Their punishment denied. Behold, as wild asses in the desert, go they forth to their work; rising betimes for a prey: the wilderness yield eth food for them and for their children. They reap every one his corn in the field.... Men groan from out of the city, and the soul of the wounded crieth out: yet God layeth not folly to them. Job xxiv. 5, 6, 12.

Affirmed.

This is the portion of a wicked man with God, and the heritage of oppressors, which they shall receive of the Almighty. If his children be multiplied, it is for the sword: and his offspring shall not be satisfied with bread.

For God shall cast upon him, and not spare: he would fain flee out of his hand. Job xxvii. 13, 14, 22.

Hirzel: 1 "While Job's opponents wished to prove this proposition against him, that 'the transgressor did not escape punishment in his life,' and charged it upon Job himself that, since every transgressor was miserable, therefore every miserable man was a transgressor; to parry this argument Job had hitherto, though against his better judgment, denied the entire proposition; and, since his opponents had laid it down as a permanent and universal rule, he had confirmed this denial by adducing numerous examples where the contrary was true. But now he goes on to explain the matter to his friends, and admits that they have rightly apprehended the law by which the transgressor's lot is determined." Yet, while making this concession, he points out an error into which they have fallen in applying the principle. This explanation relieves the difficulty by referring the "apparent contradiction" to the different relations in which Job speaks.

Nor, on the hypothesis that Job was not inspired as a religious teacher, is it of the slightest consequence whether or not we can establish the concinnity of all his utterances.

Retribution on Earth.

Reward and punishment here. Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner. Prov. xi. 31.

Hereafter.

For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Matt. xvi. 27.

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. Rev. xx. 12.

It is not asserted, in the first text, that either the righteous

1 Quoted by De Wette, ii. 561.

or wicked receive full recompense in this world. The meaning, doubtless, is that the beginnings of retribution are seen here on the earth. Stuart: "The same retributive government which begins to assert its power in this world, will continue its processes in the world to come

Melancthon, Bishop Hall, Edwards, Lange, and other critics take the word "recompensed" as referring exclusively to the punishment of wrong-doing. Hence, the sentiment is, "If the righteous in this world suffer chastisement for their misdeeds, much more surely shall the impenitent be punished for their wilful transgression." That is, the argument is derived from the corrective discipline experienced by good men on earth in favor of the just retribution which shall be meted out hereafter to the incorrigible sinner. In no aspect is it affirmed that full and final retribution is administered in this world.

VI. MAN, in relation to the Future. - Death.

The two texts from John refer not to physical but to spiritual death. The Pauline quotations contemplate the righteous who shall be living on the earth at the time of Christ's second coming. These will not indeed literally "die," but will be "changed"; that is, undergo a transformation equivalent to death, putting off mortality and putting on immortality. All will experience either death, or what is tantamount to it. As Alford says: "The sleep of death cannot be predicated of all of us, but the resurrection-change can."

Rev. ii. 11 also denotes not physical death, but the final punishment of the incorrigibly wicked. It is fitly termed "death," as being an eternal separation from hope and happiness, and an exclusion from all which is worthy of the name "life.”

Lazarus not to die.

Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick. When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby. John xi. 3, 4.

He did die.

Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead. And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe. John xi. 14, 15.

"This sickness is not unto death"; that is, the ultimate result will not be "death," but "the glory of God." And so it proved, for many of the Jews who witnessed the raising of Lazarus from the dead, believed on the Son of God.' Thus the Father was glorified in the Son.

Man dies like a beast.

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; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast. Eccl. iii. 19.

His death different.

Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. Eccl. xii. 7.

In one aspect of the case, there is no distinction between the death of man and that of beasts. Both are uncertain as to the time of it; both are powerless to prevent it; the physical phenomena, in each case, are much the same. In these respects there is a very close resemblance, and this may be the relation of which the author is speaking.

Or, with many commentators, we may say that Solomon raises and answers objections, as Paul does so often. Thus the passage in question (Eccl. iii. 18-20), beginning "I said in mine heart," etc., may be merely an objection which, being suggested to the mind of Solomon, he proceeds to discuss and solve. Dr. Davidson 2 thinks that the author brings before his readers doubts suggested by observation and reflection, or in some cases presented to him by others. Prof. Stuart: When we view the author in the light of proposing the doubts and

1

1 Compare John xi. 45.

2 Introd. to Old Test., ii. 385.

difficulties which perplexed his own mind, and sooner or later as solving them, then we meet with no serious embarrassment in interpreting the book.

Prof. Tayler Lewis, in Lange, takes the words, "I said in mine heart concerning," etc., as equivalent to, "I deduced this inference from men's lives, I put this interpretation upon their conduct, that, in their own view, they are beasts.” It is man's judgment upon himself, as pronounced by his own conduct. It is the language of his life.

A terribly severe, but no less just, estimate of man, from a point of view apparently identical with his own.

Death ceases.

Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. 2 Tim. i. 10.

Still exists.

It is appointed unto men once to die. Heb. ix. 27.

"Hath abolished death"; hath taken away its sting and terror, so that it is no longer death, a grim and terrible monster, but a kind angel come to conduct the believer home to heaven. Alford: "By the death of Christ, death has lost his sting; and is henceforth of no more account; consequently the act of natural death is evermore treated by the Lord himself and his apostles as of no account; and its actual and total abolition foretold."

Men, immortal.

Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. Luke xii. 4.

66

God only, immortal.

The King of kings, and Lord of lords Who only hath immortality. 1 Tim. vi. 15, 16.

The first text is a strong incidental proof that the soul is "immortal,” since it does not die with the body. It is beyond the power of the persecutor. When he has killed the body his fury has expended itself; he can do no more; he cannot reach or harm the soul. The survival of the soul is thus plainly implied and assumed by our Lord.

The second text is interpreted by "mortal-soulists," as der y

1 We use this term, instead of "Thnetopsychites," the name employed by John Damascenus (see Hagenbach's History of Doctrines, i. 221), tu

ing immortality to all beings except God. Hence it would follow that the angels, Gabriel, and Michael the archangel even,— are mortal! And if, as Alford thinks, the above text refers to the Father exclusively, it would also follow that the Lord Jesus himself is mortal!!

By parity of reasoning the language employed in Rom. xvi. 27, "God only wise," warrants the inference that God is the only being who possesses wisdom!

The meaning in both cases obviously is that only God possesses the given attribute, inherently and underivedly. Justin Martyr: "He has not this through the will of another, as all the other immortals, but through his own essence.” Theodoret : "Immortal by essence, not by participation."

Upon no reasonable interpretation does the passage collide with the derived and dependent immortality of man.

Men kill the soul.

Joshua took Makkedah, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof he utterly destroyed, them, and all the souls that were therein. Josh. x. 28.

And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them: there was not any left to breathe. Josh. xi. 11.

Cannot kill it.

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Matt, x. 28.

It is scarcely necessary to allude to the fact that our word "soul" is used in two entirely distinct senses.

Thus we say,

"The soul is immortal," and, alluding to a marine disaster, Every soul perished." In the latter case, "soul" is synonymous with "person." This secondary meaning of the word may have arisen from the fact that it is the soul of man which gives him personality. Be this as it may, the most orthodox theologians employ the term in these widely different senses.

man.

designate those who deny the natural immortality of the soul or spirit of The term may be extended to include also the denial of consciousness to the soul in the interval between death and the resurrection. Apparently the first attempt to introduce Thnetopsychism into the Christian church was made, A.D. 248, by certain errorists from Arabia. Compare Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, Book vi., chap. xxxvii.; and Guericke's Ancient Church, p. 228.