ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

with its Creator-a declaration more specifically unfolded in the following clause; more than this it does not say, and where God is silent, it is not for man to speak; an interpretation, which savors more of caution than courage. Let us more boldly face the question, which is, How to give an interpretation to these words, which shall be natural and appropriate, and yet in entire harmony with the obvious drift of Scripture in its numerous specific declarations as to the final condition of the righteous and the wicked after the general judgment. To affirm here a doctrine of universal restoration of fallen men and angels, certainly seems to be a flat contradiction of a hundred explicit passages, which teach the final perdition of impenitent men, besides several which unequivocally declare the eternal ruin of Satan and his fallen comrades, and one (Heb. ii. 16) which asserts that Christ's redemption does not extend to angels. Yet, on the other hand, many find difficulty in understanding any thing less in construing such emphatic words as "reconcile all things unto himself," followed by the explanatory clause, " whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven." It may be suggested here, that the alleged universality of the language is, after all, limited to earth and heaven, and therefore does not include the devil and his angels; and further, that the reference may be, therefore, to the idea of Peter, who, in the very act of declaring the certain "perdition of ungodly men," says: "We, according to his promise, look for a new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." It may also be said with truth, that less contradiction to the other assertions of Scripture would be found in interpreting this passage on the annihilation theory, than on that of restoration; so that it should describe the harmonious and perfect condition of things, when the wicked shall have perished out of being, and only a holy universe remain, bound together by the love of a redeeming God. But we prefer another solution. The difficulty arises from taking the language in question in an individual instead of an organic sense. Paul is not speaking of the inhabitants of heaven and earth as a mass of individuals, every one of whom is declared to have been "reconciled" by Christ to the Father. That sense would have no application to the larger portion of those

supposed to be represented by the word "heaven," the unfallen angels, who need no reconciliation individually; nor yet could it apply to the fallen angels, without contradicting expressly the assertion in Heb. ii, 16, which states that Christ did not undertake the redemption of angels. Paul is using heaven and earth as a convenient and customary phrase to denote the organic universe, as such, the instituted kingdom of God. This, viewed as an organic unit, was brought into a state of controversy, division, and alienation, by a two-fold rupture; the apostacy of Satan and the fall of Adam. The original moral universe, from that day to the day of Judgment, presents a scene of disorder, because the process of the development and the conflict of good and evil, under a redemptive scheme, is unfinished. But that being completed at the Judg ment, God and holiness having been fully vindicated, and Satan and sin as fully exposed, the rebellion having been successfully crushed, and the unrepentant fragment condignly sentenced to eternal woe, God will thereupon reconstruct his moral universe, or reorganize his kingdom, in the new and glorious light of redemption, bringing forth his "new heavens and earth, wherein dweileth righteousness." This shall be a kosmos of perfect purity, into which sin can never gain access, even by a misunderstanding of God, such as that to which the original kosmos was liable; for "the blood of the cross" will have forever made peace between God and his rational creatures, and the organized universe will be "reconciled" through Christ unto the Father. Of this organic unity hell makes no part. Lost men and angels are outside of the kosmos. They have no recognized place. They are stricken from the roll. They are the convicts in the prison; not counted among citizens, civilly dead. They are "the dogs" outside of the New Jerusalem, and thus not referred to when one describes the glories of the holy city and the bliss of its inhabitants.

As the passage in Ephesians i, 10, is entirely parallel with the one just considered, it is unnecessary to repeat the explanation in connection with it. The same idea of a reconstructed holy universe (in which no account is taken of hell) is conveyed by the words, "That in the dispensation of the fulness

T

of times He might gather in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth; even in him." Thus we see, that the alleged Scriptural evidence for restoration is wanting in definitiveness, and is an inference from certain general expressions interpreted, without reason, and contrary to the whole analogy of Scripture, in an unlimited manner. We agree, therefore, with Rev. Thomas Starr King, though with an opposite application of his language, that "the method which so many pulpit teachers pursue of bringing texts together and pressing words to the utmost limit of meaning which dictionaries will allow, is a most dangerous method of handling the Scripture, an almost hopeless inode of reaching truth, a puerile style of discussion, and the last way of paying reverence to the New Testament."-(Doctrine of Endless Punishment, p. 12).

Fourthly. The doctrine of restoration seems inconsistent with the specific declarations of Scripture respecting the eternity of future punishment. The texts cited in its favor are not numerous, and are not on the specific point at issue, but are general statements of the triumphant results of Christ's redemption, from which a hopeful inference is drawn. Those opposed to it are many, probably twenty or fifty to one in number, and are given as explicit statements of fact on the very subject of the punishment of the wicked. It is always a safe rule, to explain the doubtful by the plain passages, to limit inferential arguments by those which are direct, and to value one word of positive testimony above the most plausible theo ories and suppositions. Plain evidence that a thing is, must outweigh all objections brought to prove that it cannot be. Now Christ is the most credible of witnesses on the point in question, and he has taught us more in amount and explicitness than all the inspired writers, having spoken with frequency and plainness. His solemn statement of the result of the judgment, at which He will preside is, that He will say unto them on the left hand, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels;" and again, he says, "These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal." Immense efforts have been made, by men learned and unlearned, to show that

"everlasting" in this passage means only of long duration. But the literal and natural sense is sustained by these five considerations: (1) the use of the same Greek word in the same sentence to denote the "eternal " life of the righteous; (2) the concurrence of other texts with varied language expressing the same idea; (3) the fact that the sentence is pronounced at the general judgment, which closes earthly history, and beyond the results of which we have no further revelations as to the wicked; (4) that the words were addressed to those who believe, as Josephus and other authors testify, in the doctrine of the endless punishment of the wicked; and (5) the constant use of the word alveo in the New Testament to denote a strict eternity. We have no space to enlarge upon these points. As to the last, we observe, that the word alvor occurs 71 times in the New Testament, in 61 of which there can be no doubt that it means literally endless, because it is used in 59 instances of the results of Christ's salvation, and in 2 as a divine characteristic; while once it is used of the past eternity, and twice of eternity as beginning, through the fact of creation, to be marked off by ages. There only remain the 7 passages in which it is applied to the future punishment of the wicked. One of these (Mark iii, 29) contains, by the way, in the Greek expression now accepted as correct by the best authorities (Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, sustained by the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS.) the very phrase so abhorrent to Restoration-Optimists, "eternal sin,"-ěvoxóc èotiv alwviou sin,”ἔνοχός ἐστιν áμaprýμatos. There is thus room for but one exegetical conἁμαρτήματος. clusion from the New Testament usage, which is corroborated beyond doubt by the numerous parallel expressions, "death;" "shall not see life;" "hath never forgiveness;" "shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." unquenchable fire;" "worm dieth not;"" tormented for ever and ever;" "perdition of ungodly men;""whose end is destruction;""fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries" "whose end is, to be burned." Nor is the effort more successful to eliminate from alvos the idea of time altogether, and to make it denote quality only, something spiritual in character, because Christ said, "This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus

Christ, whom Thou hast sent;" inferring that by analogy death eternal is merely ignorance of God! It is obvious that Christ does not eliminate the element of time, at all, but only adds to it, from the word "life," the spiritual element; the whole phrase thus denoting the endless knowledge and enjoyment of God and Christ. Hence, eternal death must be the endless ruin which is involved in the loss of God as the soul's portion, and of Christ as the soul's Saviour.

Neander makes a singular attempt to reconcile restoration with these explicit assertions to the contrary. He says (Planting, B. VI., Cap. 1., Note): "The doctrine of such a universal restitution would not stand in contradiction to the doctrine of eternal punishment, as it appears in the gospels; for, although those who are hardened in wickedness, left to the consequences of their conduct, their merited fate, have to expect endless unhappiness, yet a secret decree of the divine compassion is not necessarily excluded, by virtue of which, through the wisdom of God revealing itself in the discipline. of free agents, they will be led to a free appropriation of redemption." How a secret decree, which contradicts God's announced purpose and declared sentence, is reconcilable with divine truth, does not readily appear; nor yet how that can be called "secret" which is stated by Paul with sufficient explicitness to warrant our faith; nor why, if it was to be secret, God did not succeed better in hiding it from Neander and the other Germans! The theory for explaining away the positive, varied, and oft-repeated language of Christ, adopted by Rev. Thomas Starr King, viz. that "Jesus was a poet;" that "he loved indefinite language, vast expressions, paradoxes, gorgeous imagery, vivid parables;" that his words were "a few fragmentary flashes of poetry;" that he had an "oriental imagination," &c., &c.-this theory scarcely needs refutation, so inconsistent is it with confidence in Christ as an infallible teacher, with the intention and use of the Bible, and with the possibility of any system of doctrine whatever.

Fifthly. The doctrine of a final restoration is not commended by its tendencies and results. Its very defenders are often fearful in this respect, and singularly enough give this as a reason why God did not more plainly reveal it in the Bible!

[blocks in formation]
« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »