The Immortality of the Soul, Is it a Scriptural Doctrine?

The Immortality of the Soul, Is it a Scriptural Doctrine?
BY A. T. JONES.
[Pacific Press Publishing Association]
[Oakland, Calif.]
[September 1890]
[Bible Students' Library No. 70]
2
The doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul is one of the oldest and one of the most widespread doctrines that has ever been in this world. It was preached in the world before ever faith in Christ the Saviour was preached. "The serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die;" and from that day to this that doctrine has been believed more generally by the children of men than has the truth of God.
 Indeed, in our day the doctrine of the immortality of the soul has gained such favor among even those who profess the word of God as their standard of belief, that to deny it is considered by the majority of them as equivalent to a denial of the Bible itself. But, instead of such denial being in any way a denial of the truth of revelation, the fact is that the truth of revelation can be logically and consistently held only by the total and unequivocal denial of the doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul. This, the Scriptures plainly show. 
1. THE RESURRECTION
There is no truth more plainly taught nor more diligently insisted upon in the Bible than this: That the future existence of men depends absolutely upon either a resurrection of the dead or a translation without seeing death at all. Paul's hope for future existence was in the
resurrection of the dead. In speaking of his efforts to "win Christ," he says: "That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead." Phil 3:10, 11.


It was of "the hope and resurrection of the dead" that he was called in question by the council (Acts 23:6); and when he had afterward to make his defense before Felix, he declared that the resurrection of the dead was the end of his hope, saying: "And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." Acts 24: Time and again Paul thus expresses his hope of future life. 


Nor is Paul the only one of the writers of the Bible who teaches the same thing. The resurrection of the dead is that to which Job looked for the consummation of his hope. Job 14:14, 15; 17:13-15; 19:23-27. David says: "Thou which hast showed me great and sore troubles, shalt quicken [give life to] me again, and shalt bring me up again from the depths of the earth." Ps. 71:20. And, "As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied when I awake with thy likeness." Ps. 17: And what shall we more say? For the time would fail us to tell of Isaiah, and Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and Daniel, and Hosea, and Micah, and all the prophets and apostles, and of our fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; for Jesus himself declared that it was the resurrection of the dead of which God spake when he said, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." More than this, Jesus pointed his disciples always to the resurrection of the dead, through which alone they could obtain the reward which he promised.


In John 6:39-54 we find that no less than four times the Saviour, in giving promise to those who believe in him, sets it forth as the consummation of that belief that "I will raise him up at the last day." And in Luke 14:13, 14 we read: "When thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind; and . . . thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just." 


Paul, however, gives us, upon this subject, a straight-forward, logical argument, which leaves the doctrine of the immortality of the soul not a particle of ground to rest upon. The fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians is devoted entirely to an argument in proof of the resurrection of the dead. The apostle first proves, by hundreds of living witnesses who had seen him after he was risen, that Christ arose from the dead. Still there were some who said, "There is no resurrection of the dead," and in refutation of that idea, he introduces three points of argument, any one of which utterly excludes the doctrine of the immortality of the soul from any place whatever in Christian doctrine. 


1. In verse 16, his premise is, "If the dead rise not." The first conclusion from that is, "Then is not Christ raised;" then upon this conclusion follows the logical sequence, "Your faith is vain," and upon that another, "Ye are yet in your sins." From his premise,-"If the dead rise not,"-the second conclusion is, verse 18, "Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished." Nothing can be plainer than that this statement and the doctrine of the immortality of the soul cannot both be true. For if the soul be immortal, as is held, it cannot
perish, and, therefore, so far as its existence is concerned, it is utterly independent of the resurrection of the dead. Is it not supposed by all those who believe the soul to be immortal that all who have passed from this world in the faith of Christ, have gone to heaven, and are now enjoying its bliss?-Assuredly it is. Then, if that be the truth, upon what imaginable principle can it be conceived that they "are perished," if there be no resurrection? What need have they of a resurrection? Have they not, without a resurrection, all that heaven can afford? Upon that theory they certainly have. Then it just as certainly appears that not one of them has perished, even though there never be a resurrection.
 
Over against this theory stands the word of God, that "if the dead rise not, then they which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished." That word is the truth. Therefore it follows that if there be no resurrection of the dead, there is no hereafter for any who have ever died, or who shall ever die. 


But God has given assurance to all men that there shall be a hereafter, and that assurance lies in the fact "that he hath raised him [Christ] from the dead" (Heb. 9:27; Acts 17:31). The resurrection of Christ is the God-given pledge that there shall be a resurrection of all the dead: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive," and, "There shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." Therefore it is by virtue of the resurrection of the dead, and not by the immortality of the soul, that there will be any hereafter for the dead, whether just or unjust.


2. The second point that the apostle makes in this connection is in verse 32: "If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die." On this nothing can be better than to present Dr. Adam Clarke's comment upon this same passage. He says (and the italics are his):- 
"I believe the common method of pointing this verse is erroneous; I propose to read it thus: 'If, after the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what doth it advantage me? If the dead rise not, let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die.' What the apostle says here is a regular and legitimate conclusion from the doctrine that there is no resurrection; for if there be no resurrection, then there can be no judgment-no future state of rewards and punishments; why, therefore, should we bear crosses, and keep ourselves under continual discipline? Let us eat and drink, take all the pleasure we can; for tomorrow we die, and there is an end of us forever." 


That is sound exegesis, and a just comment upon the words of the apostle. As we have shown, that is the point of Paul's argument throughout, and it is the thought of the whole Bible upon this subject. But if the soul be immortal, neither Dr. Clarke's comment nor Paul's argument is sound. For if the soul be immortal, when-soever it may be that we die, that is not the "end of us forever," resurrection or no resurrection. By this it is plain that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul nullifies the plainest propositions of Scripture, and is therefore false. 


This view fully explains the query which Dr. Clarke propounds in his remarks at the close of his comments on 1 Corinthians He says:- 


"One remark I cannot help making: the doctrine of the resurrection appears to have been thought of much more consequence among the primitive Christians than it is now! How
is this? The apostles were continually insisting on it, and exciting the followers of God to diligence, obedience, and cheerfulness through it. And their successors in the present day seldom mention it! . . . There is not a doctrine in the gospel on which more stress is laid; and there is not a doctrine in the present system of preaching which is treated with more neglect!" 


From the doctor's insertion of exclamation points and his query, "How is this?" it would appear that he was surprised that it should be so. It is indeed surprising that it should be so. But it is easily enough explained. The fact is that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul has become so all-pervading "in the present system of preaching" that there is no room for the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead.


If the doctrine of the immortality of the soul be true, then the doctrine of the resurrection is indeed of no consequence.


If that doctrine be true, then all need of laying stress upon the gospel doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is destroyed.


And although "the apostles were continually insisting on" the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, and although there is "not a doctrine of the gospel upon which more stress is laid," yet it is through the insidious deceptive influence of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul that the preachers of the present day "seldom mention it," and that in the present system of preaching there is indeed "not a doctrine that is treated with more neglect," and nothing is needed to show more plainly than does this the irreconcilable antagonism between the truth of God and the doctrine of the immortality of the soul.


3. The third point is in verse 36: "That which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die." To quicken is to make alive. "What Paul says therefore is, "That which thou sowest is not made alive except it die." That this is spoken directly of man and his resurrection, is evident from verses 42-44, "It is sown a natural body," etc. Now the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is that the body properly has no life, that it is not the real man, but that the soul is the real, living, sentient man, that it is that about man which alone possesses real life. In other words, the body is only the house in which the real man lives. The real "I," the soul, dwells within the body, and death is simply the separation of the soul from the body. Death breaks down the house, and lets the occupant free. According to this doctrine, there is no such thing as death, because the body properly has no life, consequently it does not die, and the soul-the real man-is immortal, and it cannot die; therefore, there is in reality no such thing as death. If this be true, there is not only no such thing as death, but there is, likewise, no such thing as a resurrection of the dead; for upon the apostle's premise that "that which thou sowest is not quickened [made alive] except it die," it follows that, as the body, having no life, does not die, it cannot be quickened (raised from the dead); and as the soul does not die, it cannot be raised from the dead; consequently, there is no such thing as a resurrection of the dead. 


Therefore it stands proved to a demonstration that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is utterly subversive of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. But the resurrection of the dead is a Bible doctrine; it is the very truth of God. So then it is plain that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is subversive of the truth of God, and is therefore false, deceptive, and destructive.