Walter Martin and the Nature of Man*

* Conclusion of an unsolicited article in answer to Walter Martin's criticisms of Seventh-day Adventist belief on the doctrine of the nature of man.

FOUR Biblical incidents are next presented to prove that the soul is conscious after death: The death of Stephen, the words of Jesus to the thief, Moses' presence on the Mount of Transfiguration, and Saul's experience at Endor. We shall examine each incident sep­arately.

On page 128 the statement is made that Stephen's committing his spirit (pneuma) into the hands of the Lord Jesus Christ "establishes the fact that the immaterial nature of man is independent of his body." We agree that at death something imma­terial leaves the body, but does this prove that this something is a conscious entity? We believe not, for the following reasons: When Jesus died, He committed His spirit (pneuma) into His Father's hands. Ac­cording to the dualistic view of man to which Mr. Martin evidently subscribes (see page 119), the soul or spirit is the "real man," the body a mere integument or shell. Thus, according to this view, when Jesus died, His body was removed from the cross and placed in Joseph's tomb, but the "real man," which Mr. Martin prefers to call the "unit" (page 128) or "spiritual entity" (page 121) went to be with the Father. If so, how strange that "three days" later He should explicitly declare, "I am not yet ascended to my Father" (John 20:17). Ac­cording to Mr. Martin's theory He had as­cended to His Father on Friday afternoon. We therefore conclude that the spirit (pneuma) which leaves the body at death is not the "real man." We believe  that it is the spirit (ruach), or "breath of lives" (literal translation) that God "gave" (Eccl. 12:7) man in the beginning, and which he gives to every living creature (compare Gen. 2:7 with chap. 7:22 and Ps. 104:29, 30). When a man dies this life princi­ple "goeth forth" and returns "unto God who gave it," the body returns "to the earth," and "in that very day his thoughts [an integral part of consciousness] peish" (compare Eccl. 12:7 and Ps. 146:4). We see, therefore, that Mr. Martin has no scriptural warrant for assuming that the immaterial part of man, called the spirit, which Stephen committed into our Lord's hands, was a conscious entity.

On Luke 23:43, Mr. Martin says that Jesus "never qualified" the words "verily, verily, I say unto you," "because qualifica­tion was unnecessary" (page 129). Now, it may be true that nowhere else is it re­corded that Jesus ever qualified these words, but this does not prove that, there­fore, they were unnecessary on the occasion Jesus spoke them to the penitent thief. We believe that they were, owing to the un­usual circumstances under which they were uttered. Not only that, but the original text, translated and interpreted in har­mony with our view, is not ridiculously

redundant as Mr. Martin makes it out to be. The original text reads, amen lego soi semeron met' emoii ese en to paradeiso, and may either be translated, "Verily I say to you, today thou wilt be with me in para­dise" or "Verily I say to you today, thou wilt be with me in paradise." Greek gram­mar allows the adverb "today" to qualify either the verb lego, "I say," or, the verb ese [eimi], "thou wilt be." There is no re­dundancy in either translation. We prefer to punctuate the phrase with the comma after the adverb "today" so that it qualifies the verb "I say." Mr. Martin evidently pre­fers to make the adverb qualify the verb "thou wilt be." We raise no objection to his right to interpret the passage that way, but we do object to his claim that it can only be interpreted his way and that there­fore this is proof that the soul has a con­scious existence after death. It is not.

As for Moses and the Transfiguration, Mr. Martin says that the Adventists have no grounds for saying that Moses appeared on that occasion in his resurrected body, because Jude does not say that Moses was raised from the dead. He concludes that therefore "it is evident that the soul of Moses appeared to our Lord" (page 129). This is amazing. In essence Mr. Martin is saying that because Jude 9 does not say Moses' body was resurrected, he has there-fore proved that it was his soul. The dif­ficulty is that Mr. Martin has not estab­lished that the soul has a conscious exist­ence after death, and the text under con­sideration doesn't even mention the word soul. Once again Mr. Martin assumes what is to be proved.

Now, while it is true that Jude 9 does not say that Moses' body was resurrected, it cannot be denied that reference is made to his body. Jude 9 says that Michael "the archangel" and Satan "disputed about the body of Moses," and 1 Thessalonians 4:16, the only other Biblical occurrence of the word "archangel," says that the "Lord him­self shall descend from heaven . . . with the voice of the archangel. .. : and the dead in Christ shall rise first." We see no reason for Paul's reference to the archangel unless the archangel is the Resurrector of the dead. Therefore, we conclude that Moses was bodily resurrected at the time Michael the archangel and the devil had their dispute. The preponderance of evidence is there­fore in favor of the assumption that Moses appeared to our Lord in his resurrected body. There is no evidence that even sug­gests that it was Moses' soul.

In 1 Samuel 28:7-19 is the record of Saul's visit to the woman of Endor, who had a "familiar spirit." Mr. Martin alleges that "every instance" in this account "indicates that Samuel in his spiritual nature ad­dressed Saul. Nowhere is it even intimated that it was not Samuel, and any attempt to establish what the Hebrew text simply does not allow is evidence of failure to recognize the hermeneutic principle of interpreta­tion governing the process of sound exe­gesis" (pages 130, 131). In the first place we believe that a comparison of the ac­count of Saul's interview in 1 Samuel with a literal translation of 1 Chronicles 10:13 does allow that a "familiar spirit," not Samuel, addressed Saul. 1 Samuel 28:7 says Saul asked his servants to seek for "a woman that hath a familiar spirit," literally "a woman who is mistress of a familiar spirit" (Hebrew, 'esheth ba'alath 'ob), but in 1 Chronicles 10:13 it says Saul "asked of a familiar spirit, to inquire" (literal trans­lation. Hebrew, lishoSl ba'ob lidrosh). The original text certainly allows the interpre­tation that Saul asked of the familiar spirit itself. We believe that this familiar spirit impersonated Samuel and that in calling the familiar spirit "Samuel," the writer of 1 Samuel is simply using the language of appearance.

In the second place, 1 Samuel 28:6 says that Saul "enquired of the Lord," but 1 Chronicles 10:14 says that Saul "enquired not of the Lord." It is not reasonable that God, who would answer Saul "neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets" (1 Sam. 28:6), would answer him through the medium of one who was an abomination to Him (compare Lev. 19:31; 20:6, 27; Deut. 18:10, 11; 1 Sam. 28:3; Isa. 8:19). Therefore, we conclude that God was not answering Saul through the supposed "Sam­uel." Saul was not inquiring of the Lord when he spoke to the familiar spirit.

In the third place, it is strange that if, as Mr. Martin teaches, at death believers go "into the presence of the Lord" (page 128), and unbelievers go "into a place of punishment" (ibid.), that Samuel should have come "out of the earth" (I Sam. 28: 13, 14. Compare with verses 11 and 15), or that Saul should have gone to "be with" Samuel, after he committed suicide (verse 19). It simply doesn't make sense.

We believe that a doctrine based on the questionable foundation of a forbidden in­terview with an enemy of God, is no proof that "Samuel in his spiritual nature ad­dressed Saul."

III. Hell and Eternal Punishment

We now turn to the question of whether unbelievers will be tormented endlessly in hell. We agree with Mr. Martin that "the thought of a never-ending agony of ra­tional beings fully realizing their distress­ing plight is so appalling that it exceeds comprehension" (page 138). It is more than appalling; we believe it is unscriptural.

Eternal torment is founded on the as­sumption that God has given all men, re­gardless of their characters, souls that He will never reduce to nonexistence. This assumption, as we have shown, is un-Bibli-cal, because not once in the entire Bible is man's soul or spirit even remotely associ­ated with the idea of endlessness. We can­not emphasize this point too strongly.

We fully agree with Dr. Hodge, whom Mr. Martin quotes as authority, "That the Hebrew and Greek words rendered in our version 'eternal' or 'everlasting,' mean duration whose termination is unknown" (page 131). We also agree with him when he says, "When used in reference to perish­able things, as when the Bible speaks of the 'everlasting hills,' they simply indicate in­definite existence to which there is no known or assignable limit" (pages 131, 132). We do not agree with him when he says, without any Biblical proof whatever, that the "human soul" has "unending existence," for the simple reason that the Scriptures do not say so, even though the terms soul and spirit are used more than 1,600 times in the Bible. On the contrary, the Scriptures consistently declare that all existence, including conscious existence, is entirely dependent on the sustaining power of God (Acts 17:28; John 1:3, 4; Col. 1:16, 17; Heb. 1:3; Neh. 9:6; Ps. 36:9; et cetera) and therefore we conclude that the words "eternal" and "everlasting" when applied to man mean existence to which there is no assignable limit. Only God is eternal in the absolute sense. All things else owe their origin and continued existence to Him. In the case of the righteous, "eter­nal" and "everlasting" mean "endless," not because they have souls that are "eternal by creation" (page 132), but because they have "become partakers of the divine na­ture" (2 Peter 1:4) by faith in Christ. Un­believers do not partake of this nature.

