departed sj^irits is very obscure — a mere dreamy state of ex- istence ; and secondly, that it must be assumed that a relation continues between the soul and the elements of its decaying body in the grave. This is a perfect collapse of the theory. If it involves either of these consequences, that the soul is un- conscious after death, or that its life is in connection with its disorganized body, and conditioned by that connection, then it comes in direct conflict with the Scripture, and is exploded as a mere product of the imagination. If the Bible teaches or assumes that a body is necessary to the self-consciousness of the soul, or even to its power to perceive and to express, to act and to be acted upon, then it would be not only natural but necessary to understand the apostle to teach in this pas- sage that the moment the soul leaves its present body it en- ters into another. Then it would follow either that the only resurrection of which the Scri2)tures speak takes place at the moment of death, or that there is a body specially fitted for the intermediate state, differing both from the one which we now have, and from that which we are to have at the resur- rection. The former of these suppositions contradicts the plain doctrine of the Bible that the resurrection is a future event, to take place at the second advent of Christ ; and the latter contradicts this very passage, for Paul says that the house on which ^Ye enter at death is eternal. Besides, the Bible knows nothing of any body except the aco/xa iJ/vxi-kou, the natural hody^ which we have now, and the croj/xa -kv^vilo-tikov^ the spiritual hody^ which we are to receive at the resurrection. We are therefore reduced to the choice between the first and second of the three interpretations mentioned above. The building of which the apostle here speaks must be either a house in heaven, or the resurrection body. If the latter, then Paul teaches, not what is to happen immediately after death, but what is to take place at the second coming of Christ. In opposition to this view, and in favour of the opinion that the house here mentioned is heaven itself, it may be argued, 1. Heaven is often in Scripture compared to a house in which there are many mansions, John 14, 2 ; or to a city in which there are many houses, Heb. 11, 10. 14. 13, 14. Rev. 21, 10 ; or more generally to a habitation, Luke 16, 9. 2. The figure in this case is peculiarly appropriate. The body is compared to a house in which the soul now dwells, heaven is the house mto which it enters when this earthly house is dissolved. Our Lord told his sorrowing disciples that they should soon be
no II. CORINTHIANS 5, 1.
with liim, that in his Father's house, whither he went, there were many mansions, and that he would receive them unto himself. 3. The description here given of the house of which the apostle speaks agrees with the descriptions elsewhere given of heaven. It is a building of God; compare Heb. 11, 10, where heaven is said to be a city whose builder and maker is God. It is not made with hands, i. e. not of human work- manship or belonging to the present order of things. In the same sense the true tabernacle in heaven is said to be " not made with hands," Heb. 9, 11. It is eternal, because the state on which the soul enters at death is imchanging. And finally, this house is said to be " in heaven," or, we are said to have it " in heaven." This last clause is not consistent with the assumption that the house spoken of is the resurrection body. That body is not now in heaven awaiting our arrival there, nor is it to be brought down to us from heaven. But the mansion w^hich Christ has gone to prepare for his people is in heaven ; and therefore the apostle in raising his eyes heaven- ward could appropriately say, * If this tabernacle be dissolved I have a house in heaven.' 4. The principal argument in fa- vour of this interj^retation is that the house spoken of is one on which the soul enters immediately after death. This is plain because Paul says, that if our earthly house be dissolved xi^e have^ i. e. we have at once, a house in heaven. The whole context requires this explanation to be given to 9(o/xer, loe have. The apostle is speaking of the grounds of consolation in the immediate prospect of death, lie says in effect that the dissolution of the body does not destroy the soul or de- prive it of a home. His consolation was that if unclothed he would not be found naked. While at home in the body he was absent from the Lord, but as soon as he was absent from the body he would be present with the Lord. It is so obvious that the apostle is here speaking of what takes place at death, that those who maintain that the building re- ferred to is the resurrection body, propose various methods of getting over the difficulty. Some, as Usteri, assume that Paul, when he wrote the first epistle to the Corinthians, be- lieved that the resurrection was not to take place until the second advent of Christ, but changed his view and here teaches that it takes place at death. That is, that the soul when it leaves the present body is furnislied with that spiritual body which in the former epistle he taught was not to be received until Christ comes tlic second time. To those who proceed
II. CORINTHIANS 5, 1. Ill
on the assumption of the inspiration of Scripture, this unnatu- ral explanation needs no refutation. In his epistle to the PhilipiDians, written still later, he teaches the same doctrine that we find in First Corinthians. He must, therefore, have reverted to his former view. Paul was not thus driven about by every wind of doctrine. Even those who deny his inspira- tion must admit his consistency. Others say that as the apos- tle confidently expected to survive the second advent, he here speaks of what he anticipated in his own case. He believed he would not die, but be changed at once as described in 1 Cor. 15, 61. 52. But even admitting that Paul at this time did expect to survive the coming of the Lord, that is not the expectation here expressed. On the contrary, he is speaking of what would take place (idv) even in case he should die. If, worn out by his suflferings, his earthly house should be dis- solved before Christ came, still he knew he should have a I house in heaven. Others again say that the interval between death and the resurrection is not taken into account, but that the apostle, after the manner of the prophets, speaks of events as chronologically coincident which in fact are separated by a long period of time. But this does not meet the difliculty. As the apostle is speaking of the ground of consolation in the prospect of death, he must be understood to refer, not to what might be expected at an indefinite period after that event, but to its immediate consequence. He did not glory in his afflic- ktions because when his earthly house should be dissolved he Avould sink into a state of unconsciousness until the resurrec- tion; but because he would have another and unspeakably I' better habitation. This is evident, because he speaks of his being absent from the body as the immediate antecedent of his being present with the Lord ; which is only another form of saying he would be clothed upon with his house which is .; from heaven. 5. A fifth consideration in favour of the inter- : pretation in question, is derived from the analogy of Scripture. - The Bible in other places teaches that the souls of believers do at their death immediately pass into glory. Our Lord in re- l futing the Sadducees, who denied the existence of spirits, said, " Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by
I God, sa}dng, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living," Matt. 22, 32. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob there- fore are living, and not in a dreamy state of semi-conscious existence. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, we