suffer the same penalty that he did for his transgression? Is this impartial justice? Has not God said, “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father”? If temporal death was the penalty proper for Adam’s personal sin, it grew out of his moral relation to God and his government, and being the federal head of the race, it must apply unchanged to his posterity. How could Adam’s transgression simply call for one death and that of his posterity call for two, while no more guilty than he? God has declared himself to be no respecter of persons.
Eld. U. Smith says: “The same fearful sentence has everywhere, from first to last, been pronounced against sin,—‘The soul that sinneth it shall die!’ Sentence was pronounced against Adam for his sin; it is pronounced upon us for our sin. It was told Adam he should die; it is told us that we shall die. We have seen the effect death had upon Adam; and who shall affirm that it will have a different effect upon us?”—Mortal or Immortal (1865), p. 96. He here affirms that no other penalty or suffering is to be inflicted upon Adam’s posterity for their sins than was inflicted upon him for his sin, and that we have seen what that was. This seems to put him and Eld. W. in antagonism. If Adam only suffered physical death, and that but once, for his sin, what justice can there be in inflicting the same penalty twice upon his posterity for the same offense? Is it consistent and just that those who are not responsible for Adam’s sin should be made to suffer the same for his transgression as he did, and then be brought into existence again and burnt up for doing as he did, while he only died one natural death for all his sins?
Mr. Smith says, “Death is a state of non-existence.” p. 95. According to his theory, this “state of non-existence” is the penalty which God affixed to sin. And after Adam or any of his posterity has suffered that penalty, what justice or reason can there be in forcing him into existence again, and repeat the same penalty in a more terrible way, for the same sin?
Eld. Canright interprets Matt. 10:28 thus: “He [Christ] says in the text that men can destroy the body; but their power ends there; the principle of life is not annihilated. God will restore it to him at the resurrection; but after this, when God shall destroy the body, as men do here, the principle of life itself, the soul, if you please, will be destroyed, annihilated.”—Signs of the Times, March 20, 1879. He here admits that there is a principle of life in man that exists after the body is destroyed, which he calls the soul. This is an unqualified acknowledgment that the soul is not dependent upon the body for its existence.
Eld. Loughborough comments thus: “Fear not them that take your present life, but cannot kill the soul (take away your eternal life).”—Hope of the Gospel, A. D. 1860, p. 55. Here he decides that killing a man’s body is not killing his soul; therefore the soul is not the body, nor dependent upon it for life or existence. These statements show that Christ’s language makes his meaning so unmistakable that it is impossible to misunderstand it. The Scriptures clearly teach that what made Adam a conscious, accountable being did not proceed from his body, and Christ says men cannot destroy it by destroying the body, and therefore it will continue to exist without the body. If there can be no conscious existence separate from a material body, then the question arises, Had Christ a conscious existence before he had a material body? Dr. Kellogg insists that there can be no thought without brains. Did Christ have no thoughts till he had a material body and brains?
Eld. Waggoner explains Christ’s incarnation thus: “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. This is plain language, and no parable. The angel also announced to Mary that her son Jesus should be called the Son of the Highest; and that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Not that the Son of the Highest should dwell in and inhabit that which should be born of her, but her Son was that holy, pre-existent one; thus by the energy of the Holy Ghost made flesh; now, if the human nature of Christ existed distinct from the divine, the foregoing declaration will not apply to either; for, if that were so, the pre-existent Word was not made flesh.”—The Atonement, 2d. edition, p. 89. Here he insists that “the Word was made flesh”; that this is not a figure of speech, like the statement of Christ about the bread and wine—“this is my body,” “this is my blood”—but that the divine Word was literally transmuted into flesh. He evidently means this; for he insists that the human and divine natures of Christ did not exist in him distinct from each other; for if that were so, “the pre-existent Word was not made flesh.”
In another place he says, “This Word is the pre-existent divinity, the Word of life.” This divinity, then, was transmuted into the flesh of the man Christ Jesus, so that when he died on the cross, it died in his flesh.
