THE KING’S BUSINESS
567
istence, 1 but separation (Eph. 2:1; 1 Tim. 5:6), just as the basic idea of life is not mere existence, but union (John 15:4; 17:3). The fol lowing considerations seem to indi cate without a doubt that this theory is not' supported by Scripture. (1) There are ten words in the original which express in one way or another the idea of “destruction,” but they do not in the least necessarily mean extinction. One of these is found in 1 Cor. 15:26; 2 Thess. 2:8; 2 Tim. 1:10; Heb. 2:14, and the meaning is to render powerless or in operative, not to annihilate. Another word translated “destruction” means “ruin,” as in 1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 2:6; 1 Thess. 5:3; 2 Thess. 1:9; 1 Tim. 6:9, in none of which is the thought of cessation of existence possible. Then there is a still more frequently used term which, counting both sub stantive and verb, occurs over 100 times. But even here the meaning is frequently “lost,” referring to condi tion and not to annihilation. The words to Adam and Eve “in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” cannot possibly refer to anni hilation or dissolution or extinction of being, but only to a change of con dition. We know that Adam lived for hundreds of years after the “day” in which he was to “die.” When this thought of death is therefore under stood to mean “separation,” every thing is quite clear. Then, too, if death is the penalty of sin by extinc tion, Christ Himself must have suf fered it, and yet the burden of the Apostle’s teaching in 1 Cor. 15 is the resurrection based upon Christ’s res urrection as man. (2.) As the squids to survive death (John 5 :28) it may surely be assumed to be able to survive anything. If sin brings death, meaning extinction, and men are not immortal, where do sinners get life after death ? It can only be in and through Christ, and
death and resurrection, teaching that the resurrection of the unjust as well as of the just is somehow or other an effect of the work of Christ; or else it refers simply and solely to all those who belong respectively to Ad am and to Christ. It is also some times urged that the prospect of God being “all in all” indicates Universal- ism (1 Cor. 15:28). But this over looks the immediate context referring to the subjugation and putting of all things under Christ, statements which do, not in any way harmonize with the freedom of the will. Then, too, on this view it is impossible to ex plain what is meant by judgment, for it should never be forgotten that the real question at issue is not whether human destiny is fixed at death, but whether there is a judgment which will be irreversible. The penal ele ment must never be overlooked, and such terms as “wrath” and “ven geance” are not at all expressive of corrective discipline. We therefore conclude that “there is not a single text of Scripture which unequivocally teaches that all men shall in fact be saved; there are many which declare in the plainest terms that the judg ment-doom of the lost is final.” (An derson, Human Destiny, p. 61.) The same writer adds that it is folly to set aside the doctrine of eternal pun ishment because of difficulties “and then |o take refuge in a belief which is beset with difficulties far more hopeless.” (Human Destiny ," p. 61 .) TO BE REJECTED. II. Annihilation. This teaches that the wicked will be destroyed, and that only those who are in Christ will have eternal life. This interpretation is based on the thought of death as destruction, though it is important to remember that the Greek word ren dered, ^‘destroy,” does not always de note annihilation. (Matt. 27:20; Luke 19:47.) The root idea of death as already seenAs not cessation of ex
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker