Immaculate Conception, The – Impart

Immaculate Conception, The

i-mak'-u-lat kon-sep'-shun:

1. Definition:

The historic designation of the Roman Catholic dogma promulgated by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854, in the Papal Bull entitled "Ineffabilis Deus." The term is often incorrectly applied, even by those whose intelligence should make such an error impossible, to the VIRGIN BIRTH of Christ (which see).

2. Statement of the Dogma:

The central affirmation of this proclamation, which was read in Peter's in the presence of over two hundred bishops, is expressed in the following words: It is proclaimed "by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul and in our own authority, that the doctrine which holds the blessed Virgin Mary to have been, from the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Saviour of Mankind, preserved free from all stain of original sin, was revealed by Cod, and is, therefore, to be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful" (see Schaff, A History of the Creeds of Christendom, II, 211, 212).

3. Objections to the Dogma:

(1) Drawn from Specifically Protestant Principles.

Objections to the dogma are mainly two:

(a) the claim to authority upon which the proclamation rests. There is every reason to believe that one of the major motives to the entire transaction was the wish, on the part of Pius and his advisers, to make an unmistakable assertion of absolute doctrinal authority by the Roman pontiff. To Protestants of all shades of opinion there would be unbearable offense in the wording of the decree, even if assent could be given to the doctrine itself. The whole vital issue of the Reformation is involved in the use by an ecclesiastic of the words "in our own authority" in addition to the words "by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

(b) The tendency to Mariolatry in the entire movement. As we shall see, the ascription of Divine honors to Mary is avoided in the public statement of the dogma and in the defense of it by Roman Catholic writers, but one has but to survey the course of discussion leading up to the publication of 1854, and subsequent to it, to discover a growing tendency to lift Mary out of the realm of human beings and to endow her with Divine attributes and functions. An extended discussion of Mariolatry lies beyond the range of this article (see MARY); it is only necessary to point out the obvious connections (see Roman Catholic Dictionary and church histories, sub loc.).

(2) Drawn from Roman Catholic Principles.

It is far from the truth to suppose that there are no objections to this modern dogma save those which are specifically Protestant. From the viewpoint of the devout Roman Catholic, and for the sake of the prestige of the papacy, this particular dogma seems to have been unfortunately chosen.

(a) It Has No Basis in Scripture.

The only attempt made to provide a Scriptural argument is by using a vague and unsatisfactory parallel between Mary and Eve before the Fall, to be found in the writings of certain church Fathers who did not hold the papal dogma but unconsciously provided a slender and most insecure basis for it (see inacanus). Most Roman Catholic writers are intelligent enough to admit that theory of inspired tradition alone can be appealed to in support of the idea. The ordinary and only tenable argument is that the ecclesiastical promulgation and acceptance of the doctrine prove its apostolic origin (see Catholic Dictionary, sub loc.).

(b) It Weakens the Authority of the Church.

It would almost seem as if the doctrines of ecclesiastical authority and particularly of papal infallibility had, in this unfortunate proclamation, reached a reductio ad obsurdum for the comfort of their foes. Notice with care the historical standing of this dogma:

(i) The acknowledged absence of all positive evidence for apostolic origin and primitive authority (see Catholic Dictionary ut supra).

(ii) The abundant positive evidence that the principal Fathers of the early church did not believe in the sinlessness of Mary (see list of names and references given by H.C. Sheldon, History of the Christian Church, sub loc.).

(iii) The uncertain and equivocal testimony per contra drawn from the early Fathers. They are practically confined to the following: Ephrem Syrus (Carmina, Hymn 27, strophe 8), where he says "Truly it is Thou and Thy mother only who are fair altogether. For in Thee there is no stain and in Thy mother no spot"; Augustine (De Natura et Gratia, cap. 26), "Two were made simple, innocent, perfectly like each other, Mary and Eve," etc. To these may be added the words of Irenaeus: "The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience" (Catholic Dictionary, 422). In regard to these three passages it may reasonably be contended that even if these statements necessarily implied the Immaculate Conception of Mary, which they certainly do not, they would still have to be estimated against the many weighty statements which may be brought forward on the other side.

(iv) The prolonged controversy over the doctrine. From the earliest time when the idea of Mary's miraculous freedom from sin appears, up to the Old Catholic agreement of 1874, devout and faithful Roman Catholics have protested against the addition of this unscriptural dogma to the faith of the church. Bonaventura (Locus Theol., VII, 1) says: "All the saints who have made mention of this matter, with one mouth have asserted that the blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin." With the statement of the Old Catholic agreement we may safely sum up the ecclesiastical situation, even from the viewpoint of those who hold to the doctrinal validity of tradition. Art. X reads: "We reject the New Roman doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, as being contrary to the tradition of the first 13 centuries, according to which Christ alone is conceived without sin."

(3) Drawn from General Considerations of Christian Doctrine.