Eld. Smith says, “Death is a state of non-existence.” If so, then Christ, with his divinity, went out of existence when he died. Then what was his pre-existent divinity, if it could be thus put out of existence by men? If the pre-existent divinity was thus absolutely transmuted into flesh and died, became non-existent, was the universe left without any divine Being for three days and nights? Or is there a plurality of such Beings? And who raised Christ to life again? He, speaking of the death of his body, said, “I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again.”
Again, if his divinity was made into flesh and annihilated at death, when did he possess immortality, before his advent or at his resurrection? Was that immortality an element of his divinity, which became flesh, or did he obtain it from some other source?
But in describing the awful doom of the wicked, Mr. Smith says, “There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of God, and ye yourselves thrust out. The sinner then begins to see what he has lost; the sense of it, like a barbed arrow, pierces his soul; and the thought that the glorious inheritance before him might have been his but for his own self-willed and perverse career, sets the keenest edge upon every pang of remorse. And as he looks far away into eternity, to the utmost limit which the mind’s eye can reach, and gets a glimpse of the inconceivable blessedness and glory which he might have enjoyed but for his idol, sin, the hopeless thought that all is lost will be sufficient to rend the hardest and most obdurate heart with unutterable agony. Say not, then, that loss of existence, under such circumstances, is no penalty or punishment.”—Man’s Nature and Destiny, p. 276.
Is the above a description of “a state of non-existence”? If so, what is existence? I ask, Who would not, under such circumstances, hail the assurance of eternal annihilation with the greatest joy, since it would forever free men from such torture? According to Mr. Smith’s theory, neither mental nor physical suffering is any part of the penalty for sin, and why should men be thus tortured before the penalty comes? He claims that death is the penalty for sin, and that “death is a state of non-existence”; and that “death is a state which can be reached only on a complete extinction of life. As long as there is life about a man, he is not dead.” p. 98. Therefore man receives no penalty for sin till he reaches death, “non-existence.” What precedes the penalty is not the penalty. “All the suffering, which he so glowingly describes, results from life, and is no part of the penalty for sin, if his theory be true. But in what seems to be direct contradiction to his theory, he goes on to describe degrees of punishment to suit degrees of guilt. “While some may perish in a short space of time, the weary sufferings of others may be long drawn out. But yet we apprehend that the bodily suffering will be but an unnoticeable trifle, compared with that mental agony, that keen anguish which will rack their souls, as they get a view of their incomparable loss, each, according to his capacity of appreciation.”—Mortal or Immortal, p. 105. Such a description would be perfectly consistent for one to give who holds that the spirit of man exists in a conscious state after death, but seems perfectly irreconcilable with Mr. Smith’s theory of man’s nature and the penalty for sin. The suffering he describes all results from life and the action of mind. It is not the effect of fire on the body, but consists in spiritual regrets and forebodings, which, he says, render “bodily suffering an unnoticeable trifle.”
This he holds up as the penalty for sin, in direct contradiction to his claim that said penalty is death—non-existence—which he seems to be dissatisfied with, and so gives a glowing description of just such a penalty as any orthodox theologian would contend for.
Our Saviour said, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” John 3:36. God’s wrath cannot abide on that which does not exist. Christ here affirms that all who do not believe are dead, yet represents them as existing and responsible for their choice and actions, the same as he who has everlasting life, and that they shall suffer the abiding of God’s wrath upon them as the penalty for their sins.
Again: “Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.” Matt. 19:29. If “everlasting life” is any reward, it is because something besides mere existence is meant by it. And if death is any penalty, it is because something besides “non-existence” is meant by it.
Christ said, “If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.” John 8:51. This statement cannot be true if he meant the death of the body; yet we are told that the body is the man. Christ must have meant a death entirely different from that of the body, and of vastly more consequence. It was on this ground that he said to his disciples, “Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear Him that is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” That man will not cease all conscious existence when the body dies, is evident, not only from the passages quoted above, but from Christ’s statements concerning Lazarus and Dives. Luke 16:20–25. He was trying to impress upon the people that wealth and influence in this world was of small account compared with treasures laid up in Heaven; and that what was “highly esteemed by men, was abomination in the sight of God”; and the “Pharisees, who were covetous, derided him.” He then introduced this narrative to show the folly of setting such a value upon wealth and position. The characters he draws represent the extreme of wealth, honor, and worldly joy, on one hand; and of destitution, friendlessness, and wretchedness, on the other. The latter is soon relieved by death from his sufferings and shame, and angels become his convoy to his happy resting-place. Then the rich man dies, and is buried; and “in hell, he lifts up his eyes, being in torment,” and sees Lazarus, whom he lately despised, at rest and honored; while he, so noble and honored on earth, was deserted of God, and in torment. Gladly would he now change places with the object of his former scorn. But he is told to remember that in his lifetime he had his good things, and Lazarus his evil things. Though his body was dead and buried, he could still remember, think, and feel. It is now his turn to ask charity, even from Lazarus. But he is told that his prayer cannot be granted. He then remembers that he has five brethren still living in the flesh, and he wants Lazarus to go and warn them that they may so improve their probation that they may escape his doom. But he was told that they had Moses and the prophets to instruct them. He, however, pleads that if one should go to them from among the dead, they would be more apt to heed the warning. It was replied that if they would not believe what God had said by Moses, they would not believe one who might rise from the dead.
Now, it seems clear that Christ meant to teach the truth that whoever gives himself up to the enjoyment of this world, will find his condition reversed at death; and on the other hand, whoever gives himself to the service of God, in love, even at the loss of every earthly good, will be a great gainer at death; and both classes will remember and realize these facts, even while their fellow-men are enjoying their probation on earth.
Our Advent friends say, “If men enter upon their rewards and punishment at death, there is no need of a resurrection or final Judgment.” If physical death is the penalty for sin, this argument would apply forcibly, so far as the wicked are concerned; but it misrepresents our position. I do not hold that men enter upon their full rewards and punishments at death, but that they have a stronger foretaste and realization of what their eternal state is to be than they can have in this world; and the Judgment day will so clearly reveal the mysteries of God’s providences that every soul will be compelled to acknowledge his past dealings and final decisions to be just and wise, so that he will henceforth be intelligently loved and worshiped by the saints; and the condemned will know their doom was self-wrought in opposition to God’s will and the infinite provision of his mercy: which is a sufficient reason for such a Judgment day at any period.
In Luke 23:43, we have our Saviour’s reply to the thief, which clearly indicates that they were both to pass that day into paradise, or the unseen world, understood at that time to be the habitation of the dead till the resurrection. We are told, however, that Christ did not mean to say that the thief should be there with him the day on which they died, but that he meant to assure him that day, that he should thus be with him at some time in the distant future. But is it reasonable that Christ should make such a solemn asseveration that he made the statement on that particular day, as though afraid the thief would think he said it some other day? It was of no importance about the day on which the thief heard this promise; but the assurance that he would be with his Lord in paradise as soon as his present sufferings were ended was of great value to him, under the circumstances.
A few words about the first and second death, and I close this discourse. Our Advent friends claim that both these deaths are physical, and mean “non-existence”; the first continues till the resurrection, and the second is annihilation by fire after the Judgment. On the contrary, I understand the first death to be the loss of communion and fellowship with God, caused by sin. “To be carnally minded is death.” This did not place man beyond the reach of God’s mercy, as provided for in Christ; he is still a probationer; but when this season of grace shall end, and Christ leaves his mediatorial seat, and as the final Judge declares their doom, they will then be cast out from his presence, and the glory of his power, into outer darkness, where no ray of hope can ever reach them. This is the second death. Their moral state is essentially the same—at enmity with God—but in the first stage they are under a probation of mercy, while the other is a hopeless state of final rejection.

REPLY

In this article Eld. W. endeavors to establish the theory that physical death is not the penalty of Adam’s transgression, but a “secondary result” of the fall. As a foundation for this view he quotes Dr. Murphy’s rendering of Gen. 2:17: “In the day of thy eating thereof, die, surely shalt thou.” The fact that Dr. Murphy’s rendering is appealed to clearly indicates that the text as it stands in the accepted translation is not considered to be clearly favorable to the view advanced. We are utterly at a loss, however, to see how the rendering quoted helps the case in the least. Indeed, the only difference which we can discover in the two versions is that Dr. Murphy’s is inelegant in construction, and justly open to the charge of being poor English. There does not appear to be even a shade of difference in meaning. But if Dr. Murphy’s rendering did in any way favor Eld. W.’s view, it is clear that it could not be considered as reliable evidence, since it is very evident that the translator had a theory to maintain, and endeavored to make his translation to fit his theory. The word of God has often suffered violence in this way, and hence it is but just that care should be exercised in the selection of authorities on such points.
Having thus seen that even when viewed in the most favorable light the argument is a weak one, and really altogether lacking in point, let us now consider the facts in the case. Eld. W. makes everything turn upon the word day. That the word does not mean a twenty-four-hour day is evident from the text itself, as will be seen by any one who has a reference Bible and will take the trouble to turn to Gen. 2:17. The words of the text are, “Thou shalt surely die,” margin, “Dying thou shalt die.” The obvious meaning of the text is, that in consequence of eating of the forbidden fruit, man would pass into a state subject to death, “dying thou shalt die.” What is meant by death is explained in Gen. 3:19: “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” But the last vestige of even apparent support for the theory advanced by Eld. W. is removed when we learn by an examination of the original of the word day, Hebrew, yom, and its use in the Bible, that the sacred writer had no reference whatever to a period of twenty-four hours, but used the word in the sense of time. An instance of this use of the word is found in the very same chapter which contains the text under consideration. Gen. 2:4, 5: “In the day that the Lord God made the earth, and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew,” etc. If Eld. W. will insist that the word day here means twenty-four hours, he must allow that there is a direct contradiction between the first and second chapters of Genesis, since the text describes at least the work of the first three days of creation week. If Eld. W. does not accept the literal-day theory of creation week, his difficulty becomes still greater; for he must then maintain that the work of three long, indefinite periods is described in Gen. 2:4 as being accomplished in the short period of twenty-four hours. On the other hand, if he admits, as undoubtedly he will, that the word “day” in Gen. 2:4 means time, and does not mean twenty-four hours, then consistency will compel him to abandon the position which he has taken respecting the meaning of the same word in verse 17 of the same chapter. The position taken by Eld. W. is not generally supported either by Hebrew scholars or Biblical commentators.
If the reader has any doubt about the justice of our criticisms of this argument, we would refer him to Noah Webster’s definition of the word day. Of the four meanings of the word, the third is thus defined: “A specified time or period; time considered with reference to the existence or prominence of a person or thing. ‘He was useful in his day.’ ‘The fashion has had its day.’ ‘In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.’ Gen. 2:17.” So evident is the meaning of the text that the lexicographer cites it as an illustration of the definition. In the face of all this evidence, it must certainly be admitted that the text under consideration does not teach the doctrine claimed by our reviewer.
Eld. W. again quotes Dr. Murphy as follows: “Death, in reference to man, is regarded, in Scripture, much more as a privation of life in the sense of a state of favor with God, and consequent happiness, than as the mere cessation of animal life.” He adds, “Man dies, physically, like a beast; but spiritually, as a beast is incapable of dying.” With this doctrine we agree most heartily. This is our position exactly as stated in our reply to Eld. W.’s first article; and we are glad to know that we have the backing of such able scholars as Eld. W. and Dr. Murphy. We must confess, however, to not a little surprise that Eld. W. should take the position that spiritual life means simply “a state of favor with God.” According to the arguments used in his first article, Eld. W.’s position is that man has two lives, a physical and a spiritual. He holds that man’s spiritual life was breathed into him by the Creator, and in proof of man’s possession of this life offers the following among other texts: “To be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.” “He that hath the Son hath life.” “He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” To the latter text he adds, “Thus Paul was living two lives at the same time, natural and spiritual.” Now he defines spiritual life as being “a state of favor with God.” There is certainly a patent difficulty here. If Eld. W. holds that spiritual life means “a state of favor with God,” as stated in this article, then the arguments referred to in his first article amount to nothing, since he virtually comes over to our position, that man has but one real life, his physical life, and that his so-called spiritual life is simply a condition of his character described by Dr. Murphy and indorsed by Eld. W. as “a state of favor with God.” If, on the other hand, he still holds to the position taken in his first article, he is involved in a difficulty equally great and equally fatal to this theory. He claims that the death referred to in the penalty, “Thou shalt surely die,” related to Adam’s spiritual nature. He also maintains that this death occurred on the very day that Adam sinned. Is it not evident, then, according to this theory—granting that the word life is not used in the Scriptures in a figurative sense, as Eld. W. has clearly maintained—that Adam lived nine hundred and thirty years without a “spiritual nature,” without a “rational or moral nature”; in other words, according to Eld. W.’s view, without a soul? According to this view, also, it must be held that no man who has not been converted has a soul, which is defined as being “the rational or moral nature of man.” We would inquire, also, if man’s “spiritual life” is “a state of favor with God,” what is the nature of that of which it is said to be the image? Is God simply a state or condition also?
Again, if the penalty did not mean what it says, “Thou shalt surely die,” but meant instead, Thou shalt surely go into a state of disfavor with God, what was its significance? A state of disfavor with God is a state of sin. Hence, according to this view, the text means, “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely be a sinner”; and “The soul that sinneth it shall die,” simply means, The soul that sinneth shall be a sinner. This borders closely on the nonsensical, and we cannot accept a mode of interpretation of God’s word which leads to such perversions of Scripture.
“In Gen. 3:14–19,” says Eld. W., “we find an entirely different description of the result of the fall from that in our text, and an entirely different reason is assigned for it. A temporal curse is pronounced upon the serpent, the man, and the woman.” We can scarcely understand how it can be said that this is an entirely different description of the result of the fall from that in Gen. 2:17, when it is the only description of the fall in the book of Genesis, and the text referred to, Gen. 2:17, is not a description of the result of the fall but a statement of the penalty of transgression. Again, as we have already shown, Eld. W. has failed to show that there is any difference whatever in the meaning of death in Gen. 2:17 and “Unto dust shalt thou return,” in Gen. 3:19. Eld. W. remarks, “His returning to dust refers simply to his body.” It has not yet been shown that man possesses anything more than a body. Whatever refers to a person’s body, in its fullest sense, refers to all there is of him.
As the balance of this argument is based upon a foundation which we have already shown to be in the highest degree erroneous, we do not need to give it further attention in this connection.
We do not admit “that there is a principle of life in a man that exists after the body is destroyed,” neither is this view generally held by S. D. Adventists. Such a view would evidently be inconsistent with other positions which we do hold, and which we are prepared to maintain.
Eld. W. remarks in criticising a comment by Eld. Loughborough on Matt. 10:28, “Here he decides that killing a man’s body is not killing his soul; therefore the soul is not the body.” Certainly, this is just what the Bible says. We find no difficulty in reconciling this with the view that the soul is the organization—not the organism. Eld. L. has perhaps changed his view somewhat respecting the nature of the soul since writing the above, but his view of the relation of the soul to the body remains the same.
Eld. W. says further, “The Scriptures clearly teach that what made Adam a conscious, accountable being, did not proceed from his body.” We inquire, How and where do the Scriptures clearly teach this? We do not find any such teaching in the Bible.
It is asked, “If there can be no conscious existence separate from a material body, then the question arises, Had Christ a conscious existence before he had a material body?” Does our reviewer know that Christ existed at all before he had a material organism of some sort? What evidence there is on this subject clearly shows that Christ is now a material personage. His material body was resurrected from the grave. He was seen in this same material body after his resurrection by the two women at the sepulcher, by the eleven disciples, by “above five hundred brethren at once,” and was finally bodily taken up into Heaven, “and a cloud received him out of their sight.” It cannot be doubted, in the face of all this evidence, that at least since his sojourn upon this earth Christ has possessed a material body; and if this be true, there is no reason to doubt that he also had a material existence before his first advent.
As we remarked in a note at the outset, we do not hold ourself responsible for the views of others; and as the remaining points in the article under consideration seem to be based upon criticisms of the works of Elds. Smith and Waggoner, we have left them to be considered by the persons mentioned.
