Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJames Hastings Dictionary of the NT: Immortality (2)
Subjects in this Topic:
IMMORTALITY.—In the ordinary acceptation of the term ‘immortality’ connotes ‘endlessness.’ It has ceased to express merely or solely a denial of physical death, in its incidence or its consequences, and has been extended to include the possibility or actuality of death, considered as putting an end to conscious existence either now or in the limitless future. Whether these two alternatives really mean the same thing, whether to be capable of dying is always and ultimately to die, and so that only is immortal which by its very nature and constitution is not liable to death, while all else perishes,—as is probably the case,—is a question that hardly comes within the scope of the present article. It will, however, be just, and will conduce to clearness, to separate these two considerations; to seek to determine, in the first instance, the teaching of Christ with regard to immortality in the limited sense of a denial of cessation of existence at death; and, secondly, to review the much wider and more perplexed question of the permanence of this ‘immortal’ state. ‘Does death end all?’, according to the mind and teaching of the Founder of Christianity, is an inquiry that needs to be twice raised,—once as it concerns the terminus of the present life upon earth, and again as it refers or may refer to a future to which human thought can set no limit. It is obvious that the first question is comparatively simple and uninvolved; and that upon its answer in the affirmative depends the possibility of opening the second, which is highly complicated, and involves the most far-reaching and important problems that can present themselves for human consideration.
By some writers the terms used in the NT, and especially by Christ Himself, with reference to a life after death have been further understood to imply blessedness. Life immortal would thus be not only life in the ordinary acceptation of conscious existence, but it would be life plus felicity. It is perhaps hardly right or wise to saddle the doctrine with this additional connotation. It will, however, be necessary to examine how far the words of Christ suggest or imply that He regarded happiness as an essential and inseparable part of the life to come, or a future existence of misery more or less prolonged as inconceivable unless it were terminated by restoration to bliss or annihilation of consciousness.
There is, however, a further preliminary consideration which must be taken into account. An examination of the whole teaching of Christ upon so momentous a theme, as it is transmitted by the Evangelists, may be expected to yield results not only positive but negative. Positive, inasmuch as upon a subject that concerns the deepest interests of men no great religious teacher can do other than afford some guidance to those who seek knowledge and truth at his lips; and negative, since the revelation which he may venture or see Ht to make of his own thoughts will obviously be determined and limited by the character and capacity of his contemporaries. In a sense neither derogatory nor contemptuous towards his hearers, he will refuse to cast his pearls before swine. Environment naturally and inevitably plays a large part in moulding the form into which doctrine shall be cast, and in assigning the bounds beyond which it shall not move. Teaching appropriate and welcome to the keen-witted and philosophic circles of Athens will fall on dull and inappreciative ears by the waterside or in the fields of Galilee. And of the confessedly greatest Teacher that the world has ever known this may be expected to be preeminently true; He will make His sayings accord both as to form and substance with the receptive ability of those to whom they are delivered. There will be many things within the compass of His own knowledge which they cannot now bear (Joh_16:12). And though He will at times give utterance to sayings hard to be understood (Joh_6:50 ff., Joh_6:60), of a depth and significance beyond their comprehension, foreshadowing truths into the full understanding of which only after-generations will be able to grow, the major part of His instruction will not be concerned with these; else would that instruction be barren and profitless to the hearers, no fruitful seed germinating to new spiritual and intellectual life. Moreover, it is precisely these sayings, dealing with the higher, more abstract and supra-sensible side of things, that would be most likely to be lost upon ordinary disciples, to fail to find a place in their memory, and in their subsequent reproductions, whether written or oral, of the Master’s teaching. Only by the choicer natures, the more refined and contemplative spirits among His followers, such as we conceive the Apostle John to have been, would this aspect of His discourse and doctrine be caught up and treasured, to be afterwards faithfully delivered as words öùíᾶíôá óõíåôïῖóéí , although for the moment they may have soared far above the care or comprehension of those who first heard them with their outward ears.
Upon a priori grounds, therefore, bearing in mind the character of the people among whom Christ lived and with whom He had to deal, we should expect to find the speculative and philosophic side of doctrine but slightly represented, while stress is laid more upon ethics and the practical conduct of life. The supernatural will be stated, as it were, in terms of the natural, the heavenly of the earthly, and with a constant recognition of the actual needs and circumstances and possibilities of His hearers. Whether and how far this is so in fact only an examination of the texts can show. Such an examination of the more or less direct references in the Gospels to a future life will be most conveniently conducted under the three divisions suggested, viz.—(1) a renewed life after death, (2) the permanence of this life, (3) its comprehensiveness, whether it is to be conceived as embracing the entire race of mankind or limited to a part thereof. It will be necessary to take separately the evidence of the Synoptic Gospels and of St. John.
A. The Synoptists
(1) With regard to the first point little need be said, for indeed there is nothing in dispute. That the teaching of Christ assumes from first to last a conscious life beyond the grave for Himself and His hearers lies upon the surface of His words and permeates His entire rule of life. The whole tone of His speech, the implications of His parables, the sanctions with which He surrounds His encouragements and warnings, the comparative value which He teaches men to set upon heavenly and earthly things, the gravity and seriousness of His outlook into the future, all show that here at least to Him and to His hearers there was common ground; that He did not need to begin by proving to them that death was not the end of all, but that the universal postulate of religious thought of His day anticipated a renewal of personal and conscious existence after death. In this respect He was but adopting, assuming, and making the basis of impressive exhortation and warning what the majority at least of His contemporaries believed.
