The Two Tests: The Supernatural Claims of Christianity Tried By Two Of Its Own Rules Part 8

John does not confirm these appearances, and they are inconsistent with Matthew's journey of the eleven to Galilee.

(d.) Mark xvi. 14-20. Then he appeared to the eleven as they sat at meat, reproached them with their unbelief, gave them the charge to preach the gospel; and then, after he had spoken, he was received into heaven, and sat on the right hand of G.o.d.

Luke xxiv. 36-53. _The same hour_ in which the two, who had recognised Jesus in breaking of bread at Emmaus, returned to Jerusalem, and while they were informing the "eleven and the rest" of what had happened, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and said, "Peace be unto you."

They were terrified at his appearance. He showed them his hands and his feet, told them to handle him, and ate before them; directed them to tarry at Jerusalem till they were endued with power from on high.

"And he led them out as far as Bethany, and he lifted up his hands and blessed them. And it came to pa.s.s while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven."

John xx. 19-23. The same day (i.e., the resurrection day), at even, when the doors were shut where the disciples were a.s.sembled for fear of the Jews, Jesus appeared, saying, "Peace be unto you." He showed them his hands and his side. They were glad of his appearance.

Here there is a certain amount of agreement between Mark, Luke, and John, as to an appearance to the eleven at Jerusalem on the day of the resurrection. But this occurrence conflicts with Matthew. If, as he states, Jesus "went before" his disciples to Galilee, or if they set out for Galilee on the direction delivered by the women, neither the one nor the others could have been in Jerusalem.

The most remarkable point here, however, is that neither Matthew nor John confirm, in any form, the "ascension" mentioned by Mark and Luke.

Eye-witnesses as they were, special missionaries to testify to men that Jesus was alive, so wondrous an event they pa.s.s by in silence.

(e.) John xx. 24-29. On the eighth day after the previous occurrence, he appeared among his disciples, the doors being shut as before, and was acknowledged by Thomas, who was not present on the first occasion, as his "Lord and his G.o.d." This is quite at variance with Mark and Luke's statement that Jesus ascended to heaven on the day of the resurrection, and it is unnecessary again to allude to its inconsistency with Matthew's account.

(f.) John xxi. 1-25. Jesus' _third appearance_ to his disciples was at the sea of Tiberias while they were fis.h.i.+ng. Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, James and John, and two other disciples were present. He directed Peter how to cast his net, and ensured a large haul: he then dined with them, and afterwards gave Peter a charge to feed his lambs and his sheep, and returned a dubious answer about the length of John's life.

This also rests merely on John's narrative. Mark, even, the companion of Peter, who was specially conspicuous on this occasion, in no way confirms it. On the contrary, his second narrative implies that Jesus ascended to heaven on the day of the resurrection.

(g.) Luke in Acts i. 1-11. Jesus showed himself alive after his pa.s.sion by many infallible proofs: was seen by his disciples forty days, and spoke to them of things pertaining to the kingdom of G.o.d. He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to await there the gift of the Holy Ghost. Then, on Mount Olivet, when he had given the last charge, while they beheld, he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight. As they were gazing upwards, two men in white apparel appeared, who said, "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus who is taken up from you into heaven shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."

Matthew and John, the two eye-witnesses, are silent as to the ascension to heaven. They, whose special, divinely-conferred mission it was to testify to the resurrection of Jesus and the following glory, to maintain that he was alive for evermore, to declare the whole counsel of G.o.d, make no mention of this crowning wonder. Such comparatively trifling matters as the women holding him by the feet (Matt, xxviii. 9), or Simon's naked condition (John xxi. 7), or the fire of coals, and fish laid thereon and bread (John xxi. 9), were deemed worthy of record, but the ascension to heaven they altogether ignore.

Mark and Luke, who write what they heard from others, mention the ascension in their Gospels, and their narrative most clearly implies that it took place on the day of the resurrection. Mark expressly states that he was received into heaven, "then after he had spoken" to the eleven as they sat at meat. And could any one imagine that between Luke xxiv. 49 and xxi v. 50 there was an interval of forty days, as a.s.serted by the same writer in the Acts? Would the omission of all mention of such an interval be consistent with the "perfect understanding of all things from the very first" professed by Luke? Clearly there had been an amplification of detail during the time that elapsed between the compilation of the gospel by Luke and the compilation of the Acts.

Jesus, the writer in the Acts affirms, was seen by his disciples forty days, and spoke to them of things pertaining to the kingdom of G.o.d. Why, then, are none of his sayings preserved, if the short announcements (one of which--Luke xxiv. 44-48--has already been shown to be false) at the end of the gospels be excepted? Were the discourses of the risen Jesus not more important, were they less impressive than those uttered in his lifetime?

(h.) Acts ix. 1-9. As Paul was on the way to Damascus, with authority from the high priests to the synagogues there, to arrest and to bring to Jerusalem all who professed to believe on Jesus, a brilliant light shone around him, whereupon he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" Paul replied, "Who art thou, Lord?" The voice answered, "I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the p.r.i.c.ks." "And he, trembling and astonished, said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do." On getting up he found himself blind, and was led by the hand to Damascus. The men who were with him stood speechless. _They heard a voice_, but they saw no man.

Acts xxii. 6-21. This pa.s.sage contains an address said to have been delivered by Paul himself, in which the foregoing wondrous event is related, but with one important contradiction,--"They that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid, but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."

Acts xxvi. 15-18. Paul here a.s.serted that the voice from heaven uttered the following:--"I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest. But rise and stand upon thy feet, for I have appeared to thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness," &c. This is very different from Acts ix., where he is directed to go into the city, and that there it would be told him what he should do. Paul (Acts xxvi. 19-20) added, "Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision; but showed first unto them at Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judea, and then to the Gentiles," &c.

These are Luke's statements, in the Acts, with reference to the appearance of Jesus to Paul. The subsequent movements of the apostle, on the same authority, were,--

(Luke, 1.) After being cured of his blindness by the laying on of the hands of Ananias, he preached in Damascus that Jesus was Christ.

(Luke, 2.) The Jews being desirous of killing him, he fled to Jerusalem.

The disciples at first were chary of their quondam persecutor, but, a.s.sured by Barnabas, who took-him and brought him to the apostles, they received him into their fellows.h.i.+p.

(Luke, 3.) He disputed against the Grecians (h.e.l.lenised Jews?), who went about to-slay him. On this he was taken by the brethren to Caesarea, and thence sent on to Tarsus.

(Luke, 4.) Persecution forced many Christian Jews to leave Judea and to settle at Antioch. Barnabas was sent by the Church at Jerusalem to visit them. He rejoiced at their liveliness in the faith, and then went to Tarsus to find Paul, whom he brought back to Antioch. They were there together a whole year. The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

(Luke, 5.) Paul and Barnabas conveyed a contribution from the brethren at Antioch to those at Jerusalem. Returning from Jerusalem they took with them John, whose surname was Mark.

(Luke, 6.) During their ministry at Antioch the Holy Ghost said, "Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." They then started on their mission to the Gentiles.

Now, Luke was Paul's companion, his attendant on his travels, his faithful friend in trouble (2 Tim. iv. 11), surely, then, his statements with reference to Paul will be found to tally exactly with this apostle's allusions to his own life and ministry; it cannot be but that the Acts and the Epistles of Paul are in perfect harmony. Not so, however; they are quite irreconcilable.

(Paul, 1.) In 2 Cor. xi. and xii. Paul brings forward the various claims he possessed to be regarded as "no whit behind the very chiefest apostles." He alludes to his arduous labours, journeys, and sufferings for the gospel's sake. And then he comes "to visions and revelations of the Lord." Does he mention the wondrous incident on the way to Damascus?

No! not one word, either here or elsewhere. What he does mention is a man in Christ (evidently himself), who, about fourteen years previously, was caught up into the third heaven--whether in the body or out of the body, G.o.d only knew--caught up into paradise, and there heard unspeakable words, unutterable by man. Now, here, in discoursing of his very claim to apostles.h.i.+p, he is silent on what in the Acts is so strongly put forth as his miraculous calling to that office. The incident in which the risen Jesus announced, "I have appeared to thee for this purpose to make thee a minister and witness," &c., is quite ignored by Paul himself in particularising his claims to be that minister and witness. The necessary conclusion is, that when the Second Epistle to the Corinthians was written, the marvel related in Acts ix., xxii., and xxvi. had not been thought of. By comparison with Paul's epistles this undoubted instance of invention or appropriation can be brought home to the writer of the Acts. It shows what the compilers of the New Testament were capable of, when a supernatural event was required to give sanction and support to any doctrine, or practice, or claim which they advocated. The object, in the present instance, was to place Paul, as an apostle, on an equal footing in every respect with the apostles who were companions of Jesus himself, and who had seen him alive after his resurrection. If the New Testament is read in the light which this incident affords, its various narratives become abundantly clear. It is seen that its authoritative claims and its doctrines, with reference to the destiny of man, so far from being based on the supernatural events recorded, are merely what these events were devised to establish and enforce.

(Paul, 2.) In Galatians he states that, "when it pleased G.o.d, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles"--(This style of writing seems quite inconsistent with such an appearance of Jesus himself as is mentioned in the Acts: Paul here uses language descriptive of ordinary conversion, radically different from the effect of a vision of the risen Son of G.o.d with power-conferring commands),--"immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood, neither went I up to Jerusalem to them who were apostles before me (Luke, par.

2 above, expressly affirms that he did go to Jerusalem), but I went into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus" (quite irreconcilable with Luke, pars. 1, 2, 3, and 4, above). "Then, after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord's brother. Now, the things which I write unto you, behold, before G.o.d I lie not." (If he does not lie, what can be said of Barnabas [Luke, par. 2 above] taking and bringing him to the apostles, or of the journey [Luke, par. 5 above] of Paul and Barnabas to convey relief to the famine-threatened brethren who dwelt in Judea.) "Afterwards I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, and was unknown by face unto the churches of Judea which were in Christ; but they had heard only that he who persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed. And they glorified G.o.d in me." Compare this with Acts ix. 28--Luke, par. 2 above--"And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem;" with the famine-relief emba.s.sy of himself and Barnabas; and, more startling still, with the declaration in the Acts before king Agrippa,--"O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision, but showed first to them at Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judea, and then to the Gentiles" &c.

It is quite beyond the scope of this inquiry to enter into conjectures as to the cause of such serious discrepancies between the two fellow-travellers, the apostle and his faithful follower. And, indeed, all such conjectures would be "vain and unprofitable," for there are no means now of determining the question. What stands forth clear, however, is, that no conscience-satisfying belief, or even ordinary historical probability, can rest where such conflict of testimony appears.

(i.) In 1 Cor. xv. 4-8, Paul thus gives in detail the appearances of Jesus after his resurrection as these had been reported to him:--

(1.) That he was seen of Cephas. Where? Luke mentions an appearance to Peter (chap. xxiv. 34), but gives no particulars. Mark and John agree that the first appearance was to Mary Magdalene. No separate appearance to Peter is mentioned by them or by Matthew.

(2. ) Then of the twelve. Where? In, the Galilean mount, according to Matthew, or at Jerusalem, according to Luke and John?

(3.) After that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

It is most remarkable that Matthew and John make no mention of this. Nor Mark nor Luke either.

(4.) After that he was seen of James. No one but Paul says so.

Doubtless, however, as Peter claimed a special visit of the risen Jesus for himself, so did James, and Paul followed their example; for,

(5.) After mentioning that Jesus was next seen of all the apostles,--he does not mention where or when--he states,

(6.) "Last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time." Also 1 Cor. ix. 1, "Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" How or where he saw him he leaves untold. Comparing this, however, with 2 Cor. xii, it is probable that he refers to the time when he was caught up into paradise and heard unspeakable words, unutterable by man. It has already been shown that the appearance on the way to Damascus had not been thought of when the second epistle was written, and during this appearance Paul _did not see_ Jesus. He heard a voice, and saw a brilliant light. But there is nothing in Paul's writings to indicate that he ever laid claim to so dread an event in connection with himself.

9. Can the mind, then, eagerly straining to find in these accounts of the resurrection of Jesus grounds for a sincere belief that "one has risen from the dead;" raising no question as to the authenticity of the gospels, but taking them as they are, and putting the fairest construction on the words and narrative; most desirous not to abandon a hope cherished from the lessons of youth, a hope twined with the fondest reflections of manhood,--can the mind once aroused to doubt and inquiry, so straining, descry aught on which to rest? Far otherwise; for how rapidly these tales of the resurrection, and the other supernatural occurrences claimed for Jesus, crumble away, like a long-buried corpse exposed to light, before the touch of the simplest tests of evidence!

10. It remains to consider the resurrection of Jesus in connection with Old Testament ideas, and with those of the surrounding Gentile nations.

11. In Genesis Adam was doomed to "return unto the ground, for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." He died when he had lived so many years, is the brief record of his death, and of that of all the other primeval patriarchs, with the single exception of Enoch, who "walked with G.o.d, and he was not, for G.o.d took him." The writer of the Hebrews states that he was translated that he should not see death. He is thus represented as escaping the curse of Adam, and as made immortal, contrary to the common doom. The statement in Genesis is so loose, however, that the exact meaning of the writer will ever remain uncertain. The deaths of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are referred to thus: "that they gave up the ghost, full of years, and were gathered unto their people." They returned to the dust from whence they came, as their fathers before them. And when Joseph died, "being 110 years old," he is not "gathered unto his people," but "embalmed and put in a coffin in Egypt."

12. In Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, the books that immediately concern Moses, there is no mention of any future state of existence. The precepts, the ritual, the rewards, and the punishments all have reference to the present life. Beyond the grave is nothingness: no hope, no fear. What a startling fact this is, and how intimately it concerns the subject now under consideration, appears when contrasted with the prevailing contemporary Egyptian belief. Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt. They had been there upwards of two centuries.

He himself was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. He had been brought up as the son of Pharaoh's daughter. Now, the most prominent belief of the Egyptian religion, as shown by the monuments and ritual, was the immortality of the soul and a state of existence beyond the grave, and it must have been vividly before the Israelites during their sojourn in Egypt. The G.o.d Osiris became incarnate on earth, worked all manner of good for mankind; was slain through the malignity of the evil one, the serpent Typhon, but rose again from the dead, and was made the 'judge of souls; the disembodied spirits were weighed in his balances; the just, after expiating their venial sins by many severe trials, in which they were accompanied and sustained by Osiris, who had himself pa.s.sed through the same ordeal--"been tempted in all points like as they were"--shared the bliss of the G.o.d; the reprobate were condemned to lengthened torments, came back to earth as evil spirits, dwelt in the bodies of unclean animals, and were ultimately to be annihilated. In addition, also, to the symbolic idolatrous religion, by which the deity was represented to the people in numerous phases, all probably conceptions of natural phenomena, however incongruous most of the manifestations now appear, there was the hidden religion of the priests and of the initiated; and the main conception of this hidden religion was of the one living, independent, uncreated G.o.d--_Nuk pu Nuk_, "I am that I am." A hereditary priesthood, animal sacrifices, circ.u.mcision, and abstinence from swine's flesh, were likewise Egyptian inst.i.tutions.

So was the seventh-day rest. These and minor practices were continued among the Israelites, and the Egyptian _Nuk pa Nuk_ became the Jewish Jehovah; but the symbolical idolatrous wors.h.i.+p, likening the Creator to the creature, and the belief in the immortality of the soul, were rejected by Moses. They have no place in his system. The former he denounced, the latter he ignored. His conception of the unity and omnipotence of G.o.d was intense, and he indelibly stamped this belief on the mind of his nation, shunning the example of the priests of Egypt, who encouraged the people in idolatrous polytheistic rites, while the purer faith remained concealed among themselves. Contrary to the practice of all priestcraft, ancient and modern, he did not keep his followers in ignorance, that he himself might, by a superior understanding, retain an exalted position in their sight, but he sought to bring them up to the level of his own knowledge and belief. How far many of the Egyptian practices retained by the Israelites, and some of the more unworthy conceptions of the deity--such, for instance, as the ever-living omnipotent G.o.d _working_ six days in creating the world, and _resting_ the seventh; or his ordering the enemies of Israel to be ma.s.sacred, man, woman, and child; or his exacting animal sacrifices, as if he, the source of life, could be appeased by the destruction of the very life he had brought into being--were forced by the nation upon Moses, rather than by Moses upon the nation, cannot now be ascertained.

Jer. vii. 22, 23, seem to indicate that the animal sacrifices, at least, were not of Mosaic origin. But his stern prohibition of idolatry, and his ignoring a future life, const.i.tuted the princ.i.p.al differences between the Mosaic and the Egyptian systems. They were, indeed, radical differences. Had not Moses seen in Egypt how the pretended immortality of the soul, and the several connected doctrines and practices, in the hands of a polished priesthood, had been used so as to keep that very soul in this world in a state of vague fear and abject superst.i.tion: how the terrors or expectation of the life to come had led to misery and misdirection of the life on earth: how the dead had been cared for to the neglect of the living? And was there any good ground for this expectation of a future life? On the contrary, was not man, in his view, doomed to return to the dust whence he came? Was not the pretence of the soul being immortal an a.s.sumption of an attribute of the eternal Jehovah? And so he taught "that the Lord he is G.o.d, in heaven above, and in the earth beneath; there is none else. Thou shalt therefore keep his statutes and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth which the Lord thy G.o.d giveth thee, for ever" (Deut. iv. 39, 40). The rules of conduct were those which, in the judgment of Moses, led to long life and earthly prosperity; their neglect would inevitably bring disaster and woe; there was no other reward, no other dread. And in Psalm xc, described as "a prayer of Moses, the man of G.o.d," when he mentions that the days of our years are threescore and ten, or if, perchance, by reason of strength, fourscore, yet "that strength labour and sorrow," so far is he from arriving at Paul's conclusion--"What advantageth it me if the dead rise not? Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die"--that he makes the brevity of man's life the ground of the pet.i.tion, "So-teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom." Let us be up and doing, for our own and our brethren's sakes; there is no time to be lost; let us strive and ponder how to pa.s.s our brief life on earth wisely and well. The dead, moreover, were buried out of sight, and any bodily disfigurement (Lev. xix. 28; Deut. xiv. 1) or offerings (Deut.

xxvi. 14) for them were prohibited.

13. Now, if the Jewish Jehovah thus represented by Moses be one and the same being with "the G.o.d of Peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus," whose kingdom was not of this world, whose reward was eternal life, whose followers were of all men the most miserable if in this life only they had hope in Christ, then the Almighty in one dispensation left his chosen people to ignore the possession of an immortal soul and the hope of eternal life--doctrines fully known and recognised by the Egyptians and other nations surrounding them--but in the other revealed, little modified, as his own, these prevailing beliefs of the heathen nations, thus making Christianity practically little else than the Mosaic religion without the sacrifices, joined to the Egyptian belief in the soul's immortality and a state of future rewards and punishments, which Moses rejected; in one dispensation he placed his service in the following of those rules of life which lead to making the best of the good earth on which men live, without any other reward; in the other, "he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal," and those are denounced "who mind earthly things, for our conversation is in heaven, from whence also we look for our Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ." A wondrous contradictory Almighty!

14. In the historical books of the Old Testament, from Joshua to Esther, there is nothing to indicate that a belief in a future life was held by any of the representatives of Jehovah, whether judge, king, prophet, or priest, (a.) The aged Joshua (Josh. xxiii. 14) and the dying David (1 Kings ii. 2) affirm that they are about "to go the way of all the earth." They express neither hope of heaven nor fear of h.e.l.l. The writer in Judges (ii 10) states, "all that generation was gathered unto their fathers." The kings of Israel and Judah all "slept with their fathers."

(b.) The G.o.dforsaken Saul (1 Sam. xxviii. 7-25) went to inquire of the witch of Endor, and asked her to bring up Samuel, who appeared (visible, as the narrative implies, only to the witch) as an old man covered with a mantle--that is to say, his shade had the appearance of himself in old age, _dress and all_--and said, "Why hast thou disquieted me to bring me up." Saul told his extremity. Samuel's wraith affirmed that the kingdom was transferred to David, that Saul's army would be defeated by the Philistines, and that "to-morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me."

The G.o.d-favoured Samuel and the G.o.d-forsaken Saul _would be together_.

Here is certainly a belief in a future life, and in the power of a witch to bring up to earth a soul _at rest_--not in bliss or in misery, if Samuel's "why hast thou thus disquieted me" may be so construed; but that it was not an orthodox Jewish belief is made clear by 1 Chron. x.

13: "So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the Lord, even against the word of the Lord, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire of it, and inquired not of the Lord: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom to David, the son of Jesse." (c.) The wise woman of Tekoah, whom Joab sent disguised to king David, expressed the recognised belief when she said, "for we must needs die, and are as water spilled on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again." (d.) Elijah (1 Kings xvii. 21, 22) raised from the dead the son of the widow of Zarephath, and Elisha (2 Kings iv. 32-35) the son of the Shunammite. "Elisha went up and lay upon the child, and put his mouth upon his mouth, and his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands, and he stretched himself upon the child, and the flesh of the child waxed warm." Elijah, too, stretched himself on the child three times, and he prayed, "O Lord my G.o.d, let this child's soul (or life, same word as Genesis i. 30) come into him again; and the Lord heard the voice of Elijah, and the soul (or life) of the child came into him again, and he revived." It would be hard from these statements to determine whether Elijah and Elisha considered the child's soul or life as merely the action of an organism, or as so much vital force existing only _as force_ outside the body, or as a separate conscious soul sent back to earth at their request. Most probably neither they nor the narrator of their wonder-working had any definite opinion on the subject. Elisha's bones, also, had such virtue that when a dead man let down into his sepulchre (2 Kings xiii. 21) had touched them, he revived and stood up on his feet. It is strange that the bones could not do so much for themselves. Neither this man, however, nor the resuscitated children, appear to have been made immortal on earth, any more than the son of the widow of Nain, or the raised Lazarus of the New Testament. So, wretched ones, they had to suffer death twice; and when they were brought back to life, what did they tell their wondering friends of the condition of the disembodied soul? The world has been none the wiser of their revisit, (e.) The marvellous departure of Elijah (2 Kings ii. 11) was probably told to prevent any sort of wors.h.i.+p at his tomb, concealed, in all likelihood, as that of Moses, doubtless at his own desire, was.

15. The authorised version gives rise to considerable misapprehension by translating the Hebrew word "sheol" as "h.e.l.l" in some places, and "the grave" in others, (a.) The pa.s.sage (Genesis x.x.xvii. 35) before referred to, where Jacob says, "I will go down into the grave (sheol) unto my son mourning," if translated, "I will go down into h.e.l.l," &c, would have conveyed to the mind of a modern Christian that Joseph was in the place of torment. It was quite necessary here, therefore, to render the word "the grave." Genesis xlii. 38 is, similarly treated, (b) Proverbs xxiii.

13, 14, is an example of the other rendering of the same word: "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from h.e.l.l" (from sheol). Here nothing more is meant than that by coercing a youth to follow the lessons of experience, he would be saved from an early grave; but by translating sheol "h.e.l.l," the notion that "eternal woe" is to be averted by the unsparing use of the rod is erroneously implied, (c.) The Hebrew word _kibr_ is usually employed to designate a specific burying-place (a grave, as distinguished from _the_ grave), as in Genesis xxiii. 42; x.x.xv. 20, but is sometimes also used in the same sense as sheol, as Psalm vi. 5, "In the grave (sheol) who shall give thee thanks:" Psalm lx.x.xviii. 10, "Shall thy loving-kindness be declared in the grave" (kibr)? Sheol, however, almost invariably means more than a mere burial place: sometimes it is used in the sense of the "power of death" (Isaiah xiv. 9), sometimes of the unfathomable abyss of darkness, erroneously believed in those days to be under the earth (Psalm cx.x.xix. 8; Amos ix. 2); but usually it implies _the state that follows death_; and that this state was held to be one of ended existence, non-existence, or nothingness, is as clear a conclusion as words can convey. The reprieved Hezekiah (Isaiah x.x.xviii. 18) says, "For the grave (sheol) cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee: they that go down to the pit cannot hope for thy truth. The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day." So Psalm cxv. 17, "The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence;" and Eccles. ix. 5, "For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything;" also ix. 10, "for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave (sheol), whither thou goest." Job, too (vii. 9), "As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away, so he that goeth down to the grave (sheol) shall come up no more." Psalm xlix. 12, "Nevertheless, man being in honour abideth not: he is like the beasts that perish." Thus also Eccles. iii. 19, "For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other: yea, they have all one breath" (i.e, same word as translated "spirit" in verse 21, and chap. xii. 7); "so that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast: for all is vanity. (20) All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. (21) Who knoweth the spirit (or breath) of man that goeth upward, and the spirit (or breath) of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?" Is this last verse an answer to any objection taken to what is stated in verse 19, that man and beast have all one spirit (breath)? Again, Eccles. xii 7, "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to G.o.d who gave it." This pa.s.sage is quite conclusive against a separate conscious existence of the soul in any one place set apart for its reception, or of one soul going to one place and another to another. Man is dissolved into dust and spirit: the dust mingles again with the earth; the spirit in like manner, as spirit, returns to G.o.d: in other words, the life as life returns to its source. Such seems the idea. Again, the mercy of Jehovah is shown in consideration of the brief span of man's life, as Psalm lxxviii. 39, "For he remembered that they were but flesh; a wind that pa.s.seth away and cometh not again:" ciii. 14, "He knoweth our frame, he remembereth that we are dust;" and Psalm lx.x.xvii. 5 mentions the "slain that lie in the grave (kibr), whom thou (Jehovah) rememberest no more." How utterly opposed are all these clear statements to the paradise of unspeakable bliss, and the h.e.l.l of unutterable woe, and the immortal soul and the bodily resurrection of the New Testament.