• Introduction - To the American Reader
• Preface to the Fifth Edition
• Author's Preface
• CHAPTER 1. Future Punishment Is Eternal.
• CHAPTER 2. Eternal Death
• CHAPTER 3. Testimony Of The Old Testament.
• CHAPTER 4. Testimony Of The New Testament.
• CHAPTER 5. The Greek Of The New Testament.
• CHAPTER 6. The Primary Sense Of Terms Vindicated.
• CHAPTER 7. The Illustrations Of Scripture.
• CHAPTER 8. The Resurrection Of The Wicked.
• CHAPTER 9. The Divine Justice.
• CHAPTER 10. The Extinction Of Evil.
• CHAPTER 11. Examination Of Particular Texts.
• CHAPTER 12. Distinctions In Future Punishment.
• CHAPTER 13. Theories Of Punishment And Christian Missions.
• CHAPTER 14. Some Objections Answered.
• CHAPTER 15. The Apostolic Fathers. Clement Of Rome.
• CHAPTER 16. Justin Martyr.
• CHAPTER 17. Irenaeus, Martyr And Bishop Of Lyons.
• CHAPTER 18. Rise Of The Theory Of Eternal Life In Hell.
• CHAPTER 19. Tertullian.
• CHAPTER 20. Rise Of The Theory Of Universal Restoration Origen.
• CHAPTER 21. Conclusion.

The Duration And Nature Of Future Punishment

Grk/Heb Fonts

PDF

By HENRY CONSTABLE, A.M.
Prebendary of Cork

Fifth Edition - 1875

CHAPTER III

Testimony Of The Old Testament

HAVING in our last chapter removed all obstacles arising from an erroneous notion of the nature of the soul, we proceed to consider the direct proofs of our view. We will first advert to the testimony of the Old Testament. This is indeed by no means so clear either as to the future of the redeemed or the lost as the New Testament; but there are undoubtedly in it many places, not only in its later but in its earlier portions, which speak of both. ¹

2. Death was the penalty which God originally pronounced against human sin. All that God purposed to inflict upon Adam and his posterity in case of transgression is included in that word "death," "In the day that thou eatest, thou shalt die."² It is of the utmost consequence then that we should understand what God meant by death; nor is there the smallest difficulty in doing so if we will only attend to what reason and justice require, and what Scripture expressly declares Its meaning, then, we contend to be, when it is thus attached to sin as its penalty, the loss of life or existence.

3. One of the first principles of justice requires that parties threatened with a penalty for transgression should have the fullest opportunity of understanding what the penalty is. God, accordingly, speaks to Adam of death as a thing whose nature Adam knew. Now Adam knew very well what death was in one sense, and in one sense only. He knew it to be the law of the lower creatures, and to consist in the loss of their being and existence. He knew nothing of any other senses of death, such as "death in sin" or "death to sin;" for, in his innocence, he did not know what sin was at all. Still less did he understand by death an eternal existence in agony. He had one clear, well-understood sense for death—the loss of life and being. When God, therefore, threatened death to Adam as the penalty of disobedience, Adam could only know that penalty to mean that he would become like the beasts that perish; and therefore, in agreement with a fundamental principle of justice, such an end was that which God threatened to inflict for sin.

4. So fully persuaded indeed are the advocates of the Augustinian theory, that Adam could not possibly have understood death in their fearful sense, that they are compelled to deny a fundamental principle of law—that parties living under it should have the means of knowing to what they expose themselves if they violate it. "It is not essential," writes Professor Bartlett, the ablest advocate of the Augustinian theory that either this country or America has produced, "it is not essential to enquire whether the first pair understood all that was involved in the penalty, 'Ye shall surely die!'" And he then goes on to lay down the astounding proposition that "neither the judicial dealings of God nor man" require that "the extent" of penalty should be "unfolded" before the minds of those who may expose themselves to it if they offend!³ If this Professor of Theology had consulted a Professor of human Jurisprudence, he would have been informed that when a man is incapable of knowing the nature of a penalty, he cannot be subjected to it. He must at least have a fair opportunity of knowing it, or human law will not make him liable. If the Professor had consulted that divine law which he has undertaken to teach, he should have known that justice is one of the qualities, that the divine Lawgiver claims as the foundation of his throne. The old morality of the land of Uz was higher than that breathed in the Theological Seminary of Chicago: it spurned the idea that a mortal man could be more just than God.⁴