Viewed in this light, Matthew 25:41 and 46 presents no dilemma to the Adventists. When unbelievers are cast into "everlast­ing fire" they are punished for an indefi­nite but limited duration. Since they do
not partake of the "divine nature" they are perishable, and the words "eternal" and "everlasting," when applied to them simply mean "duration whose termination is not known." On the other hand, since the righteous are partakers of the divine nature that is imperishable, the words "eternal" and "everlasting" mean endless duration.

Mark 9:47, 48 presents no problem. The expression, "Their worm dieth not" is plainly a figure of speech, and we agree with Mr. Martin that "one does not develop a doctrine from a figure of speech" (page 121); therefore we reject his development of the doctrine of eternal torment on the basis of this text.

Second Peter 2:9 is cited in support of the doctrine of conscious punishment of unbelievers in the intermediate state. The context of this passage shows that Peter is referring to punishment and deliverance in this present life. In the verses that im­mediately precede the passage under con­sideration, the apostle mentions several ex­amples of divine retribution in this pres­ent life, namely, the angels that sinned, the antediluvians, and the ungodly inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. It also mentions two examples of divine deliverance in this present life—Noah and his family and Lot. The apostle then goes on to conclude, "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto [Greek, eis] the day of judg­ment to be punished." No one will dispute

the fact that the godly need no deliverance from trial after death, and hence their de­liverance must refer to deliverance in this life. Since the context shows that Peter is referring to punishment and deliverance in this present life, it seems reasonable to conclude that the latter part of verse 9 also refers to punishment of the ungodly in this present life, not after death.

Without first assuming conscious exist­ence in the intermediate state there is no reason for believing that the apostle is re­ferring to conscious punishment in the in­terval between death and the judgment. Therefore, before Mr. Martin's argument based on this text can mean conscious tor­ment in the intermediate state, he must first establish conscious existence in the in­termediate state. W'e submit he has not been able to do this.

IV. Hell and Punishment in New Testament Greek

In this final section Mr. Martin endeav­ors to support his belief in eternal torment on the basis of the Greek words that are used to describe the punishment of unbe­lievers. He begins by citing Matthew 5:22 and 10:28: " 'Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell [gehenna] fire.' " " 'Fear him which is able to destroy [apolesai] both soul [psuche] and body [soma] in hell [gehenna].'" Mr. Martin says that gehenna "portrays a place of pun­ishment for the unsaved," and apolesai [apollumi] which is coupled with it in Matthew 10:28, is said to mean " 'to be de­livered up to eternal misery.' " From this he concludes that gehenna "symbolizes eternal separation and conscious punish­ment of the spiritual nature of the unre-generate man" (page 135). A comparison of Matthew 10:28 with this statement shows that Mr. Martin interprets "soul" to mean "spiritual nature."

Our first question is: From what does the soul, or spiritual nature, eternally sepa­rate when the unregenerate man is cast into hell? He answers on page 128 that the "immaterial nature of man (soul and spirit) is separate from the body (Matt. 10:28; Luke 8:55; 1 Thess. 5:23; Heb. 4:12: Rev. 16:3"); that it is independent of man's material form, and departs from that form at death, to go either into the presence of the Lord (Phil. 1:23) or into a place of punishment (Luke 16)." This makes it quite evident that Mr. Martin believes that the soul, or spiritual nature, separates from the body when the unregenerate man is "plunged" into "Hell" (see page 131). The second question is: Since apollumi is grammatically and contextually coupled with the body as well as the soul, why does Mr. Martin ignore the application of apollumi to the body in the conclusion he draws? We believe that it is because the definition "to be delivered up to eternal misery" given apollumi, implies consciousness, and it would have been ab­surd to deliver up the body for eternal misery if it is eternally separated from the spiritual nature, which is supposed to be the conscious part of man. He tried to avoid this pitfall by simply ignoring the body. By ignoring this issue he has avoided an inconsistency, but has thereby vitiated his argument.

As for Isaiah 66:24 teaching eternal pun­ishment, we repeat that "one does not de­velop a doctrine from a figure of speech" (page 121).

The second text Mr. Martin presents to sustain the doctrine of eternal torment is 2 Thessalonians 1:8, 9. He claims that the word olethros, translated "destruction" ac­tually should be translated "ruination" and that therefore the wicked are ruined but not destroyed. Then he goes on to draw an analogy between a broken light bulb and the "destruction" of the wicked, claiming that though the function of the bulb is destroyed, the glass remains. The trouble with this analogy is that Mr. Martin has transposed the elements in it.

According to his theory the body is ma­terial, the soul immaterial. In order to be consistent, the body should be analogous to the glass, the soul to the function of the bulb, not vice versa, as he has it. Seventh-day Adventists hold that when the body is broken through death, consciousness, which is a function of the soul, ceases. Hence, the need for a resurrection of both the just and the unjust (John 5:28, 29; Acts 24:15). If the soul or spirit is capable of conscious existence apart from the body, what cause is there for a resurrection? Not only this, but cause is there for a sec­ond coming or a general judgment? Thus we see that Mr. Martin is still working on the false assumption that the soul is eternal by creation.

The Greek word basanizo, found in Rev­elation 20:10 (also Matt. 8:6, 29; Mark 5:7; Luke 8:28; Rev. 14:10, 11) is next presented as evidence that the wicked suf­fer eternal "conscious 'torment' " (p. 137). Mr. Martin then goes on to declare that by this text "the theory of anni­hilation or, as the Adventists say, the final destruction, of the wicked is itself annihi­lated" (p. 137).

It strikes us as rather strange that this man should speak with such confidence in reference to Revelation 20:10 and 14:10, 11, when a few pages before he confesses, "The Bible does not tell us the nature of Hell and the lake of fire so vividly recorded in the Book of Revelation" (page 131). It seems to us that by this admission he has effectively annihilated his claim to have de­stroyed our doctrine.

There is no need to comment on Mat­thew 8:6, 29; Mark 5:7 and Luke 8:28, since there is no question that basanizo means conscious torment; however, it should be pointed out that this word does not suggest eternal torment. Since the phrase "for ever and ever" (Greek, eis tous aidnas ton aio-non, or, eis aidnas aidnori), like the words "everlasting" and "eternal," are applied to the wicked who are not by nature imperish-able, we conclude that the expressions in Revelation relating to the torment of the wicked are of unknown but limited dura­tion.

The final grammatical point brought forth in favor of the theory of eternal tor­ment is the word abide (Greek, menei) found in John 3:36. This text is coupled with Romans 2:8, 9 and Revelation 14:10, from which the conclusion is inferred that God's wrath continues to operate on the wicked eternally.

First of all, the Greek word menei, while it may carry the idea of continuous action, does not necessarily carry the idea of eter­nal continuous action, this obviously is de­rived from Revelation 14:10, which as we have pointed out assumes that the soul is eternal by nature. Therefore, the argument based on John 3:36 is invalid. We believe that the wrath of God abides on the wicked continually until they have been punished according to their works.

Conclusion

To sum up: Mr. Martin begins his at­tempt to establish conscious existence after death by proving that the righteous have eternal life. In this he has failed because he does not establish that eternal life always includes conscious fellowship or that it even includes conscious fellowship in the passages he claims support his contention.

The second group of arguments is based on the Biblical words soul and spirit, which he presents as evidence that man's "cogni­zant, immaterial nature" survives as a con­scious entity after the death of the body. In this he has failed because the words soul and spirit have many meanings besides "consciousness" or "cognizance," and he does not establish that this is the meaning in the texts he sets forth as proof for his contention.

The third and fourth set of arguments is founded on the assumption that he has established that the soul is eternal by cre­ation. In this he has signally failed, because the Scriptures invariably teach that man owes his existence to the sustaining power of God, and nowhere does the Bible even remotely intimate that the soul or spirit is eternal, either by creation or because the power of God maintains its existence eter­nally.

Apart from the scriptural evidence that man does not have an eternal conscious existence, we believe that reason indicates that it would be unwise and unjust to or­dain that man must have an endless con­scious existence irrespective of character. Unwise, because in creating man a free moral agent there was the definite possi­bility that he might fall. Unjust, because having fallen he is irretrievably condemned to eternal torment for the sins of a rela­tively short lifetime. Mr. Martin counters that it is not "proper or reasonable to make our human sentiments and judgments the measure of God's essence and activity," but we reply that if human beings are capable of judging between the benefits of eternal life and the evils of eternal damnation, we are not wholly incapable of seeing the gross injustice of consigning rational beings to never-ending agony for the sins committed in this brief life.

But we do not rest our case on reason alone. The Scriptures make it plain that when the struggle between good and evil is over God will be "all and in all" (1 Cor. 15:24-28). We cannot imagine God being in the wicked, nor could God be "all" if the rebels against His government are al­lowed to live on endlessly blaspheming His holy name. We therefore conclude that the Scriptures teach that endless conscious ex­istence is possible only by accepting "eter­nal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."