J. H. KELLOGG.
We would have been perfectly willing to leave with Dr. Kellogg the matter of replying to any criticism that has been offered on what we have written respecting the nature and destiny of man. But we have never designed to hold him or any one responsible for our views on this or any other subject; and hence, at his suggestion, we respond to the strictures offered upon our works.
The effort of Eld. W. to find antagonism between “The Atonement,” by Eld. Waggoner, and “Mortal or Immortal,” by U. S., we consider the highest kind of a compliment to our position, inasmuch as it intimates that perfect harmony of sentiment is here expected, which certainly is not a characteristic of those holding the opposing view. Between the five writers he quotes in his article, this, we think, is the only important seeming discrepancy pointed out. Will he undertake to maintain that no greater disagreement can be found between any five writers on his side?
We find it a little difficult to understand what Eld. W. means by presenting the subject of Adam’s death as follows: “If Adam only suffered physical death, and that but once, for his sin, what justice can there be in inflicting the same penalty twice upon his posterity for the same offense?” And again, “Is it consistent and just that those who are not responsible for Adam’s sin should be made to suffer the same for his transgression as he did, and then be brought into existence again and burnt up for doing as he did, while he only died one natural death for all his sins?”
It cannot be possible that Eld. W. believes we hold the idea that the death which ends this mortal life comes upon us as the penalty of our personal transgressions. Then what does he mean by “suffering the same penalty twice,” “for the same offense?” He is here certainly chasing an absurdity of his own creation. Righteous and wicked alike die the first death. This death, we say, we die in Adam, because we have inherited from him this mortal, dying nature. But beyond the resurrection, our own deeds are taken into account, and then if we are found sinners, we die for our own sins, and forever remain dead. Thus we die but once for our sins. No double penalty for the same sin is executed upon any one. This point is so fully explained in the works referred to, that if we knew that those who may read this article had access to them, we would say no more about it. As it is, we may be permitted to re-state in few words our position on this point:—
Adam was placed on probation. If he sinned, he was to die. He did sin, and thus subjected himself to the penalty. This was unconditional. There was no remedial system in operation to avert it, and so death passed upon him in consequence of his sin. When God immediately arraigned Adam in the garden for his transgression, he explained what the threatened penalty meant, by saying, “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” Here was a transaction complete in itself: the plan, the trial, the failure, and the pronouncing of the doom; and this sentence had to be executed without rebate or variation.
But the plan of salvation through Christ immediately supervened, and Adam was placed upon a new probation. So he commenced his downward march to the tomb under the sentence of death for his first sin, meanwhile, in his new state of probation, working out for himself another destiny to be fulfilled to him after that death under sentence of which he was laboring. How? By a resurrection from the dead, by which he is carried to a point beyond the results of his first transgression, and then answers for his acts after he was placed upon his second probation. And the death Adam died was for his first sin of eating of the forbidden tree, and for that alone. It had no connection whatever with any of the acts of his nine hundred and thirty years of life, viewed from a moral standpoint, after the scene described in Genesis 3. And if, in the Judgment, when Adam comes to give an account of his after-life, after he came under the provisions of salvation through Christ, it shall be found that he did not repent so as to secure the forgiveness of his sins through Christ, he must die again, “the second death,” just like any other transgressor. How, then, can Eld. W. accuse us of saying that “he only died one natural death for all his sins”?
And how did this experience of Adam’s affect his posterity? Standing as the federal head of the whole human race, when death passed upon him it passed upon all men; for Paul says (Rom. 5:12), “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men.” Adam, having brought himself into a dying state, could transmit to his posterity no higher nature than he possessed; hence all the race have been mortal, subject to death. But when Adam was put upon a new probation, it was also as the federal head of the human race; hence, we all, though subject to death as Adam was after the fall, are also on probation, as he again was after the plan of salvation supervened. And the death we now die is not the result of the sins which we commit in our own persons, but is entailed upon us as the result of Adam’s transgression in the manner above stated. This is in accordance with what we have ever taught, and with the sentiment quoted by Eld. W. from “The Atonement”; and hence, the “antagonism” which Eld. W. imagined he had found, does not appear. But as probationers, we must have the opportunity of answering for our own deeds independently of any connection with Adam, and then of living or dying, according as our characters have been either good or bad. And hence all men, irrespective of character, must have a resurrection, to answer for the deeds they have done in the body. The plan of salvation makes this necessary. That is why men are “forced into existence again.” For to have a law and a penalty, and never judge men in reference to it, or to have a law without a penalty, or to have a penalty which was never intended to be executed, would be too childish a farce for even human governments to indulge in.