5. The only meaning which Adam could attach to death as the threatened penalty for transgression is that which God himself expressly attached to it. As soon as Adam transgressed, God came to him and repeated to him in other words the penalty he had just incurred. It was, "Dust thou art; and unto dust shalt thou return."⁵ God's definition of the death inflicted for the first transgression is frequently repeated in the later Scriptures. Paul tells us that it is the death which all men actually undergo, whether they are among the saved or the lost; and therefore an eternal existence in pain can be no part of its meaning.⁶ Such too was the death which Christ endured for human sin—the very same penalty to its full extent to which man was exposed; and therefore spiritual death, or an eternal life in misery, can form no part whatsoever of its meaning. ⁷ We have thus, if we are satisfied to accept God's teaching, the clearly-expressed sense of death. It was not spiritual death: that was the sinner's guilty act, but not the penalty for his sin. It was not an eternal existence in pain. It was simply the withdrawal of a life whose true aim and object had been lost. God said nothing in the first instance of transgression as to whether this death would be temporal or eternal; but what the death was He fully explained both by word and by example. He gave life to the race of man, and He would withdraw that life if man sinned. Such was the simple scriptural meaning of that word "death," about which Christian theologians have written whole libraries of confused jargon and hopeless nonsense, ever since the introduction of the Platonic dogma of the inalienable immortality of man compelled them to hold that all men must live for ever. If our readers would wish to judge for themselves of the effect which the dogma has had upon scriptural exegesis, let them compare the lucid comments of the Christian father Irenaeus, who was unacquainted with it, with the flounderings of Moses Stuart, when both are discussing the same grand subject—death, the penalty of sin. ⁸

6. This old sense, first stamped on it by God Himself, in the opening period of human history, has also been the universal idea formed of it wherever man has lived and died. It is always the primary, and in the case of the great majority of mankind the only meaning of the word, in every language and every tribe of the earth. "The world," says Athenagoras, "regard death as a deep sleep and forgetfulness."⁹ So strongly impressed indeed was this primary sense of the word upon the human mind, from the perpetual recurrence of the thing itself among all the creatures, that while numberless words in the progress of time have assumed senses wholly alien or contrary to their original meaning, this word "death," has remained true to its original in its various applications. Thus we have in Scripture the expressions "dead to sin," "dead to the law;" in our Catechism we have the phrase, "a death unto sin;" in ordinary life we speak of persons being "dead" to certain passions or affections. All such expressions are derived from physical death, and are true to its original sense. They imply the departure, and consequent non-existence, of relations and feelings which were once living and strong—their death. Sin has ceased to be dear to the renewed mind: the old relation of the law has ceased to be for the believer: the former friend no longer loves. In every case, something has disappeared from existence. To the sense thus imposed on death in all times and by all nations, in its primary and its secondary significations, there is one exception—that given to it in the theology of a portion of Christendom. Compelled by a false dogma, and a terrific creed of punishment arising from it, death is made to mean its direct opposite, life —some "condition of being or existence."¹⁰

7. But this late meaning attached by many Christians to the term death, in one of its applications namely, to future punishment, has not the smallest force as regards its use in the Old Testament. There the word must be taken in the sense God has stamped upon it, and left unchanged. It is there over and over again described as the end, in the future age, of obstinate transgressors. For such God declares He has "provided the instruments of death :" of such as hate divine Wisdom that Wisdom says, "they that hate me love death: " to the wicked God saith, "thou shalt surely die, " "the soul that sinneth it shall die."¹¹ While, as plainly as words can express, it distinguishes between the sinful acts and state of the sinner, i.e. his moral death, and that death which God will at a future period inflict upon him as its punishment.¹² Two things, perpetually confounded by the Augustinian theorist, are as perpetually kept distinct in the Scriptures, viz.: man's moral degradation, and God's penalty.

8. No one, we suppose, will apply the death pronounced in the above passages upon unrepented and unpardoned sin to that death which all men alike, whether saved or lost, undergo as the children of Adam. They can only apply it to future punishment. Death, then, is, according to the Old Testament, to be after judgment the result of sin, as life is the result of righteousness. Can we suppose a God of truth, of justice, and of mercy, to mean by this well-understood phrase something unknown to his bearers, of a character the very opposite to what they had from his own teaching conceived, and conveying a doom unutterably greater? The very idea is an insult to God. But hence it follows, as a matter of course, that loss of life is the doom pronounced against sinners in the Old Testament.

9. But the loss of life is not merely implied, it is distinctly stated to be the punishment for sin. ¹³ We have only to enquire what is meant in the Old Testament by "life." Life in common language means "existence." A man is said to be yet alive, though his moral condition may be of the most degraded character, though his happiness is utterly gone. This sense however would not suit the Augustinian. He has recourse to some secondary sense; and, because life is frequently associated with its proper action and with happiness, he assumes these to be its sense when spoken of in Scripture. "Life," says Professor Bartlett, "signifies true functional action, welfare, prosperity, happiness, and the like."¹⁴ Now while we are perfectly satisfied that life, as given by God and unaltered from the state in which he gave it, is always associated with true functional action and happiness, and so in such a state may from invariable association come to be synonymous with them, we yet see that they are really two distinct and different things, from the fact that they may be and are frequently disassociated. If life were identical with true functional action and happiness, then, where these had ceased to exist, there life too would cease to exist. But this is not in conformity with the language of the Old Testament. There the utterly wicked are said to be possessed of life, which they value, and would fain perpetuate for ever; and the wretched to be possessed of life so unutterably wretched that they long for its departure.¹⁵ Life, then, and life's happiness, are distinct things. While the creature keeps the condition in which he was created they are, from the Creator's loving nature, inseparable; when he abandons it, they are seen to be distinct. The life which the wicked man has, and which false teachers promise him that he will continue to have in the future age, that life God tells him he will be deprived of in that solemn time when he will "bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."¹⁶

10. But it is not only through the terms "life" and "death," that the Old Testament describes the punishment of the ungodly. By every expression in the Hebrew language significant of loss of life, loss of existence, the resolution of organized substance into its original parts, its reduction to that condition in which it is as though it had never been called into being—by every such expression does the Old Testament describe the end of the ungodly. "The destruction of the transgressors and of sinners shall be together;" "prepare them for the day of slaughter;" "the slain of the Lord shall be many;" "they shall go forth and look upon the carcases of the men that have shined;" "God shall destroy them;" "they shall be consumed;" "they shall be cut off;" "they shall be rooted out of the land of the living; " "blotted out of the Book of Life;" "they are not."¹⁷ The Hebrew scholar will see from the above passages that there is no phrase of the Hebrew language significant of all destruction, short of that philosophical annihilation of elements which we never teach, that is not used to denote the end of the ungodly. The English reader need only turn to his English dictionary to see that the primary sense of all the above terms is significant of the loss of existence. At a subsequent page we will show that the primary sense of words is the only sense that is allowable where a lawgiver is laying down for the guidance of men his penalty for transgression.

11. For the sake of greater plainness we will present instances of the meaning of some of these phrases in things that relate to this present life. We are thus enabled to see clearly their exact force. There are several Hebrew words applied to future punishment translated by the word "perish." Abad [rba], is one of the most common of these. When Heshbon was utterly cut off by the sword of Israel: when a sentence of extermination was pronounced against the house of Ahab: when the memory of the wicked has departed from the earth: when Esther apprehends her death at the hands of Ahasuerus: it is this word which is used: they have, or will, or may perish. ¹⁸ Haras [sdt], is another term in frequent use for future punishment. What is its meaning in common life? When the altar of Baal was thrown down, stone after stone: when the strongholds of Zion were levelled to the ground: when a wall is broken down so that its foundations are discovered: this is the term used.¹⁹ Again: God will "destroy" the ungodly. One Hebrew word for this is Tsamath [tmx]. It is used in the sense of utterly cuttingoff and destroying from a place.²⁰ Another Hebrew word is Shamad [mv]. It is significant of utter extinction. When the women of the tribe of Benjamin had been slain: when the nations of Canaan disappeared before the sword of Israel: when Moab ceased to be a nation: this is the word used for their destruction.²¹ Again: the wicked will be "cut off." The Hebrew is Karath [trb], in Nifal. What is its use in common life? When truth has become extinct from a sin-loving people: when weapons of war are broken in pieces: when life at the period of the flood perished from off the earth: when the life of an offender against the law of Moses was taken: this is the word used: "they are cut off."²² By another word, Nathats [xtn], God threatens future destruction. In matters of this life, it indicates destruction of an utter kind. When the infected house of the leper was cast down and dismantled: when the images of Baal were broken in pieces: when the stones of the altar of the Sun were ground into powder: this is the word used for the process of destruction.²³

