No Eternal Misery.

'But still another difficulty is presented to us by giving an extraordinary definition to death; it is said to mean eternal misery.

But on examination of this, the difficulty will be entirely on the side of those who present it. If, however, the definition is correct, there is an insurmountable difficulty, involving the whole doctrine of the atonement, and making it utterly impossible for God to be just, and also the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.

First, then, if the signification of death is “eternal misery,” Christ never died at all; and then all the scriptures that say he died are untrue; and thus the atonement would be proved impossible, and further consideration of it would be useless. But admitting the Scripture testimony, that the wages of sin is death, and that Christ died for sin, and we have the scriptural view of the term death, utterly forbidding such an unnatural and forced construction of a plain declaration.

Secondly. If the correct definition of death is eternal misery, the relative terms, first and second, as applied to death before and after the resurrection, are used absurdly. For how can there be a first and second eternal misery? Sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and death passed upon all men. Ro. 5:12 But the very fact that man may be resurrected, released from death, as the Scriptures teach, clearly proves that the Scripture use of the term death is entirely different from the “theological use,” as given above.

- 69 - J. H. Waggoner

And, thirdly, If death means eternal misery, then that is the penalty of the law; but Christ did not suffer it, and the redeemed will not suffer it, so it follows that justice is never vindicated by the infliction of the penalty, either upon them or a substitute; and thus justice is suspended, not satisfied; and Christ’s death (if it could with any reason be called so) is not truly vicarious. As before considered, justice demands the infliction of the penalty of a just law; and as God is unchangeable and infinitely just, the penalty will surely be inflicted upon the transgressor or his substitute. But the above view makes it impossible.

According to that, mercy does not harmonize with justice, but supersedes it, and God’s justice is not manifest in justifying the believer. The sum of the matter is this: that if the penalty be eternal misery, then all that have sinned must suffer it, and be eternally miserable, or else the demands of the law are never honored.

But the first would result in universal damnation, and the other would degrade the Government of God, and contradict both reason and the Scriptures. This definition of death has been adopted of necessity to conform to the popular idea of the inherent immortality of man; yet it involves a contradiction in those who hold it. For it is claimed that the wicked are immortal and cannot cease to exist, and therefore the death threatened in the Scriptures is something besides cessation of existence, namely, misery.

But immortality signifies exemption from death; and if the Scriptural meaning of death is misery, and the wicked are immortal, or exempt from death, they are, of course, exempt from misery! The advocates of this theory do not mean to be Universalists, but their position necessarily leads to that result. It was well said by that great Christian philosopher, John Locke, that “it seems a strange way of understanding law, which requires the plainest and most direct terms, that by death should be meant eternal life in misery.” Life and death are opposites; the first is promised to the justified, the second is threatened and inflicted upon the unjust. But life and misery are not opposites; misery is a condition of life. In everything but “theology” such a perversion of language would not be tolerated, as to make eternal misery and death, or even misery and death, synonymous. Were I to report that a man was dead because I

The Atonement - 70

knew him to be suffering in much misery, it would be looked upon as trifling—solemn mockery. With a cessation of life every condition of life must cease.

(To be continued)

*******
(((MY THOUGHTS-  Logically, if I tell someone I will take the punishment for a crime for them, I am then expected to take that punishment. If they are supposed to be jailed for five years then I agree to be jailed for five years in order to meet the terms of that punishment.  If I say I'm going to take the punishment for that crime and then expect to be released from that punishment for no other reason than I'm not that original criminal, then who is punished for the crime? The crime has still been committed, the penalty still given, and for justice to be served honorably the penalty needs to be paid. If there is no pardon for that penalty by an authority much higher, if a price HAS to be paid for the crime and it simply cannot under any circumstances be written off, forgotten, done away with by mere words- then who has to pay it- the criminal or the substitute for the criminal. The substitute cannot be given an easier sentence than the original criminal if the price is to be paid. THIS IS LOGICAL.

IF the punishment(penalty) for the crime is truly endless suffering without any end… then the substitute would have to endlessly suffer without any end. There is no other way for the substitute to pay the price.

However, if the punishment is a cessation of life, and the extreme punishment is total separation from the source of life, a non-existent state then this could be experienced by a perfect substitute.

Cessation of life. NO awareness of living in any form. NO cognizant thought at all whatsoever. NO way to hope in that dark nothingness, because hope requires a thought. A deep sleep in which the sleeper knows absolutely nothing at all except the moment they awaken, if they awaken.

The Bible tells us that CHRIST became our substitute in suffering for us, He paid with the most intense pain imaginable beyond the mere physicality of pain. He paid with the knowledge of being forsaken. The darkness of no life, of no possibility of life loomed before Christ as He suffered the agonies of death.

IF...and this is a huge IF Christ had no doubt, IF He had no thought of being forsaken He would NOT have uttered the words--

Mat_27:46  And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

There would have been NO words like that uttered at all if He had complete and full belief in life after death, why would there have been? Of what was He saying His Father had forsaken Him if just moments away Jesus knew He would instantly live again in a new spirit form- because that's what so many believe death is- life again and NOT the cessation from life, from knowing, from awareness, from being.

Jesus KNEW that death would mean cessation of all thought, of all living, of all knowledge. Jesus KNEW that ultimately when the final penalty of sin is enacted it would be the non-existence of all sin, of all unrepentant sinners. Jesus came FACE to FACE with non-existence.  

IF JESUS suffered this, why do so many believe that they are exempt from truly dying? 

They may say because Jesus did it for them, they don't have to. But Jesus never said any of that… in fact we can read where we have to WAIT in our graves until resurrection DAY, until the last trump sounds and Christ returns. But still… people refuse to believe in the truth, preferring lies concocted by Satan to subvert the truth and deceive many into eternal death. 

We will die- cease all living.

We will be raised either to eternal life or to our punishment, and eternal death (total non-existence).

There is a first resurrection and there is a second resurrection.

THIS is Biblical.

God help us to ONLY believe in HIS TRUTH!

End of my thought.))))

(Excerpt from-) THE ATONEMENT PART SECOND:

THE ATONEMENT AS REVEALED IN THE BIBLE

 (1884)

BY   ELDER J. H. WAGGONER