The repeated references to the coming of the Kingdom of God or of the heavens (Mat_3:2; Mat_4:17; Mat_10:7; Mat_12:28, Mar_1:15, Luk_9:27; Luk_10:9 al.), into which not everyone who professes loyalty will enter (Mat_7:21); to the Day of Judgment or ‘that day’ (Mat_10:15; Mat_11:22; Mat_11:24, Luk_10:14, Mat_7:22 al.); to His own Resurrection (Mat_17:9; Matthew 28; Mat_26:32, Mar_9:31; Mar_10:34, Luk_18:33 al.) and the Coming of the Son of Man (Mat_10:23; Mat_16:27 f., Mar_13:26; Mar_14:62 al.), when those who have confessed or denied Him upon earth will reap as they have sown, in a public confession or denial of them before His Father and the holy angels (Mat_10:32 f., Luk_9:26; Luk_12:8 f.),—all presuppose and rest upon the foundation of a belief in another life after this. The disciples are to lay up treasure in heaven (Mat_6:20, Luk_12:33), the enjoyment of which is clearly not designed for the present. ‘In the regeneration’ these disciples shall sit upon thrones in the capacity of judges (Mat_19:28, Luk_22:30). Even His enemies, who bound Him to death, shall ‘see’ the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power (Mat_26:64, Mar_14:62; cf. Mat_24:30, Mar_13:26, Luk_21:27). The robber, after death, shall be with Christ in Paradise (Luk_23:43). More than one parable bears emphatic witness to the same belief, for example that of the King and the Wedding Feast (Mat_22:1 ff.), of the Talents (Mat_25:14 ff.), of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luk_16:19 ff.). These and other expressions which might be cited, figurative as some of them undoubtedly are, sufficiently emphasize the form and substance of a teaching which is not limited to the present, but always and consistently presupposes a life of active consciousness beyond the grave.
It is doubtful whether even the reputed scepticism of the Sadducees (Mat_22:23-33, Mar_12:18-27, Luk_20:27-40) is any real exception to this. The scope and articles of the creed that they professed remain very uncertain. And their famous apologue is perhaps rather directed against the conception of a joint and common resurrection at one time and place, at which the relationships of this life would be resumed, than implies disbelief in any sequel after death to the life lived upon earth. The incident gives occasion at least to a most emphatic assertion on the part of Christ of the reality of the life that succeeds the present, and an equally emphatic repudiation of the idea that those who have died have ceased to be—‘God is not the God of the dead, but of the living; for all live unto him.’
(2) The question of the duration of this new life, the permanence or impermanence of the state after death, presents greater difficulties. Once again it may be said in anticipation that the probabilities of the case are strongly in favour of the former hypothesis. A teacher of the elevation and spirituality of Christ would hardly be likely to suggest to His hearers as a reward for following Him a prolonged existence indeed, but one which closed in the thick darkness of oblivion; and if He wished to convey the thought that in this respect a sharp distinction prevailed between those who loved and obeyed Him and those who did not,—the former are to be immortal, the latter entirely cease to be,—He would do so very clearly and emphatically, as presenting a further powerful and almost overwhelming incentive to hearken to His words. Moreover, it is to be noted also that the conception of ‘endlessness’ in the abstract is not one easily formulated or grasped, and that a doctrine of this character, assuming it to be present in His teaching, may very well prove to have been set forth in the simplest terms, rather by way of suggestion and illustration that would appeal to His hearers, than in the rigorous language of a scheme of metaphysics. The more important terms that bear upon this point are collected and will be conveniently examined together at a later stage. A few expressions only from the Synoptic Gospels call here for notice.
One of the most important passages, rather, perhaps, on the ground of what it implies than of what it directly states, is the declaration recorded in St. Matthew’s Gospel (Mat_16:18) of the permanence and inviolability of Christ’s Church, founded and built up as it is upon Himself.* [Note: It is strange that ἐðὶ ôáýôῃ ôῇ ðÝôñá is still sometimes referred to Peter. The Speaker, or the Evangelist who reports Him, is playing upon the name in a characteristically Oriental manner. The similarity of the sound forms to Oriental thought a real bond of connexion between the persons. The whole point of the play is lost, and the expression reduced to meaninglessness and absurdity, if Ðἑôñïò and ôἑôñá are identified (cf. 1Co_10:4, and in the OT, Gen_2:23, Exo_2:10 etc.).] The Speaker can hardly be conceived as thinking of a mere temporary duration of that Church, united as it is with Him in the closest of all bonds; the destruction or annihilation of the one would involve a like fate for the other: ‘the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it’ now or henceforth. And if the Church is to remain, then necessarily its members collectively: for the Church is the members.
It may be said also that the abiding nature of Christ’s words (Mat_24:35, Mar_13:31, Luk_21:33), under the circumstances of their utterance, presupposes the continued existence of intelligent receptive hearers and doers. The permanence of His words is contrasted with that which in the universe appears most permanent and unchanged, ‘Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away’ (Mar_13:31, cf. Mat_5:18, Luk_16:17); in no part or degree shall their accomplishment fail to be achieved. But this complete fulfilment does not imply the cessation of their effect upon and in those for whom they are spoken. Rather is it the beginning of a new life, which is only then perfected.
The literal demands of these passages would be satisfied by what has sometimes been termed ‘racial’ or ‘collective’ immortality; in which the race might be supposed to persist, while the individuals, each and all in turn, perished. Such an interpretation could not be ruled out of court on the ground that it is not suggested elsewhere in Christ’s teaching. But a conception so remote and unusual would seem to require much more clear and definite exposition, and is hardly consistent with the numerous references to a personal and individual survival.
In a negative sense also phrases like ôὸ ôÝëïò (Mat_24:6, Mar_13:7, Luk_21:9), åἰò ôÝëïò (Mat_10:22; Mat_24:13, Mar_13:13), ἡ óõíôÝëåéá ô . áἰῶíïò (Mat_13:40; Mat_13:49; Mat_24:3) clearly do not imply an absolute end, involving annihilation or the like. They do not, of course, assert survival in any universalistic sense; but they are not altogether neutral in the matter (cf. Matthew 13 ll.cc., and the interpretation that is given by Christ Himself of the parable of the Sower). The end of one era is the beginning of another, and for some at least ushers in a period of supreme blessedness (Mat_10:22; Mat_24:13, Mar_13:13).
The indications which the Synoptic Gospels afford on the subject of the comparative duration of the existence of the righteous and the wicked after death are almost wholly concerned with the significance of words like áἰþíéïò ( êüëáóéò áἱ . Mat_25:46, ðῦñ áἰþíéïí Mat_18:8, Mat_25:41, áἰþíéïí ἀìÜñôçìá Mar_3:29, åἰò ôὸí áἰῶíá ib.), and will be more conveniently examined together (see below). Here it need only be said that parables such as those of the Rich Man and Lazarus, the Wise and Foolish Virgins, or the Wedding Feast, do not in themselves suggest or demand any inequality of treatment as regards the mere duration of the allotted punishment or reward; and that references to the Judgment, the Day of Judgment, or the Last Day are equally neutral, as far as direct statement is concerned. While the burning of the tares in the parable of the Wheat and the Tares (Mat_13:30), if the detail is to be pressed as anything more than the natural and appropriate setting of the story,—the legitimate and necessary end of weeds,—rather points in the direction of permanence and indestructibility. Burning is not annihilation of matter, but transformation of form. And this particular feature of the parable might admit of interpretation as implying renovation through suffering, but is hardly satisfied by any theory of absolute cessation of being. Similarly, it might be urged that the ðῦñ ἄóâåóôïí of Mar_9:43 (cf. v. 48) implies the permanence of the fuel on which it feeds. It is clear, however, that no secure or decisive argument can be based on what are obviously allusive and metaphorical expressions.
B. St. John.—Within the Fourth Gospel, where, if anywhere in the record of our Lord’s teaching, we might expect to find a reasoned and philosophical doctrine of a future life, that teaching is so entirely, or almost entirely, conveyed in connexion with a special phraseology, the leading terms of which are æùἠ , æùἠ áἱþíéïò , and åἰò ô . áἰῶíá , that little need be said by way of anticipation of the special investigation of these terms. It is worth noting, however, at once, in view of the interpretation of these expressions which will be urged below, that every reference in St. John to a definite termination or close of a world-period is, as we saw was the case in the Synoptists, such as to presuppose and assume a continuation beyond. The conception of an absolute end, beyond which there is nothing, is as foreign to the thought of this Gospel as to that of the others. There is a ‘last day’ ( ἡ ἐó÷Üôç ἡìÝñá , john Joh_6:39 f.; Joh_6:44; Joh_6:54; Joh_11:24; Joh_12:48, a phrase not found in the Synoptists); but it terminates one age only to usher in another more glorious. Judgment ( êñßóéò ) again in St. John does not ordinarily await the setting up of a future tribunal; it is immediate conviction, wrought by the presence of the light. And in the one passage where it is definitely relegated to the future (Joh_5:29) the parallelism of the phraseology ( ἀíÜóôáóéò êñßóåùò — ἀíÜóôáóéò æùῆò ) shows that whatever threatening of suffering or retribution may lie behind the word, there is no thought of extinction, or of a final end, in the mind of the Speaker,—they that have practised ill ((Revised Version margin) ) come to the resurrection equally with those that have done good. He cannot be conceived to mean that they are raised merely that forthwith, or after a longer or shorter period, they may be destroyed.
It is in St. John also that the most emphatic assertions are found—apart from the special phraseology to which reference has been made—of the abiding blessedness and freedom from ill of those who believe in Christ. ‘He that believeth in me ïὐ ìὴ ἁðïèÜíῃ ’ (Joh_11:26); he that drinks of the Christ-given water ‘ ïὐ ìὴ äéøÞóåé ’ (Joh_4:14); ‘he that cometh unto me ïὐ ìὴ ðåéíÜóῃ , and he that believeth on me ïὐ ìὴ äéøÞóåé ðþðïôå ’ (Joh_6:35). The ‘many mansions’ and the prepared place of Joh_14:2 are clearly intended to convey the assurance of more than merely temporary resting-places. Finally, the prayer that all His followers may be one, as He is one with the Father (Joh_17:11; Joh_17:21), and may be with Him where He is (Joh_17:24), implies for those who are thus united a coequal duration of existence with Himself.
For the believer, therefore, the future, thus conditioned and defined, is a life of blessedness. But there is nothing to suggest, much less to show, that the continuance of the life is dependent upon its felicity; or that these two features are other than completely independent, no necessary connexion subsisting between them which would make an eternal but unblessed life a contradiction in terms.
áἰþí , áἰþíéïò , åἰò ôὸí áἰῶíá or ôïὺò áἰῶíáò .—The primary significance of the term áἰþí is not seriously in question. ‘Age’ or ‘period’ suggests a limited stretch of time marked by a definite close. In this sense the word is found in the Gospels, with reference to the present era under which the speaker is living, either simply or as ethically characterized by degeneracy and corruption. The cares ôïῦ áἰῶíïò choke the word (Mat_13:22 || Mar_4:19); the sons of this áἰþí are wiser than the sons of light (Luk_16:8); ïὗôïò ὁ áἱþí is contrasted with the áἰþí that is to follow it as ὁ ìÝëëùíò (Mat_12:32), or ἑêåῖíïò (Luk_20:34 f.); and the latter appears again as ὁ ἐñ÷üìåíïò áἰþí in Mar_10:30 || Luk_18:30, where the present is ïὖôïò ὁ êáéñüò . It is worthy of notice that in one of the above passages (Luk_20:35) the future áἰþí is something to be gained ( ôõ÷åῖí ); its nature or characteristic, therefore, was more prominent to the writer’s mind than any mere question of duration. In one context, the parable of the Tares in St. Matthew, the end of the present age is definitely indicated ( ἠ ) óõíôÝëåéá ( ôïῦ ) áἰῶíïò (Mat_13:39 f., Mat_13:49), and the same phrase is twice employed later in the Gospel, once by the disciples with reference to the Parousia, which they assume to be synchronous with the end of the áἰþí (Mat_24:3), and again by Christ Himself, when He asserts His presence with His disciples ἕùò ôῆò óõíôåëåßáò ôïῦ áἰῶíïò (Mat_28:20).
In the last two passages especially it is clear that in no shape or form is there attached by the Speaker or His hearers to the phrase ‘end of the age’ the thought of a termination of personality or conscious life. The close of the one epoch marks the opening of another, into which pass without interruption the actors and participators in the present. The pledge given to the disciples of personal association with Himself, or rather of His personal association with them—an association which is already subsisting ( ἐãὼ ìåè ʼ ὑìῶí åἰìß , Mat_28:20), could hardly have been couched in more emphatic or significant terms, or in words less suggestive of a possible severance, however clearly they may admit or even require the thought of a change of the conditions under which it is maintained.
áἰþí is also twice used in the Gospels with reference to the past, ἀð ʼ áἰῶíïò Luk_1:70, ἐê ôïῦ áἰῶíïò Joh_9:32. In neither case are the words those of Christ Himself. And all, perhaps, that need be said is that the speakers, Zacharias and the man born blind respectively, employ the phrase to denote in an indefinite kind of way the whole antecedent period of human history during which the conditions of life upon the earth have been such as they now know them to be, or believe them to have been in former times.
Elsewhere in the Gospels, the word under consideration is found only in the phrase åἰò ôὸí áἱῶíá , or åἰò ôïὺò áἱῶíáò . The latter occurs in Luk_1:33 and in the inserted doxology of Mat_6:13 (retained in the margin of the Revised Version). It may fairly be regarded as merely a strengthened form of the other, intermediate between that and the yet more emphatic expression åἰò ôïὺò áἱῶíáò ôῶí áἰþíùí employed especially in the Apocalypse, and by St. Paul in doxologies. Åἰò ôὸò áἱῶíá occurs once in St. Matthew and St. Luke (Mat_21:19, Luk_1:55), twice in St. Mark (Mar_3:29; Mar_11:14), and twelve times in St. John (Joh_4:14; Joh_6:51; Joh_6:58; Joh_8:35 bis. Joh_8:51 f., Joh_10:28; Joh_11:26; Joh_12:34; Joh_13:8; Joh_14:15), constituting indeed this Evangelist’s sole use of the word áἰþí , with the exception of the phrase above noted (Joh_9:32). Setting aside Mat_21:19 || Mar_11:14, which condemns the fig-tree to perpetual barrenness, and where ìçêÝôé åἰò ôὸí áἰῶíá is a strong negation of any possible or prospective fruitfulness at any time; and the passages from St. Luke, of which the first is Messianic and expressly asserts the endlessness of the Messiah’s kingdom, and the second has reference to the Divine attitude or action towards men, which also can hardly be thought of as subject to termination or change; the remainder may be classified as positive or negative. In the former, the phrase åἰò ôὸí áἰῶíá qualifies some verb expressive of continuance or life ( æῆí Joh_6:51; Joh_6:58, ìÝíåéí Joh_8:35, Joh_12:34, åἷíáé Joh_14:15); in the latter it is joined with a more or less emphatic negative, and denies the possibility of the contingency to which the passage refers ( ïὐê Mar_3:29, Joh_8:35; ïὐ ìÞ Joh_4:14; Joh_8:51 f., Joh_10:28, Joh_11:26, Joh_13:8).
Of all these passages it may be said at once that the Speaker clearly has in mind a state of things of which no reversal is by Him conceived as possible, either now or at any future time. In presence of natural death, the solemn declaration that he who believes ïὐ ìὴ ἁðïèÜíῃ åἰò ôὸí áἰῶíá (Joh_11:26) does not merely defer the date, but repudiates the possibility of anything that deserves to be called death for the believer. The bond-servant, again, whose sojourn in the house of his master comes to an end, is expressly contrasted with the son who ìÝíåé åἰò ôὸí áἰῶíá (Joh_8:35); and the same expression is used of the Christ (Joh_12:34), with the same associated ideas of permanence and perpetuity. Peter rejects his Master’s offer of service in washing his feet (Joh_13:8)—a rejection which lie immediately after gladly retracts—not certainly with the idea that he may accept the offer on some or any future occasion, but sincerely, and as far as his present thought is concerned, finally. And life åἰò ôὸí áἰῶíá (Joh_6:51; Joh_6:58) is not limited, terminable life, merely lengthened out as compared with the present, but is a life that needs no artificial and bodily sustenance to enable it uninterruptedly to endure. The connotation of the phrase, whether on the lips of Christ Himself or employed by another, evidently implies an outlook into a future to which the thought of the writer or speaker neither assigns nor conceives it possible to assign a limit.
The same considerations will apply to the adjective áἰþíéïò , and especially as it is used to qualify æùÞ in a phrase which becomes a distinctive feature of St. John’s Gospel and First Epistle. For the word itself the somewhat question-begging rendering ‘age-long’ has been offered. In such a rendering it is evident that all depends on the conception the writers had formed of the ‘age,’ and the associations it bore to their minds. If they thought of it as definitely terminated or terminable, then ‘age-long’ is equivalent to ‘temporary.’ If they regarded it and wrote of it without any associated idea of a limit or end, or if the context clearly intimates that no such idea would have been admitted, then so far ‘age-long’ is synonymous with ‘immortal,’ ‘everlasting,’ or ‘eternal.’ And it appears undesirable to introduce a new and ambiguous term. Apart, however, from the phrase æùὴ áἰþíéïò , the adjective is of rare occurrence in the Synoptic Gospels, and is not used by St. John. It is found three times in St. Matthew in association with terms expressive of suffering or retribution to be endured in the future ( ôὸ ðῦñ ôὸ áἰþíéïí , Mat_18:8; Mat_25:41; êüëáóéò áἰþíéïò , Mat_26:46). St. Luke has a reference (Luk_16:9) to ôὰò áἰùíßïõò óêçíÜò , ‘the eternal tabernacles,’ open to those who have been far-sighted enough to secure to themselves friends while it was in their power, from whom in their own day of need they may claim favours and return in kind. And a significant and unique phrase in Mar_3:29 äò ä ʼ ἄí âëáóöçìÞóῃ … ἔíï÷üò ἐóôéí áἰùíßïõ ἀìáñôÞìáôïò , suggests far-reaching conclusions, with regard to which all that perhaps need be said in this place is that it stands here as an explanatory addition to an emphatic affirmation that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit hath not forgiveness åἰò ôὸí áἰῶíá . The context, therefore, precludes an interpretation in a sense contrary to the implications of the preceding words, as though the writer might be thinking of an act of sin committed once for all, and then with all that it entailed definitely and finally set aside.
The reading ἀìáñôῆìáôïò is sufficiently decisively attested by the witness of à BL [Note: L Bampton Lecture.] Ä 28. 33, the Latin and other versions, and is adopted by all editors. It is supported also by the Sinaitic Syriac, mutilated, however, in this verse, if the transcript (1894) may be trusted. The TR [Note: R Textus Receptus.] êñßóåùò is found in à C2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] Ã and the cursives, with one or two Latin manuscripts, and the Peshitta Syriac. The various reading ἁìáñôßáò , C-D 13. 69. 346, would seem to be a correction of ἁìáñôÞìáôïò designed to introduce into the text the meaning of ‘sinfulness’ as distinguished from ‘a sin.’ Cf. II. B. Swete, in loc., a not wholly satisfactory note. The true exposition seems to be given by E. P. Gould in his commentary:* [Note: Critical Commentary, ‘St. Mark,’ T. & T. Clark, 1896.] ‘An eternal sin may be one subjecting the person to an eternal punishment, eternal in its consequences, that is. But certainly it is equally allowable to suppose that it describes the sin itself as eternal, accounting for the impossibility of the forgiveness by the permanence of the sin,—endless consequences attached to endless sin. This is the philosophy of endless punishment. Sin reacts on the nature, an act passes into a state, and the state continues. That is, eternal punishment is not a measure of God’s resentment against a single sin.… It is the result of the effect of any sin, or course of sin, in fixing the sinful state beyond recovery.’
With regard to the phrase æùὴ áἰþíéïò , there is a striking difference in its associations in the few passages in which it is found in the Synoptists, and in the more frequent use of St. John; a difference which seems to reflect the varying attitude of the writers towards the teaching of Christ. In the Synoptists the sphere of æùὴ áἰþíéïò is in the future. It is to be inherited (Mat_19:29), and to be received in the coming áἰþí (Mar_10:30, Luk_18:30) in recompense for that which the disciples of Christ forego in this; which the ruler ( ἄñ÷ùí , Luk_18:18, Mat_19:16, Mar_10:17), or lawyer ( íïìéêüò , Luk_10:25) conceives that he may inherit or attain ( ó÷ῶ , Mt. l.c.) by virtue of good deeds in the present. In St. John, on the contrary, æùὴ áἰþíéïò is a present possession. The believer has or may have it (Joh_3:36; Joh_5:24; Joh_6:47; Joh_3:15-16; Joh_6:40); and the bestowal of this gift is described as the express aim and purpose of the coming of the Son into the world and of His death, the fruit of the Father’s love (Joh_3:16) and will (Joh_6:40), but conferred by the Son Himself (Joh_10:28, Joh_17:2). In one passage also where the same phrase is used, the closeness of the fellowship with Himself implied in the possession of æùὴ áἰþíéïò is mystically described as an eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood, and is associated with the resurrection at the last day (Joh_6:54). This last passage would by itself prove, what the others assume, that æùὴ áἱþíéïò , though present, is not limited by the present. Elsewhere there is an approach to the Synoptic standpoint of a future life over against or following on that now lived, although sight seems never to be entirely lost of the conception of æùὴ áἱþíéïò as subsisting already and now attainable. He that hateth his soul ( øõ÷Þ ) in this world will keep it åἰò æùὴí áἰþíéïí (Joh_12:25); the meat ( âñῶóéò ), the gift of the Son of Man, abideth unto eternal life (Joh_6:27). The same thought recurs in Christ’s words to the woman of Samaria; there it is the water, His gift, which becomes a well of water springing up unto eternal life (Joh_4:14). And, finally, in connexion with the same incident, the harvest, the ripeness of which the disciples are bidden to recognize, is laid up unto a future which is undefined in time and place; the reaper gathereth together fruit åἰò æùÞí áἱþíéïí , and shares with the sower in a common joy (Joh_4:36).
Once also Christ appeals to the knowledge or belief of His hearers in the present reality of this eternal life; they think that they have it in the OT Scriptures, missing the spirit there, and the testimony of these Scriptures to Himself, and ascribing life to the letter (Joh_5:39). A somewhat similar thought underlies the answer of Simon Peter to Christ’s question whether he and the Twelve intend to follow the example of others, and be repelled by ‘hard sayings’; ‘Thou hast the words of eternal life’ (Joh_6:68),—words, that is to say, which in their spirit and teaching bring æùὴí áἰþíéïí to the hearers. Finally, lest, as it were, any lingering possibility or suggestion should remain of a time-limit to be understood in the phrase, or of its being confined under a merely temporal category, it is twice expressly defined in terms which are ethical and spiritual, and transcend all limitations of time or change; the Divine ἐíôïëÞ , committed by the Father to the Son and by Him transmitted to the world, is eternal life (Joh_12:50); and in similar pregnant words (Joh_17:3) æùὴ áἰþíéïí is the learning to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He has sent.
All the passages in which this phrase is found in the Gospels have now been passed in review. An extension of the examination to the remaining books of the New Testament would not modify the conclusions reached, or throw fresh light upon its meaning. It is used twice by St. Luke in the Acts (Act_13:46; Act_13:48); by St. Paul in the Romans (Rom_2:7; Rom_5:21; Rom_6:22 f.), Galatians (Gal_6:8), and Pastoral Epistles (1Ti_1:16; 1Ti_6:12, Tit_1:2; Tit_3:7); by St. John himself in his First Epistle (Joh_1:2; Joh_2:25; Joh_3:15; Joh_5:11; Joh_13:20; the adjective not elsewhere), and by St. Jude (Jud_1:21). These conclusions are entirely in harmony with the results obtained from a consideration of the term áἱþí , or of the adjective áἰþíéïò standing by itself, æùὴ áἱþíéïò is in its significance independent of time-limits, and may be described indifferently as either present or future. When, moreover, the occasion offers to indicate its characteristics and meaning by definition, that definition is framed not on the lines of time and space, as here, there, or elsewhere, now or then, but is wholly ethical, supranatural, belonging to the realm of the mind and spirit, and lifting up æùὴ áἰþíéïò beyond the touch of change or end, into the region of the changeless, the immortal.
At the risk, therefore, of repetition, it must again be pointed out that words and phrases which are crucial for any doctrine of immortality as taught by Christ in the Gospels, so far from implying or suggesting an absolute termination, whether nearer or more distant, to that future which the speakers or writers have in mind, seem to indicate that no such idea was ever present to them; and in some passages, which are neither isolated nor unimportant, a fair interpretation of the writer’s thought in the light of the context appears to exclude the possibility of any such limit being found at any definite point or place in the ‘age’ towards which his gaze is directed.
æùὴ , åἰóåëèåῖí åἰò ôὴí æùÞí , óþæåóèáé , óùôçñßá .
There remains a group of words and phrases to be referred to, which with more or less distinctness characterize the future, or contrast it with the conditions of the present. All of them, when used in their fullest sense, imply non-mortality, but they do not bear directly upon the question of the duration of existence after death, which, as we have seen, has come to be the chief element in the connotation of the term ‘immortality.’ The chief of these is æùÞ with its derivatives, including the phrases of which it forms a part, æùÞ in the Gospels is not mere physical life, but is an expression for the higher life, the life which is life indeed, life in its fullest, richest aspects. Such life was in the Word (Joh_1:4); it is Christ’s gift to His disciples (Joh_10:28, cf. Joh_6:33); nay, He is Himself ‘the life’ (Joh_11:25, Joh_14:6). It is so good a possession that to ‘enter into life’ is worth the sacrifice of an eye or a limb (Mat_18:8 f. || Mar_9:43; Mar_9:45). It begins after death (Joh_5:24)—not in a temporal sense, but when èÜíáôïò as a state ceases to be; and it is a ‘resurrection of life’ to which the well-doers will come forth from the tomb (Joh_5:29). ‘To have life in himself’ is an attribute of the Father, and is His gift to the Son (Joh_5:26); and this ‘life’ or ‘eternal life’ is repeatedly stated to be the present possession of the believer (Joh_3:15 f, Joh_3:36, Joh_6:47; Joh_6:54), the gift of Christ which some of them wilfully refuse (Joh_5:40), and which the unbelieving will not see (Joh_3:36), but which is emphatically declared to be the final end of His coming into the world (Joh_10:10, cf. Joh_20:31). The words which He has spoken are æùÞ (Joh_6:63), and His commandment is æùÞ áἰþíéïò (Joh_12:50). None of these passages suggests that the thought of a termination of the ‘life’ was present to the mind of the Speaker; some are hardly compatible with such a thought, and others absolutely forbid it (e.g. Joh_1:4; Joh_5:26). This æùÞ , therefore, is fittingly represented as áἰþíéïò .
A similar absence of limitation will be found to characterize expressions such as óþæåóèáé , óùôçñßá , etc., which describe the future from the point of view of deliverance from the present, its calamities and its evils. These terms, however, are not in themselves suggestive of duration, except so far as their results are involved; and, as doctrinal terms, belong in the New Testament rather to the Epistles than to the Gospels. In the eschatological discourses, however, of the Synoptic Gospels, ‘salvation’ is described as a state to be attained by those who endure åἰò ôÝëïò (Mat_10:22; Mat_24:13 || Mar_13:13); the saving of the life or soul ( øõ÷Þ , cf. Luk_6:9) is strikingly said to be the result of willingness to lose it for Christ’s sake (Mar_8:35 || Luk_9:24, cf. åὑñÞóåé áὐôÞí , Mat_16:25); and in St. John the salvation of the êüóìïò is the purpose of the Divine mission of the Son (Joh_3:17), the salvation of His hearers, the end of the words and teaching which He imparts (Joh_5:34). Hence ‘salvation’ is contemplated as beyond an ‘end’; ôÝëïò is rather a crisis than a final close, the entrance into new conditions and a more gracious environment. Both thought and phraseology become meaningless if the subjects of the change are conceived as either annihilated or reduced to unconsciousness.
Agrapha. Of the ‘unwritten’ Sayings, few have interest or importance for the present subject. The most noteworthy and authentic is that which is embodied in St. Paul’s argument of 1Th_4:15-17. Whether all or any of this is intended to be a direct citation of Christ’s words must remain uncertain. The teaching of the passage is, however, founded upon a ëüãïò Êõñßïõ . And though it has in view only ‘the dead in Christ,’ and their position of privilege and priority as compared with those alive at the time of the Lord’s descent from heaven, it distinctly asserts of these that they will be ‘for ever’ ( ðÜíôïôå ) with the Lord. The writer therefore contemplates for them an eternal co-existence with the Lord; and he claims that for this doctrine he has the authority of Christ Himself.
Of the Logia from Oxyrhynehus the mystical Saying, ‘Except ye fast to the world, ye shall in no wise find the kingdom of God; and except ye keep the Sabbath, ye shall not see the Father’ (Log. 2; Grenfell and Hunt, p. 10), may be said to imply that those who do so fast and truly keep the Sabbath will see the Father, and therefore live with Him. Of the later Logia also, which were discovered in 1903 (Oxyrhynchus Papyri, iv. p. 1 ff.), the Introduction, as it is named by the editors, apparently quotes Joh_8:52—the hearer of these words ‘shall not taste of death.’ And the first and second Sayings both make reference to the Kingdom which shall be a place of rest to him who seeks and finds. These indications are all of them slight, and do not add anything to the teaching of the Gospels. But as far as they go they are in harmony with what we have found to be the constant implications in Scripture of the words of Christ and His disciples.
The most striking and suggestive feature, therefore, of all these references in the Gospels to the future, and of the doctrine which they may be understood to imply, is the absence of any indication of a termination of the new conditions which they introduce. In some instances, indeed, the writer’s statement might be regarded as colourless in this respect, and the thought and context of his words would not be directly contradicted by an assumption that these conditions were themselves temporary, and at some indefinite period superseded by others. Elsewhere the tone and context strongly support, if they do not compel, the view that the state of things contemplated was contemplated, as far as the forecast of the speaker was concerned, as permanent. In a third and most important series of passages, the same expressions phrases are directly applied to the Divine Being and to His Kingdom in such a manner as to show that no thought of a eessation or close could by any possibility have entered into the mind of the Speaker, or have been regarded by Him as conceivable.
Moreover, the change of circumstances thus introduced involves no interference with the conscious life, not, at least, to the extent of reducing it to unconsciousness. The subjects of the change are represented as speaking, feeling, and willing, with all their faculties under control and in action. Nor is there any suggestion that this condition is occasional or temporary; it is, on the other hand, tacitly assumed to be usual and a matter of course.
Further, also, most prominent and characteristic examples of this manner of regarding the future were found to be associated with the terms áἱþí and its derivatives. This word, originally apparently denoting a definite age, marked off by beginning and end, had come to be regularly employed to denote an ‘age,’ the beginning of which was, indeed, sometimes more or less obscurely indicated, but to which the Speaker did not assign a further limit, and, in some instances, would clearly have rejected the idea of a limit as contradictory and impossible. The thought underlying these expressions is not that of a terminable period, but of a limitless progression.
The only adequate rendering of such a thought in English is by the words ‘eternal,’ ‘immortal,’ or the like. For there lies implicit in these words precisely what we have found to be the implication of áἱþíéïò , etc., in the Gospels; viz. that the speaker rejects the idea of a bound or limit beyond which there is nothing, or nothing for the subject of whom he is speaking; that however far off the boundary fence is in thought set up, he immediately insists that it shall be taken down, and removed farther away,—only to repeat the process as often as an attempt is made to assign a limit or define an end. This is, indeed, the only real conception which we seem able to frame of the meaning and content of such terms as immortality, eternity, etc., as they are ordinarily employed. They connote not a positive and comprehensive idea, which the mind distinctly outlines to itself as a whole, but rather the negative and indefinite one of the absence of an end; looking forth into the future, we find ourselves unable to discern a point beyond which there is an absolute blank as far as the conditions under consideration are concerned. The association of the thought of a final end with the conditions or state supposed would involve a self-contradiction, or, if we prefer to use the phrase, would be impossible. Such a conception is entirely logical and consistent, and amounts practically to defining immortality as the summation of an infinite number of intervals or spaces of time, succeeding one another without break, and receding into dim, fathomless distance.
The precise words ‘endless,’ ‘immortal,’ or ‘immortality’ do not occur in the Gospels; cf., however, Luk_1:33 ‘Of his kingdom there shall be no end,’ ïὑê ἐóôáé ôåëïò . The omission, if omission it be, is partly supplied by St. Paul, who describes the after-state of the Christian as ἀöèáñóßá and ἀèáíáóéá , ‘incorruption’ and ‘deathlessness’ (1Co_15:53 f). The latter term is shown by its use in 1Ti_6:16 (the blessed and only Potentate … ὁ ìïíïò ἕ÷ùí ἀèáíáóéáí ) to have moved far in the direction of a positive connotation.
Similar considerations apply generally to the references to this doctrine in the remaining books of the New Testament, a detailed examination of which lies outside the range of the present article. Such an examination would strengthen in detail, but would not change the character of the argument. In no instance is there a suggestion of absolute finality. The conclusion of every áἱþí , for example, marks the commencement of another, accompanied by changed conditions, indeed, but not, as far as the statements and apparent train of thought carry us, by annihilation in any sense, or a destruction which involves loss of personal consciousness or life. And while the writers do not in so many words define that future into which their thought projects itself as ‘immortal’ or ‘endless,’ their attitude towards it and the phrases and descriptions which they employ are such as to negative the idea that they would or could have admitted of the drawing of a line here, there, or anywhere, beyond which absolute oblivion and death should reign. Compare Rom_1:25 ad fin., Rom_6:22 ad fin. Rom_9:5; Rom_16:26 ôïῦ áἰùíßïõ èåïῦ , 2Co_4:18 b, 2Co_11:31, Phm_1:15, Heb_1:8; Heb_7:3; Heb_13:8; 1Pe_5:10, Rev_1:18.
(3) In passing to the third part of our inquiry, which relates to the comprehensiveness of the life beyond the grave, whether it is contemplated as equally endless for all, or whether a distinction is drawn as regards duration between the after-existence of the evil-doer and that of the righteous man, we are conscious of a certain reserve in description and expression on the part of the Evangelists, of a delicacy which certainly reflects the mind and teaching of the Master. The passages which refer to the future of the wicked are comparatively few in number: and the outline, as it were, of the picture presented is drawn, not, indeed, waveringly or hesitatingly, but with a light hand, as though the subject were one to which detail or elaboration were inappropriate. Reticence and brevity characterize all the utterances of Christ that bear upon the share which the evil-doers have in the life after death. Thus, while the righteous man and believer enters beyond the grave upon a renewed life, to the duration of which no limit is set, and which the hearers of Christ’s words understood in this sense to be eternal, the question is justly raised whether the same statement may be made, and the same inference drawn, with regard to the future existence of those who are not righteous and do not believe. Do those who—to adopt the language of the parable—go away into the outer darkness, pass into oblivion, suffer extinction, or experience any other of the conjectural fates which have from time to time been assumed to be the lot of the wicked? or, as an alternative, may ‘outer darkness’ be paraphrased into ‘purgatory,’ on the further side of which there is light?
It may be said in limine that the presumption is against any such limitation of the duration of life beyond the grave in the case of one class or section only of humanity. It would require very strong evidence to enforce the acceptance of the view that terms or expressions which disown the idea of a boundary, an end, when used of the future state of the righteous, actually and of set purpose connote such an idea when they describe the lot of t