454 gives passages in which similar things are said about spirit and soul. But to anybody of a logical mind, the fact the spirit and soul have similar experiences does not prove they are “ identical” as the author so constantly asserts. In deed some things are said about “ the soul” and “ the body” and yet the au thor does not think the two on that ac count are “ identical.” But the principal and gravest error of the book is the teaching of soul- sleep, which is the main purpose of the book. His positive arguments in favor of it are the old familiar texts ripped out of their context, without regard to who the speaker is, taken for the most part from the Psalms and Ecclesiastes; without any regard to the true concep tion of Ecclesiastes as an inspired pic ture of how things look to a man “ un der the sun,” i. e., from a worldly stand point. Very little room is given to the positive argument, hut a great deal of space Is given to the attempt to refute the very plain teaching of God’s Word, that when the spirit of the redeemed leaves the body, it “ departs to be with Christ” in conscious blessedness. In fact, no less than 30 of the 9S pages are given to an attempt to explain away the very plain teaching of God’s Word. These attempts would be ludicrous if they did not have to do with so solemn a subject. For example, he seeks to explain away Luke 23:39-43 where Jesus is recorded as saying unto the dying thief, “ Verily I say unto thee, to day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise,” by the old explanation of the Seventh Day Adventists and kindred cults, that the comma ought to be after “ today” and that the word “ today” qualifies "“ say” and not the words “ shalt thou he.” Of course, this explanation makes nonsense of our Lord’s words. There was no reason whatever in our Lord saying, “ Verily I say unto thee today, . . It would mean nothing. Further more, in the Greek the order of the
THE K I N G ' S BUS I NE S S words is such that beyond an honest question the “ today” belongs to “ shalt thou be with Me” and not with “ say” , from which it is separated in the Greek by another word. Our Lord did not talk nonsense. He attempts to explain away 2 Cor. 5:1-8, where Paul teaches in the most explicit terms that there are three con ditions in which the redeemed spirit finds itself; first, clothed upon with its present body; secondly, at death, ab sent from the body but “ at home with the Lord” (R. V.) and thirdly, clothed upon with the resurrection body at the Coming of our Lord, and where Paul teaches definitely, explicitly, and unmis takably that while his great desire is not merely to be unclothed but to be clothed upon by his resurrection body, nevertheless, he would be glad to be unclothed and lay aside this body and be “ at home with the Lord.” His at tempt is utterly futile. He says, “ If, instead of a few disconnected sentences (the sentences are not disconnected at all, but most closely connected) to be used as ‘proof texts,’ we take all that Paul writes on the subject in this let ter, it becomes very evident at once that the Apostle understood the nature of death; he did not desire for himself the disembodied state and he well knew the Christians at Corinth to whom it was written, desired no such experience either.” But Paul’s words are as plain as language can make them that while he did not desire the disembodied state as his first choice, but rather the resur rection body; nevertheless, he did desire it in preference to the present embodied state. No other meaning can be put upon his words if they are explained honestly with an attempt to find out what they teach and not merely an at tempt to distort them to fit a false theory. His attempt to explain away Phil. 1:21-23, where Paul teaches in the most explicit terms that for him “ to depart
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker