It is objected again that Paul was very foolish to express such a desire if he was not to be with his Lord till the resurrection; for, in that case, he would be with him no sooner if he died than he would if he did not die. Those who make this objection, either cannot have fully considered this subject, or they utterly fail to comprehend it. They have no difficulty in seeing how Paul would be with Christ sooner by dying, provided his spirit, when he died, immediately entered into his presence; but they cannot see how it would be so when the time between his death and the coming of Christ is to him an utter blank, and then without the consciousness on his part, that a single instant has elapsed, he is ushered into the presence of his Redeemer. Remember that Paul’s consciousness was his only means of measuring time; and if he had died just as he wrote these words to the Philippians, it would have been to him an entrance into Christ’s presence just as much sooner as what time elapsed between the penning of that sentence and the day of his death. None can fail to see this point, if they will consider it in the light of the fact we have here tried so fully to set forth, that the dead have no perceptions of passing time.
In the light of the foregoing reasoning, let us read and paraphrase this famous passage to the Philippians:--
“For to me to live is for the furtherance of the cause of Christ, and for me to die is still gain to that cause (because ‘Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life or death,’ verse 20). But if I live in the flesh, this, the furtherance of Christ’s cause, is the fruit of my labor; but what course I should take were it left for me to decide, I know not; for I am in a straight betwixt two: I know that the church still needs my labors, but I have a desire to end my mortal pilgrimage, and be the next instant, so far as my experience goes (for the dead perceive no passing of time), in the presence of my Lord. Consulting my own feelings, this I should esteem far better; but I know that it is more needful for you that I abide still in a condition to labor on for your good in this mortal state.”
Who can say, bearing in mind the language Paul frequently uses in his other epistles, that this is not a just paraphrase of his language here. The only objection against it is, that, so rendered, it does not support the conscious-state dogma. But it makes a harmony in all that Paul has taught on the subject; and is it not far more desirable to maintain the harmony of the sacred writings, than to try to make them defend a dogma which involves them in a fatal contradiction?
REMAINING TEXTS CONSIDERED.
We have now examined all the principal texts of the Scriptures which are supposed to have a bearing on the question of the intermediate state. A few others of minor importance are occasionally urged in favor of the popular view, and as such are entitled to a passing notice. We give them in consecutive order as follows:--
Rom. 8:38, 39. “For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, ... shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
It is claimed that death cannot separate us from the love of God; but, as God cannot exercise his love toward any but a rational and conscious creature, therefore the soul must be alive after death. (Immortality of the Soul, by Luther Lee, p. 111.) To what far-fetched and abortive reasoning will wrong theories lead intelligent men. We owe the reader an apology for noticing this passage at all. We should not here introduce it, were it not used as an objection to the view we advocate; and we should not believe it could ever be urged as an objection, had we not actually seen it. The reasoning of the apostle has to be completely inverted before any argument (may we be pardoned the misnomer) can be manufactured out of it for the conscious-state theory. For it is of our love to God, through Christ, and not of his to us, that the apostle speaks. It has reference, also, wholly to this life. Thus he says, verse 35, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?” That is, shall these things which we have to endure in this life on account of our profession of the gospel and our love for Christ, quench that love in any wise? Shall we compromise the gospel, and alienate ourselves from the love of Christ, who has done so much for us, and through whom we hope for so much (see the whole chapter), to avoid a little persecution, peril, and distress? The separation from the love of Christ by death, of which he speaks, is the same as the separation by persecution, &c.; but tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, peril, and sword, do not necessarily kill us; they have respect to this life; the separation, therefore, is something which takes place here--simply an alienation of our hearts from him. And shall all these things, he asks--nay, more, shall even the prospect of death on account of our profession of Christ, prevent our loving and following him? No! is the implied and emphatic answer.
Such we believe to be the view which any one must take of this passage, who does not find himself under the unfortunate[unfortunate] necessity of making out a case.
But looking at this scripture from the objector’s stand-point, the singular inquiry at once forces itself upon us, Can the immortal soul in its disembodied state suffer tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, peril, and sword!?