July 13, 1903
"Relation of Immortality to the Resurrection"
Australasian Signs of the Times 18, 28 pp. 331, 332 .
A. T. JONES
The second point that the apostle Paul makes in this
connection is in 1 Cor.15 is in verse 32: "If after the manner
of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me,
if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to-morrow we die."
On this nothing can be better than to present Dr. Adam Clarke's
comment upon this same passage. He says, and the italics are his:
"I
believe the common method of pointing this verse is erroneous; I
propose to read it thus; 'If, after the manner of men, I have fought
with beasts at Ephesus, what doth it advantage me? If the dead rise
not, let us eat and drink; for to-morrow we die.' What the apostle
says here is a regular and legitimate conclusion from the doctrine
that there is no resurrection; for if there be no resurrection, then
there can be no judgment - no future state of rewards and
punishments; why, therefore, should we bear crosses, and keep
ourselves under continual discipline? Let us eat and drink, take all
the pleasure we can; for to-morrow we die, and there is an end of us
forever."
That is sound exegesis, and a just comment upon
the words of the apostle. As we have shown, that is the point of
Paul's argument throughout, and it is the thought of the whole Bible
upon this subject. But if the soul be immortal, neither Dr. Clarke's
comment nor Paul's argument is sound. For if the soul be immortal,
whensoever it may be that we die that is not the "end of us
forever," resurrection or no resurrection. By this it is plain
that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul nullifies the
plainest propositions of Scripture, and is therefore false.
This view fully explains the query
which Dr. Clarke propounds in his remarks at the close of his
comments on 1 Corinthians 15. He says:
One remark I cannot help
making; the doctrine of the resurrection appears to have been thought
of much more consequence among the primitive Christians than it is
now! How is this? The apostles were continually insisting on it, and
exciting the followers of God to diligence, obedience, and
cheerfulness through it. And their successors in the present day
seldom mention it! . . . There is not a doctrine in the gospel on
which more stress is laid; and there is not a doctrine in the present
system of preaching which is treated with more neglect!
From the doctor's insertion of
exclamation points and his query, [332] "How is this?" It
would appear that he was surprised that it should be so. It is indeed
surprising that it should be so. But it is easily enough explained.
The fact is that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul has
become so all-pervading "in the present system of preaching,"
that there is no room for the doctrine of the resurrection of the
dead. If the doctrine of the immortality of the soul be true, then
the doctrine of the resurrection is indeed of no consequence. If that
doctrine be true, then all need of laying stress upon the gospel
doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. And although "the
apostles were continually insisting on" the doctrine of the
resurrection of the dead, and although there is indeed "not a
doctrine of the gospel upon which more stress is laid," yet
through the insidious, deceptive influence of the doctrine of the
immortality of the soul it is that the preachers of the present day
"seldom mention it," and that in the present system of
preaching there is indeed "not a doctrine that is treated with
more neglect." And nothing is needed to show more plainly than
does this, the irreconcilable antagonism between the truth of God and
the mischievous doctrine of the immortality of the soul.
THE RESURRECTION A BIBLE DOCTRINE
Paul continues his argument
in verse 36: "That which thou sowest is not quickened, except it
die." To quicken is "to make alive." What Paul says,
therefore, is, "That which thou sowest is not made alive, except
it die." That this is spoken directly of man and his
resurrection, is plain by verses 42-44. "It is sown a natural
body," etc. Now the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is,
that
the body properly has no life, living, sentient man; that
it is that about man which alone possesses real life. In other words,
the body is only the house in which the real man lives; i.e., the
real "I" dwells within the "me;" and death is
simply the separation of the soul from the body. Death breaks down
the house, and lets the real occupant free.
According to this
doctrine, there is no such thing as real death; because the body
properly has no life, consequently it does not die; and the soul -
the real man - is immortal, and it cannot die; therefore there is in
reality no such thing as death. If this be true, there is not only no
such thing as death, but there is, likewise, no such thing as a
resurrection of the dead. For, upon the apostle's premise that "That
which thou sowest is not quickened [made alive] except it die,"
it follows that, as the body, having no life, does not die, it cannot
be quickened (raised from the dead); and as the soul does not die, it
cannot be raised from the dead; consequently there is no such thing
as a resurrection of the dead.
Therefore it stands proved to a
demonstration that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is
utterly subversive of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead.
But the resurrection of the dead is a Bible doctrine; it is the very
truth of God. So then it is plain that the doctrine of the
immortality of the soul is subversive of the truth of God; and is
therefore false, deceptive, and destructive.
In a future article
we will show the relation of the doctrine of the immortality of the
soul to the second coming of Christ.
