Everlasting Contempt.
“And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.”—Daniel 12:2.
As many have erroneously supposed that this passage refers to the immortal condition of the whole human race, and describes the future happiness and misery of different classes of individuals, after the resurrection of all mankind from the dead, we ask the careful attention of the reader to the considerations we are about to present.
First, such an interpretation of this text is assumed to be correct, as the passage itself furnishes no proof of its correctness. Not the least hint is given of the immortal state of existence. No allusion is made to the resurrection of man from the dead. The passage does not assert that many shall “awake” in the future world; this is taken for granted. The very thing is assumed which needs undoubted proof! If the passage is to be understood literally, we may as well assume that those who awake from the dust of the earth, will awake into this world as into the future state. In absence of all proof, we certainly have no right to assume that the text refers to the immortal, resurrection world.
Again: it is supposed that the text refers to the time when the whole human race will be raised from the dead, and to a day of general judgment after that event; and yet orthodoxy teaches that the condition of every soul is unalterably fixed at death, and that all men are either in a state of happiness or misery! If all have a conscious existence in heaven or hell immediately after death, as orthodoxy teaches, in what sense do all sleep in the dust of the earth? All are to awake from the dust of the earth and come forth to judgment, to rise either to everlasting life or everlasting shame and contempt, and yet it is earnestly contended that all are in a state of happiness or misery at death! Orthodoxy teaches that long before the judgment day, the righteous are enjoying everlasting life, and the wicked suffering everlasting shame and contempt, and yet, at that day, they will awake from the dust of the earth and come to judgment, when long before they have been judged, acquitted or condemned, according to their merits or demerits.
These considerations show the fallacy of the common interpretation of the passage before us; and we therefore seek an exposition of the text which will be more rational and scriptural.
We shall be essentially assisted in our investigation of the subject before us, by ascertaining the ancient mode of speech, and the meaning of peculiar expressions employed by the ancients to convey important truths. When people were in a low and humble condition, they were spoken of as being bowed in the dust, and dwelling in the dust. These expressions were employed to represent a state of subjection, degradation, and humiliation.
Cruden says that “dust” signifies not simply grave and death, but “a most low and miserable condition.” God raised up the poor out of the dust. (1 Samuel 2:8.) Thy nobles shall dwell in the dust. (Nahum 3:18.) “They shall be reduced to a mean condition.”
Speaking of Solomon, David says that “his enemies shall lick the dust.” Psalms. 72:9. The meaning of this is, as Dr. Clarke says, that his enemies shall become so completely subdued, that they shall be reduced to the most abject state of vassalage; hence, they were said to lick the dust.
Again we read:
“‘For He bringeth down them that dwell on high; the lofty city, He layeth it low; He layeth it low, even to the ground; He bringeth it even to the dust.’ Isa. 26:5. This being brought ‘to the dust,’ was a figurative expression to denote a low and abject condition. Hence, when Job wanted to humble himself, he speaks of himself as repenting ‘in dust and ashes.’ Job 42:6. So by a figure of speech, by repentance, he would rise from the dust; that is, be delivered from that distressed and humble condition. When the divine judgments came upon Ariel, or Jerusalem, that city is represented as being low in the dust. ‘And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust.’“ Isa. 29:4.
We thus see that a low and abject condition was spoken of by representing people to be “in the dust;” so, on the other hand, a deliverance from that condition was spoken of as rising from the dust, and shaking thyself from the dust, and even awaking from the dust. “Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust.” Isa. 26:19. Those who had been brought down to the dust, (see verse 5th of this chapter,) were commanded to “awake” and sing; that is, they were to awake out of the dust. Jerusalem was exhorted to awake from the dust, thus:
“Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come unto thee the uncircumcised and the unclean. Shake thyself from the dust; arise, and sit down, O Jerusalem,” etc. Isa. 52:1, 2.
Here Jerusalem is exhorted to awake and arise, and shake herself from the dust! The people were to be raised from an humble and degraded condition to a state of prosperity. Hence, God is said to raise the poor “out of the dust;” (Psalms 113:7); that is, from an abject condition to a state of happiness, to the enjoyment of favors and privileges of which they had been deprived. Dr. Clarke says, that “He may allude to the wretched state of the captives in Babylon, whom God raised up out of that dust and dunghill.” See also 1 Samuel 2:8; 1 Kings 16:2.
To be in the “dust of the earth” was to be in a low and degraded condition, and to rise from it, was to be in a state of prosperity. But the passage under consideration speaks of sleeping in the dust of the earth. Every reader of the Bible is aware that the term “sleep” is used in different senses in the Scriptures. It is conceded by all that it is used to represent the extinction of animal life — a state we call death. (John 9:12, 13; 1 Cor. 15:51.) It is also employed to represent a state of slothfulness and poverty. (See Proverbs 6:9–11; 24:33, 34.) It is also employed to set forth a state of moral and spiritual death. (Isa. 29:10; 1 Tim. 5:6; Rev. 3:1.) We learn by these passages that people were represented as being dead and asleep while in this state of existence. They were morally dead and spiritually asleep; hence, when they were delivered from this state, they were spoken of as rising from the dead and awaking out of sleep, and even out of the dust of the earth. “Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.” Eph. 5:14. Those here referred to, and called upon to awake from sleep, were in a state of moral and spiritual death — and to arise from the dead, here, was the same as to awake from the dust of the earth. Such were exhorted to “awake to righteousness and sin not.” 1 Cor. 15:34.
Reference is made in the text to the Jewish people. They had once enjoyed great privileges and favors as the chosen people of God. They had been a powerful nation, and exerted a commanding influence among the nations of the earth. But they became a proud, haughty, and disobedient people, and were ultimately brought into a low and degraded condition; lost their national power and influence, and experienced the retributive justice of God. The text under consideration, alluded to the time when severe national judgments would come upon the Jewish nation, and some would awake to an appreciation of the truth and believe on Christ, and acknowledge him before men, while others would secretly believe on him but publicly deny him, and such would awake to shame and everlasting contempt.
“And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake.” Many who were in a low and degraded condition should be aroused from their lethargy — “some to everlasting life;” that is, to an appreciation of the truth, and the Savior’s claims, and would believe on him and have everlasting life — while others would secretly accept him, but not having sufficient moral courage to avow their convictions, would awake to “shame and everlasting contempt.” Those who boldly confessed Christ as their Lord and Master, awoke to “everlasting life,” while those who were convinced in their own souls that he was a true Teacher sent from God, but were too timid to make a public avowal of their convictions, and thus practically gave their influence against him “awoke to shame and everlasting contempt.” We read that “among the chief rulers, also, MANY believed on him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue. For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.” John 12:42, 43.
Here we are distinctly informed that many among even the chief rulers, believed on Christ, were convinced in their souls that he was divinely commissioned, but locked up their convictions in the secret chambers of their hearts, and dare not make a profession of their faith, through fear of the opposition and persecution which they would encounter. “Many” thus awoke from their slumber, in the dust of the earth, to shame and contempt! They were ashamed to be true to the honest convictions of their souls, ashamed to own Christ before men; ashamed to acknowledge him as their Master, and he was ashamed to own such as his disciples. (See Mark 8:38; Luke 12:8, 9.) “Many” believed on Christ, but were ashamed to own him publicly. Such “awoke” to an appreciation of the truth, but awoke to shame and everlasting contempt. Their conduct merited the shame and contempt that were visited upon them. Those who were true to their convictions, and publicly espoused their faith in Christ, in face of persecution and danger, awoke to everlasting life, and were “not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,” for they were animated with a hope that maketh not ashamed. “Some shall awake to everlasting shame and contempt.”
Some believed on him, but could not endure persecution, and turned back again to the enemy, and suffered in the divine judgments which came upon the ungodly, and when they awoke to the realizing sense of their condition, and cried, “Lord, Lord, open unto us,” it was then too late to escape the punishment they deserved, and they awoke to shame and everlasting contempt. They had known the truth, had secretly believed on Christ, but had been ashamed to own him before men, and now they must suffer the divine judgment “in that time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, even to that same time.” Dan. 12:1. Or, as Matthew has it, “great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world, to this time, no, nor ever shall be.” Matt. 24:21. This was the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel, the prophet. (Matt. 24:15: Dan. 12:1–11.) And all things spoken of were to be fulfilled in that generation. (Matt. 24:34.) Those who believed in Christ and confessed him before men, were in possession of everlasting life, while those who believed in him, but stifled their convictions, and denied him before men, and joined hands with his enemies, awoke to shame and everlasting contempt! They had been ashamed to confess him publicly, and they awoke to realize the shame and contempt they merited and experienced!
The Strait Gate.
“Enter ye in at the strait gate; for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because, strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”—Matthew 7:13, 14.
It is believed that all men, being born totally depraved, with corrupt natures, are in the broad road to destruction, which leads to endless pain and wretchedness, and that millions on millions of God’s intelligent offspring will be endlessly destroyed. They will suffer, as Dr. Watts expresses it, amidst
“Eternal plagues and heavy chains, Tormenting racks and fiery coals.”
But such opinions are opposed to the teachings of nature and revelation, and we dismiss them as unworthy of our regard.
What then is meant, we pass now to inquire, by “Entering into the strait gate?” The context shows that Jesus had reference to those moral obligations and duties, which grow out of our relation to kindred humanity and which are enjoined upon us, because of our relationship to each other. God being the common Father of all, consequently we are members of one great family, hence, there are relative duties growing out of this relationship, the discharge of which, constitutes us characteristically, children of God, and true and faithful disciples of his Son. Jesus was imparting that moral instruction designed to enlighten man in regard to his duties and obligations, both towards God and kindred humanity. He would send him to search his own heart and detect the passions lurking there; enter into a thorough examination of himself, and not overlook his own imperfections and wrongs, in searching for the sins of others.
As the moral obligations and duties thus imposed upon man were so numerous, instead of individual specifications, Jesus sums them up in the following broad and comprehensive language: “Therefore, ALL things, whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.” And then he adds immediately: “Enter ye in at the strait gate,” or, enter ye in at this strait gate of doing to others, as ye would that they should do unto you. By the “strait gate,” and “narrow way which leadeth unto life,” we understand that reference is made to that course of moral excellence and christian principle, and integrity, which the gospel recognizes, and which leadeth unto life. Such, animated by a divine spirit, are spoken of as being in the “kingdom of God,” which consists in “righteousness, peace and joy in the holy spirit.” Such were in possession of “everlasting life.”
It was only by complying with the requisitions of Christ, and doing to others as he would be done by, that man could become a Christian and enter into life. And as few only, made practical the Savior’s teachings, hence, it was said, “few there be that find it.” As the masses were governed by opposite principles, which lead to retaliation and revenge, it was appropriately said: “Broad is the way which leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat.” Those who were regardless of moral principles, were in the broad road to destruction. They were in the way of sin and death, while those who gave heed to the Savior’s teachings were in the narrow way of life and peace.
The Psalmist says: “Open to me the gates of righteousness, I will praise the Lord. This gate of the Lord, into which the righteous shall enter.” When a man begins to live the christian life, then he enters the gate of righteousness; and through this gate of righteousness, or right doing, does he enter into the kingdom of God, which consists in righteousness, peace and joy in the holy spirit. And so small was the number comparatively, who entered the gate of righteousness, by doing as they would be done by, that it was said, “few there be that find it.” He is in the way of life that keepeth instruction. Those who gave heed to the instructions of Jesus were in the way of life — they were in possession of everlasting life. Christ said: “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life,” and those who kept his words were in the way of life, for “he that hath the Son, hath life.”
“Broad is the way which leadeth to destruction.” This language has no reference to the future immortal world, but refers simply to the destructive power of sin in this life. He who is in the way of sin is in the way of destruction. Paul, speaking of the Jew and Gentile, says, “they have all gone out of the way….. Destruction and misery are in their ways.” And so destruction and misery are in the way of every sinner. The way of the transgressor is hard, we should therefore flee from sin and walk in the way which leadeth unto life, and shineth more and more, even unto the perfect day. All are called away from the broad road of sin and destruction. Sin mars the moral image of God, and is destructive to man’s peace and happiness, we should therefore flee from it as from a pestilence.
What we need is simply to make Christianity practical, to enter this strait gate, and walk in this narrow way of doing to others in all things, as we would that they should do unto us. Then shall we be in the way of life, of peace and salvation.
The Case Of Judas.
“The Son of man goeth, as it is written of him; but wo unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed; it had been good for that man if he had not been born.”—Matthew 26:24.
These words are supposed, by many professed religionists, to teach the endless perdition of Judas. How could it have been said of Judas, it is asked, “It had been good for that man if he had not been born, if he is finally to be saved? If he is to reach heaven at last, it certainly was good for him to have been born.”
Many erroneous ideas have arisen in regard to the meaning of this passage, by supposing that it had reference to the condition of Judas in the immortal state of existence. But this language had not the least reference to his final condition. It was a common proverb among the Jews in our Savior’s day, to indicate any severe calamity to befall an individual, without any reference to the future world. When any fearful calamity or judgment was to come upon an individual, it was common to say, “It were good for that man if he had not been born.” It was a proverbial expression, or an expression in common use among the Jews, to denote any severe chastisement or great misfortune, or terrible calamity. The Savior, knowing its use, and aware of the fate of Judas, very appropriately applied it to him. Similar expressions had long been in use. Job cursed the day of his birth, and said: “Let the day perish wherein I was born.” Job 3:3. Solomon said: “If a man live many years, and his soul be not filled with good; and also that he hath no burial: I say that an untimely birth is better than he.” Eccles. 6:3. This is the same as saying, “It had been better if he had not been born.” It was a common poverb to denote any great misfortune coming upon an individual; and as Judas would be overwhelmed with sorrow and smitten with grief and anguish, and plunged into the greatest distress by a vivid sense of his sins, it was very properly applied to him without any reference to his immortal condition.
Kenrick says, in his exposition, the expression—
“‘It had been good for him, if he had never been born,’ is a proverbial phrase, and not to be understood literally; for it is not consistent with our ideas of the divine goodness to make the existence of any being a curse to him, or to cause him to suffer more, upon the whole, than he enjoys happiness. Rather than do this, God would not have created him at all. But as it is usual to say of men who are to endure some grievous punishment or dreadful calamity, that it would have been better for them never to have been born, Christ foreseeing what Judas would bring upon himself, by delivering up his Master into the hands of his enemies, applies this language to him.”
We call the reader’s attention to the following from Dr. Adam Clarke, the Methodist commentator, upon this subject. He enters into a labored argument to show that Judas may be saved, and that his repentance was sincere, genuine, and acceptable to God. After mature deliberation, he thinks that “there is no positive proof of the final damnation of Judas in the sacred text.” This is the opinion of one of the most learned and distinguished divines of the orthodox church. Dr. Clarke shows clearly, that the language that stands at the head of this article, was a proverbial expression to denote the state of any flagrant transgressor without regard to the future world. But we will let this distinguished commentator speak for himself. He says:
“Judas was indisputably a bad man; but he might have been worse; we may plainly see that there were depths of wickedness to which he might have proceeded, and which were prevented by his repentance. Thus things appear to stand previously to his end. But is there any room for hope in his death? In answer to this it must be understood—first: That there is presumptive evidence that he did not destroy himself; and, second: That his repentance was sincere. If so, was it not possible for the mercy of God to extend even to his case? It did so to the murderers of the Son of God; and they certainly were worse men, (strange as this assertion may appear,) than Judas. Even he gave them the fullest proof of Christ’s innocence; they buying the field with the money Judas threw down, was the full proof of it; and yet, with every convincing evidence before them, they crucified our Lord. They excited Judas to betray his Master, and crucified him when they got him into their power, and therefore St. Stephen calls them both the betrayers and murderers of the Just One, (Acts 7:52); in these respects they were more deeply criminal than Judas himself; yet, even to these very betrayers and murderers, Peter preaches repentance, with the promise of remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 3:12-26.) If, then, these were within the reach of mercy, and we are informed that a great company of the priests became obedient to the faith, (Acts 6:7,) then certainly Judas was not in such a state as precluded the possibility of his salvation. Surely the blood of the covenant could wash out even his stain, as it did that more deeply ingrained one, of the other betrayers and murderers of the Lord Jesus.
Should the 25th verse be urged against this possibility, because it is there said that Judas fell from his ministry and apostleship, that he might go to his own place, and that this place is hell. I answer—first: It remains to be proved that this place means hell; and, second: It is not clear that the words are spoken of Judas at all, but of Matthias; his own place meaning that vacancy in the apostolate, to which he was then elected.
To say the repentance of Judas was merely the effect of his horror; that it did not spring from the compunction of heart; that it was legal and not evangelical, etc., is saying what none can with propriety say but God himself, who searches the heart. What renders his case most desperate, are the words of our Lord. ‘Wo unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It had been good for that man if he had not been born!’ Matt. 26:24. I have considered this saying in a general point of view, in my note on Matthew 26:24, and were it not a proverbial form of speech among the Jews, to express the state of any flagrant transgressor, I should be led to apply it, in all its literal import, to the case of Judas, as I have done in the above note, in the case of any damned soul; but when I find that it was a proverbial saying, and that it has been used in many cases, where the fixing of the irreversible doom of a sinner is not implied, it may be capable of a more favorable interpretation than what is generally given to it. I shall produce a few of those examples from Schoettgen, to which I have referred in my note on Matthew 26:24.
In Chagigah, fol. 2, 2, it is said, ‘Whoever considers these four things, it would have been better for him had he never come into the world, viz.: That which is above; that which is below; that which is before; and that which is behind. And whosoever does not attend to the honor of his Creator, it were better for him had he never been born.’
In Shemoth Rabba, sect. 40, fol. 135, 1, 2, it is said, ‘Whosoever knows the law, and does not do it, it had been better for him had he never come into the world.’
In Vayikra Rabba, sect. 26, fol. 179, 4, and Midrash Coheleth, fol. 91, 4, it is thus expressed: ‘It were better for him had he never been created; and it would have been better for him had he been strangled in the womb, and never have seen the light of this world.’
In Sohar Genes, fol. 71, col. 282, it is said, ‘If any man be parsimonious towards the poor, it had been better for him had he never come into the world.’ Ibid, fol. 84, col. 333. ‘If any performs the law, not for the sake of the law, it were good for that man had he never been created.’
These examples sufficiently prove that this was a common proverb, and is used with a great variety and latitude of meaning; and seems intended to show that the case of such and such persons was not only very deplorable, but extremely dangerous; but does not imply the positive impossibility either of their repentance or salvation.
The utmost that can be said for the case of Judas is this: he committed a heinous act of sin and ingratitude; but he repented, and did what he could to undo his wicked act; he had committed the sin unto death, i.e., a sin that involves the death of the body; but who can say, (if mercy was offered to Christ’s murderers, and the gospel was first to be preached at Jerusalem, that these very murderers might have the first offer of salvation through him whom they had pierced,) that the same mercy could not be extended to wretched Judas? I contend, that the chief priest, etc., who instigated Judas to deliver up his Master, and who crucified him —and who crucified him, too, as a malefactor, having at the same time, the most indubitable evidence of his innocence — were worse men than Judas Iscariot himself; and that if mercy was extended to those, the wretched, penitent traitor did not die out of the reach of the yearning of its bowels. And I contend farther, that there is no positive evidence of the final damnation of Judas in the sacred text.”—Clarke in loco.
This learned commentator contends that the repentance of Judas was genuine, and that “there is no positive evidence of the final damnation of Judas in the sacred text.” Why, then, we are gravely asked, did he go and hang himself, as Matthew affirms? (Matt. 27:5.) We would here state, that Luke gives a somewhat different account of his death. See Acts 1:18: “And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.” How then, are we to reconcile this apparent discrepancy between the two evangelists? One affirms that he hanged himself, the other that he fell headlong and burst asunder. The difficulty in question arises from an incorrect translation of the Greek word apegzato, here rendered “hanged himself.” It does not necessarily have this meaning, and may be rendered, “was suffocated, as with grief or anguish.” Eminent critics, as Dr. Clarke says, believe that Judas was suffocated with excessive grief. “Wakefield (he adds,) supports this meaning of the word with great learning and ingenuity.” Dr. George Campbell, an eminent Scotch Presbyterian divine, says that “the Greek word plainly denotes strangling,” but does not say how, by hanging, or otherwise. It is quite a different term that is used in those places where hanging is mentioned. He also adds, that it may be rendered, “was suffocated.” Wakefield renders it, “was choked with anguish.” This rendering of the original is supported by high authority, and is evidently correct. Judas gave every evidence possible of deep sorrow for sin, and of genuine repentance.