12. We need go no farther at present in order to ascertain the clear, distinct, oft-repeated testimony of the Old Testament. By every unambiguous term, it has pointed out the punishment of the wicked as consisting, not in life, but in the loss of life; not in their continuance in that organized form which constitutes man, but in its dissolution; its resolution into its original parts, its becoming as though it had never been called into existence. While the redeemed are to know a life which knows no end, the lost are to be reduced to a death which knows of no awaking for ever and ever. Such is the testimony of God in the Old Testament. If Christian divines refuse to accept it because Plato, and before him Egyptian priests, taught a doctrine of the soul's essential immortality, let them see to it. We prefer the word of God to the logic of Plato and of Egypt.

13. Our readers may perhaps have remarked that we have avoided hitherto the use of a very well known term in this question, viz., "annihilation;" and have, in our only reference to it, disclaimed it in one of its senses. If they have any acquaintance with the controversy as conducted by our opponents, both of the schools of Origen and Augustine, they will also have known that this is the term by which our theory is almost invariably described by them. They are never tired of repeating this long Latin word. It is never out of their mouths. If we may judge by their pertinacious use of it, it seems absolutely essential to their cause; and, indeed, their ablest men have confessed that its use by them is absolutely essential. ²⁴ If they were to cease for a moment calling our theory one of "annihilation," and describing us as "annihilationists," they seem to feel that it would be all over with them and with their cause. The terms are long ones; Latin ones, and therefore not so grateful to the Saxon ear; somewhat obscure, and therefore distasteful to those who would prefer clearness of expression; but, still, use them they must, and use them they do, until at any rate the sound of the terms, if not their sense, is very well known. We must then say a few words about this term "annihilation," ere we hand it back to our opponents, and return to the good old words of our Saxon version of the Bible.

14. We have not the smallest objection to the word "annihilate," if it is used in one of its senses . The greatest authority in the English language, Webster, tells us in his Dictionary that, "to annihilate" means "to destroy," and "to destroy" means "to annihilate." Our theory is therefore one of "annihilation," because it is one of destruction. But the word has also a philosophical sense, and in this sense means reducing those parts of which organized bodies are composed to nothing. In this sense philosophy concurs with the saying of Bacon— "It is impossible for any body to be utterly annihilated." And now we may see why and wherefore our opponents persist in calling our theory one of "annihilation;" and why we prefer calling it by the scriptural phrase of "destruction." Paraded before the unenquiring mind as a theory of "annihilation," while that mind is at the same time carefully taught that all philosophy denies that there can possibly be such a thing as "annihilation," we are represented as maintaining a system at variance with the maxims of human knowledge. Whether such a mode of conducting a great controversy is ingenuous, or candid, or commonly honest, we must leave our readers to decide. For our part, we do not think it is. For we do not hold, any more than our opponents, that annihilation of parts which philosophy denies. We challenge them to produce one word of ours, or of any advocate on our side, which affirms it. We now take our leave of this matter with one parting remark. When our opponents charge us with holding a theory of annihilation in that sense of the word which philosophy denies, they bring against us a false accusation. When they charge us with holding a theory of annihilation in its well-established sense of destruction, they only charge us with holding a theory, which Scripture from beginning to end maintains. For the destruction of the Wicked is the testimony of the Word of God.