IV. Ah no, nor this, nor this might him appal: That atlas-burthen of imputed guilt: This why he prays: "Father, if this may be, And yet not as I will, but as Thou wilt!" It may V. not be alone must he endure; Alone drink of that cup The dregs and lees of death and hell drink up, The anguish, and the agony, and the strife. The fair rose of Eternal Life! LAWRENCE FARLEY. THAT THE DEAD ARE CONSCIOUS, IS PAUL'S DESIRE TO DEPART AND TO BE WITH CHRIST A PROOF? "Having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better." PHILIP. i. 23. HIS question has often been before the readers of the RAINBOW. Yet, considering that the bulk of professing Christians cling to the idea that death is not the cessation of life, but simply a transition from one mode of existence to another, and point to the language of the Apostle just quoted in support of that idea, we have thought it advisable to make some further remarks on the question suggested. The fact that some able contributors to these pages, while at one with us as to immortality being a conditional blessing-the gift of God through faith in Christ Jesus, continue to quote the passage before us as evidence of the consciousness of the dead, is surely a sufficient apology for referring to the subject anew. Both for the interest of the truth itself, and out of due respect to the writers referred to, the following animadversions are confined to what they have advanced in claiming the apostle's desire to depart and to be with Christ, as a proof that the dead are conscious. Thus W. Ker, Vicar of Tipton, in his preface to the second edition of "Hades and the State of Separate Souls,"* affirms that the apostle * Popular Ideas of Immortality. Everlasting Punishment and the State of Separate Souls, brought to the test of Scripture. By W. Ker, Vicar of Tipton. London: Simpkin, Marshall, & Co. here "speaks of departing and being with Christ, as immediately consequent the one on the other. Who departs? Paul. From what does he depart? From the body. When does he depart? At death. Where does he go when he does depart? To Christ: to be with Christ,' and in his glorious presence evermore. Can any one fail to see from this short catechism, that the man'-Paul-is altogether distinct from, and independent of the body? that the body is but the temporary residence of the man?' and that when he leaves the body, it is for something far better?'" (p. 141.) However evident these conclusions may seem, from "this short catechism," they are not found in the apostle's language; and but for a foregone conclusion in the mind of Mr. Ker, manifest from the answer he has given to his own queries, he would not have seen them there. The apostle does speak of "departing and being with Christ," and expresses his desire for this as something "far better" than other conditions he mentions; but in an inquiry of this sort, it is too much to assume that the apostle referred to a being with his Lord before his return. The question before us really resolves itself into this:-Did Paul expect to be with Christ between death and the return of the Lord from heaven? If we find him so confessing in any other part of his writings, or reported testimony, then Mr. Ker's conclusion will be legitimate but if, on the other hand, we find that he looked, and taught others to look, to the return of the Lord as the time for being with the Lord, then surely it is only doing fairly with the apostle's words here, to understand them to refer to the time of Christ's return. And this is indeed the true state of the case. The Lord Jesus himself taught his disciples, just before his death, that their being with him depended on his coming again. "I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am there ye may be also." (John xiv. 3.) Is it possible for language better to express the idea that it is necessary for Christ to come again in order that his disciples might be with him? No; but if Paul could be with Christ simply by dying, then how is the coming of Christ necessary that where he is his disciples may also be? The common theology which teaches that the souls of believers, at death, do immediately pass into glory, directly perverts the promise of Christ, just quoted, by substituting the coming of death for the coming of the Lord, and applies to death the exhortation he left to his disciples to watch because they knew not the day or the hour of his coming. With such ideas in their mind, it is not wonderful that men should understand the language, "I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am ye may be also," to apply to the believer's death, or what is commonly called so. But Paul did not understand the Lord's words in this way, as is manifest from every instance in which he mentions or alludes to the coming of the Lord. Such being the case, as Mr. Ker and those of like belief will gladly admit, why should we conclude that the apostle, in speaking of.departing and being with Christ, was referring to his death, thus ignoring the force of the Lord's words, "I will come again, that where I am there ye may be also ?" Moreover, we find the apostle carefully instructing believers on this very point, and using language equally explicit, affirming that it was by means of the coming of Christ that the faithful in Christ Jesus were to be with him. Comforting the brethren at Thessalonica concerning those of their number who had fallen asleep, he tells them, "by the word of the Lord," that "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 they who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them, to meet the Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord." (1 Thess. iv. 13-17.) It is the words, and so shall we ever be with the Lord," to which we specially call attention. They are exactly to the same effect as the Lord's words: "that where I am there you may be also." The being with the Lord is, in both instances, made to depend on his coming again for his disciples, which would not be the case if believers went by death to be with the Lord. It is, therefore, with deep regret that we find Mr. Ker, who has borne so valiant a testimony in behalf of the plain unaltered language of Scripture, regarding the coming and kingdom of our Lord, ignoring that language in the extract we have made from his writings, where he affirms that, "at death," Paul went to be "with Christ,' and in his glorious presence for evermore." Why should he so understand the apostle's words, in presence of his explicit testimony, that it is when the dead in Christ rise from the grave and are caught away together with those who are alive to meet the Lord in the air, that they are to be for ever with the Lord, and that so shall they be for ever with him? Moreover, such an application of the apostle's words, by Mr. Ker, is the more incongruous from the circumstance that he maintains that believers do not go to heaven at death but to Hades, which, he says, is in the centre of earth! To establish this idea is the main object of his treatise on " Hades and the State of Separate Souls." "Hades," he writes, "is situated down, beneath our feet, in the centre or heart of the earth" (p. 190); and on page 180 he avers that the texts he has cited, and many that might be added, "prove that the souls of the righteous, when freed from the body, pass into the invisible place which the Hebrews called Sheol, and the Greeks Hades, and the ancient English Hell." If all this was known to the Apostle Paul, then he must have expected to go to this place when he died; and if so, how could he call going there a departing to be with Christ. Christ was once in hades, but he speedily left its dismal gloom and went up to heaven, where, at the Father's right hand, he waits till the time appointed. Those who believe that "the souls of believers are, at death, made perfect in holiness, and do immediately pass into glory," understanding the apostle to be referring to his death, are consistent with their theory in understanding him to describe it as a departing to be with Christ; but Mr. Ker, and those who agree with him, have no reasonable grounds for so applying the apostle's words. He seems to appréhend the incongruity of his position, and endeavours to defend it by explaining the language of the apostle to refer to being "with the Lord" in another sense than in the real presence; though in what other sense he is not able to say. His words are, "To what extent and in what manner we cannot yet fully comprehend, he [the dead saint] shall enjoy the presence of his Lord and Saviour" (p. 213). On the following page he repeats the affirmation regarding the incomprehensibility of "how this shall be ;" and adds, "but there are many things quite as difficult of comprehension which we yet receive without the slightest hesitation. For example, that promise, 'Where two or three are met together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.' (Matt. xviii. 20.) Now we know that Christ's human body could not be present in all his worshipping assemblies, at the same time all over the world; notwithstanding, we have no difficulty whatever in receiving this promise as of his presence with all his people by his Spirit, which dwelleth and abideth in them. Even so may he be present with his saints in Hades, only that his presence may (and no doubt will) be far mere sensibly felt" (p. 214). But this defence is inadmissible. For while "we have no difficulty whatever in receiving the promise" of Christ being with his people wherever met in his name, we have extreme difficulty in receiving the affirmation, that it was the being "present with the Lord in that sense, that the apostle so earnestly desired. Had the Lord promised to be with his saints in Hades, or had the apostle said that he wished to be with Christ by dying, then we would have felt bound to accept the statement as true: but it is too much to assume that Paul desired to be present with the Lord in any other sense than in his real presence, and then to explain his language by that promise of the Lord to be with his disciples wherever two or three of them were met in his name. Besides, the only conceivable sense in which Paul could have the Lord's presence in Hades, was in the sense in which it was promised to him during life. This is tacitly admitted by Mr. Ker, when he says, "Even so may he be present with his saints in Hades, only his presence may (and no doubt will) be far more sensibly felt." Here a difference of degree in the presence, not in kind, is assumed, and assumed solely because of the necessities of the case. The apostle, however, did not require to desire being with the Lord, or rather for the Lord to be with him, in this sense, for he enjoyed that blessing already. He could say, with truth and gratitude, "At my first answer no man stood by me, but all forsook me: notwithstanding, the Lord stood by me and strengthened me." (2 Tim. iv. 17.) The apostle was not desiring the Lord to be with him in that sense, but desiring "to depart and to be with Christ." In the absence of any explanation or qualification by the apostle himself, we submit that the only allowable sense in which his words can be understood, is that he desired to be with the Lord in a bodily or personal sense, which, as we have already seen, he expected to enjoy, not by dying, but by the return of the Lord from heaven. Having thus far considered the apostle's words, in so far as they refer to being with Christ, we shall now consider in what sense he desired "to depart."" Having a desire to depart and to be with Christ, which is far better." Did he mean die, when he wrote depart? Mr. Ker, and those who say that believers are conscious between death and resurrection, affirm that he has so used the words; but we believe that such was not his meaning, for he elsewhere says, that he did not desire to be in that condition. (See 2 Cor. v. 1-4.) The apostle there speaks of an earnest desire, by himself and those he addressed; and he refers also to some thing which he and they did not desire. "Not for that we would be unclothed." We are all agreed that by "unclothed," he meant the condition of believers between death and resurrection. This seems plain enough. Well, since the apostle, referring expressly to that condition in his letter to the Church at Corinth, declares he did not desire it, why should we think that he is referring to the same condition in his letter to the Church at Philippi, when he says he had " a desire to depart and to be with Christ ?" The words "far better," or, as rendered by Alford," very far better," whatever be the contrast, indicate a very strong preference for the thing mentioned. Such being the case, then, the supposition, that when he speaks of desiring to depart and to be with Christ, he means the "unclothed " state, which he elsewhere says he did not desire, is altogether inadmissible. And yet, Mr. Edward White, while acknowledging that the Apostle "speaks of the disembodied condition, as not in itself desirable, not that we would be unclothed,'" maintains that "notwithstanding all his language elsewhere, respecting death as a sleep' (1 Thess. iv. 13), and respecting the day of resurrection as the day of adoption, and public manifestation of the sons of God" (Rom. viii.), it is doing "the utmost violence" to the apostle's words "to take them in any other sense than referring to the disembodied condition, when he says, he had " а desire for departing and being with Christ, which is very far better." (See RAINBOW for 1871, p. 273.) With all deference to Mr. White, we submit that the charge of "violence" applies to the exegesis which he supports; and that it is not doing violence, but justice, to the words of the apostle, considering his language elsewhere respecting death," to understand him as referring to something else than death, when he says, he had " a desire for departing and being with Christ, which is very far better." 66 What, then, is the thing which is "far better?" Before stating what we consider the apostle was thinking of, let us look at the context of the words. Great stress is laid upon the words, "To me to live is Christ, and to die is gain," as evidence that it was to death the apostle referred when he says, "having a desire to depart and to be with Christ." It is assumed that the apostle was thinking of gain to himself, when he used the words, "to die is gain," but this view is very questionable. Though supposing death to be like an unconscious sleep to the believer, the apostle, considering all the privations, persecutions, and toil he was enduring, might well be pardoned for thinking it gain to him to rest from his labour, asleep in Christ; but from the drift of his language it seems to us far more likely that he was not thinking of his death as gain to himself, but to his Master. Let the reader try this view with the sense of the context. He is speaking of his "earnest expectation and his hope" that "Christ shall be magnified in his body, whether it be by life or by death, for to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." The magnifying of Christ, whether he lived or died, was the subject of his thoughts. He evidently believed that Christ could be magnified by him either way. Is it not, then, most natural to understand him as alluding to the gain that would accrue to the honour of his Lord, when he said, "to die is gain?" Either way, the Christ shall be magnified. For me to live is [to magnify] Christ, and to die is also gain [to him]. Seeing, |