It would be unjust both to ourself and the reader, not to give an extract from the work from which Eld. W. has thus claimed to give a presentation of our views. In the work, “Mortal or Immortal,” p. 105, edition of 1869, under the heading “The death threatened Adam,” we said: “What was meant by this sentence? Death spiritual, death temporal, and death eternal, is the glib answer of thousands of religious teachers. But what is death spiritual? It is a state of sin and alienation from God. But this was the result of Adam’s act of disobedience, and not its penalty. To make this a part of the threatening, is to make God say to Adam, ‘In the day thou sinnest, thou shalt surely be a sinner!’ This is making too sad nonsense of the words of Jehovah to be for a moment tolerated. . . . The temporary death which men suffer in this state, entailed on them through a fallen nature, happens to all alike, irrespective of character. But there is a death before us which is not irrespective of character. We are all to answer for our personal acts and transgressions. ‘Every one of us shall give account of himself to God.’ Rom. 14:12. For this purpose we are all to have a future life. And if then there are found remaining against us sins unrepented of and unforgiven, what will be our sentence? Answer: The same fearful sentence which has everywhere, from first to last, been pronounced against sin. ‘The soul that sinneth, it shall die!’ Sentence was pronounced upon Adam for his sin; it is pronounced upon us for our sin. It was told Adam that he should die; it is told us that we shall die. We have seen the effect that death had upon Adam; and who shall affirm that it [the death we are to die, if sinners, that is, the second death] will have a different effect upon us? The death we die in this state is called the first, because there is another lying beyond it for the transgressor to experience, and that is called the second in relation to the temporal, which is called the first. Now do these deaths differ in their nature? We have no reason so to infer.”
We certainly see no reason, scarcely an excuse, for Eld. W.’s giving the representation he has of our views in this matter. We commend to his consideration Eze. 18:26: “When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them, for his iniquity that he hath done, shall he die,” or, he shall die. Here a man commits iniquity; that is, he has died a spiritual death, he is dead in trespasses and sins; but he then dies in them; that is, loses his physical life in this condition; and after this, for his iniquity that he has done, he is to die again. Can he tell us, on his theory, what that last death is, and when, where, and how experienced?
In regard to the divinity of Christ, Eld. W.’s perplexity is owing wholly to his views of the trinity. We believe that Christ, the divine Son of God, took upon himself our nature, came into this world and died; that, as the prophet says, “his soul” was made “an offering for sin,” Isa. 53:10; that he “poured out his soul unto death,” verse 12; and that he himself spoke the truth when he exclaimed, “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death.” Matt. 26:38. Does Eld. W. believe we have a divine sacrifice, or only a human sacrifice? If only human, of what use is it? If divine, what died, humanity or divinity?
Again he says, “According to Mr. Smith’s theory, neither mental nor physical suffering is any part of the penalty for sin.” We shall certainly decline to indorse Eld. W.’s interpretation of our theory, if such is the conclusion to which he comes; for we have never so designed to teach. The following quotation from “Man’s Nature and Destiny,” found on the page following that from which Eld. W. quoted, sets forth our views in this matter. Speaking of degrees of punishment, we say, “Cannot he [God] also interpose, if necessary, according to our view, and graduate the pain attendant upon the sinner’s being reduced to a state of death as the climax of his penalty? So, then, our view is equal with the common one in this respect, while it possesses a great advantage over it in another; for while that has to find its degrees of punishment in intensity of pain alone, the duration in all cases being equal, ours may have not only degrees in pain, but in duration also.”
If this language does not make pain a part of the punishment, we know not what language could do it. Death is here spoken of as the climax of the penalty, and the degrees of punishment are found in the intensity and duration of the pain.
In the work, “Mortal or Immortal,” after quoting Rom. 2:6–9, we say, page 100, “We notice this portion of Scripture only because it is sometimes urged as an objection to the doctrine of the destruction of the wicked. But the objector should not thus ignore the fact which we have never denied, but believe as firmly as any can, that indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, will be recompensed upon every soul of man that doeth evil.” Here the suffering is set forth as a part of the recompense or punishment for evil-doing. This was published in 1860, and we have never believed or taught differently. Our opponents claim that this suffering is to be eternal. We claim that it is to end in the climax,—death.
When set forth in one word, the destiny of the wicked is expressed by a single term,—death. But who will not admit that death includes the dying? When the death sentence is pronounced upon the criminal, is it that he is sentenced to be dead? And then is the sentence suffered to become a nullity, and pass without execution because it would not be right to “torture” the man “before the penalty comes”? No; but he is to be hanged by the neck till he is dead. So the wicked shall be cast into Gehenna, where the agents of destruction shall never cease to prey upon them till, as intelligent, conscious beings, they have ceased to be.
In regard to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, it is so fully discussed in all our works on this subject, that we care not to say much here. We should have been glad if Eld. W. had given a little attention to the question which must lie at the foundation of every attempted exposition of this scripture; namely, whether it is a parable or literal narrative. If it is a parable, the language is simply figurative; and then it can never be used in support of any doctrine which depends upon its being taken literally. But if literal, what then? We are obliged to form some most tremendous conceptions of the spirit world; for we must have Lazarus literally in Abraham’s bosom, wrapped in the folds of his mantle, if such articles are worn there. But are intangible, immaterial souls, which are without body or parts, of different sizes, so that one can get into the bosom of another? And as Lazarus is a representative, we suppose, of the saved, do all souls go into Abraham’s bosom? If so, no wonder the rich man exclaimed, “Father Abraham!”
We are happy to agree with Eld. W. in respect to what the parable was designed to teach; only we must not, on the strength of this figurative representation, locate at death the scenes which other literal declarations of Scripture locate in the future conscious state, and which this does by no means contradict.
We have as little occasion for extended remarks in reference to Christ’s words to the thief on the cross. Christ said, the third day after his crucifixion, that he had not yet been to his Father. But Eld. W. insists that at death the spirit goes to God who gave it. Then Christ’s spirit was an exception to all other spirits, and the spirit of the thief, after all, did not go with Christ anywhere. And again, it is by no means probable that the thief died that day; otherwise, they would not have broken his legs as they took him from the cross at the day’s close. But if the “thou” in Christ’s words to the thief means his immortal soul, what does the same word mean in God’s address to Adam, “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return!”
In reference to the great doctrine of the future general Judgment, Eld. W. says: “I do not hold that men enter upon their full rewards and punishments at death, but that they have a stronger foretaste of what their eternal state is to be than they can have in this world.”
According to his interpretation of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, we should think they would have a stronger foretaste, decidedly. But Eld. W. says that the spirit at death goes to God who gave it. And David says that at God’s right hand there is fulness of joy, and pleasures for evermore. What more can the righteous have? And what do the spirits of the wicked go to God for? Why, for instance, was the spirit of the rich man caused to go to God, unless to be assigned to a place of torment? And if the assigning of the righteous to a place of happiness, and the wicked to a place of torment, is not the eternal decision of their destiny, and to all intents and purposes a Judgment, what can be? It is certainly the Judgment, or a decision rendered independent of the Judgment; and in either case, a general Judgment afterward, as it is most clearly taught in the Scriptures that there will be, is either a pitiable farce or a libel on God’s government.
Considering the origin and growth of the immortal-soul dogma in the days of heathen apostasy and papal darkness, it is not strange that it should be found to involve ideas utterly at variance with the Christian Scriptures. The strange thing is, that in these days of gospel light and religious freedom, men should still be found trying to defend them. U. SMITH.