The most serious objections to this offensive and gratuitous dogma are not at all specifically Protestant but, rather, broadly Christian. It is necessary at this point to assure ourselves that we understand (as many Protestants evidently do not) just what is meant by the doctrine as a doctrine. According to the accepted Roman Catholic explanation, Mary, at the supposed stage of her conception when the soul was actually infused into the body waiting for it, received the special grace of God whereby she was delivered from all stain of original sin. The point which Protestants need especially to note is that, according to Roman Catholic ideas, this gracious act of God was performed on the basis of the foreseen merits of Christ's sacrifice. This tones down the offensiveness of the doctrine in that it does not per se imply the equality of Mary with Christ, but rather the contrary, in so far as the grace bestowed upon her was gained by anticipation from Him. Roman Catholic writers naturally emphasize this fact in recommending the doctrine to Protestant minds. None the less the offense remains. The "Immaculate Conception" necessarily implies the "immaculate life," and on the same basis of supernatural grace, else would the special miracle have occurred in vain and the fall of Adam been repeated in Mary. Hence, a full account of the doctrine would be that Mary was completely and miraculously redeemed at her conception and completely and miraculously kept from sin throughout her whole life. Apart from all questions as to the rightful place of Mary in Christian thought, this idea involves utter doctrinal confusion. It means that Mary never became a true human being and never lived a true human life. Redemption by a miraculous process begun at conception and carried on throughout the life is an utter impossibility, for the Holy Spirit does not work impersonally, and miraculous holiness which is holiness of a purely Divine character, without a free, cooperating human factor, is no human holiness at all. This dogma reads Mary out of the human family, reduces her to an image and makes her life a phantasm. Moreover, the parallels which are adduced in its support are not true parallels at all.

Our Lord's sinlessness was not mechanically guaranteed by His miraculous conception (see VIRGIN BIRTH) but was His own achievement through the Holy Spirit granted to Him and personally appropriated. The Hallowing of Children at the Font (see Catholic Dictionary, 470a), the sanctifying of those "separated from the womb" (Galatians 1:15) to God's service, does not imply the miraculous guarantee of artificial sinlessness, but such a gracious influence as enables the subject freely cooperating to obtain victory over sin as a controlling principle. Actual sin and need of forgiveness is not pretermitted by such special grace.

We can only say, in conclusion, that every reason, which usually operates in a Christian mind to insure rejection of a false teaching, ought to preclude the possibility of accepting this peculiar dogma which is Scripturally baseless, historically unjustified and doctrinally unsound.

LITERATURE.

The best simple and reasonably fair-minded discussion of this dogma from the Roman Catholic viewpoint is to be found in the Catholic Dictionary already mentioned, where wide references will be found. For the Protestant view consult any authoritative church history, especially that of Professor H.C. Sheldon where copious references to Patristic literature will be found.

Louis Matthews Sweet

Immanuel

i-man'-u-el (`immanu'el): The name occurs but 3 times, twice in the Old Testament (Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 8:8), and once in the New Testament (Matthew 1:23). It is a Hebrew word signifying "God is with us." The form "Emmanuel" appears in Septuagint (Emmanouel).

1. Isaiah Rebukes Ahaz:

In 735 BC Ahaz was king of Judah. The kingdom of Israel was already tributary to Assyria (2 Kings 15:19,2 Kings 15:20). Pekah, king of Israel, a bold and ambitious usurper, and Rezin, king of Syria, formed an alliance, the dual object of which was, first, to organize a resistance against Assyria, and second, to force Ahaz to cooperate in their designs against the common tyrant. In the event of Ahaz' refusal, they planned to depose him, and to set the son of Tabeel, a choice of their own, upon the throne of David. To this end they waged war against Judah, advancing as far as Jerusalem itself, but without complete success (Isaiah 7:1). Ahaz, a weak king, and now panic-stricken, determined to invoke the aid of Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria (2 Kings 16:7). This he actually did at a later stage in the war (2 Kings 6:9; 2 Kings 15:29). Such a course would involve the loss of national independence and the payment of a heavy tribute. At this period of crisis, Isaiah, gathering his disciples around him (Isaiah 8:16), is told to deliver a message to the king. Ahaz, though making a show of resistance against the coalition, is in reality neither depending upon the help of Yahweh nor upon the courage of his people. Isaiah, in an effort to calm his fears and prevent the fatal alliance with Assyria, offers him a sign. This method is specially characteristic of this prophet. Fearing to commit himself to the policy of Divine dependence, but with a pretense at religious scruples, "Neither will I tempt Yahweh," the king refuses (Isaiah 7:12). The prophet then chides him bitterly for his lack of faith, which, he says, not only wearies men, but God also (Isaiah 7:13).

2. The Sign of "Immanuel":

He then proceeds to give him a sign from God Himself, the sign of "Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14). The interpretation of this sign is not clear, even apart from its New Testament application to Christ. The Hebrew word translated "virgin" in English Versions of the Bible means, more correctly, "bride," in the Old English sense of one who is about to become a wife, or is still a young wife. Psalms 68:25 English Versions of the Bible gives "damsels."

Isaiah predicts that a young bride shall conceive and bear a son. The miracle of virgin-conception, therefore, is not implied. The use of the definite article before "virgin" (ha-`almah) does not of itself indicate that the prophet had any particular young woman in his mind, as the Hebrew idiom often uses the definite article indefinitely. The fact that two other children of the prophet, like Hosea's, bore prophetic and mysterious names, invites the conjecture that the bride referred to was his own wife. The hypothesis of some critics that a woman of the harem of Ahaz became the mother of Hezekiah, and that he was the Immanuel of the prophet's thought is not feasible. Hezekiah was at least 9 years of age when the prophecy was given (2 Kings 16:2).

Immanuel, in the prophetic economy, evidently stands on the same level with Shear-jashub (Isaiah 7:3) as the embodiment of a great idea, to which Isaiah again appeals in Isaiah 8:8 (see ISAIAH, VII).

3. Was It a Promise or a Threat?:

The question as to whether the sign given to Ahaz was favorable or not presents many difficulties. Was it a promise of good or a threat of judgment? It is evident that the prophet had first intended an omen of deliverance and blessing (Isaiah 7:4,Isaiah 7:7). Did the king's lack of faith alter the nature of the sign? Isaiah 7:9, "If ye will not believe," etc., implies that it might have done so. The omission of 7:16, and especially the words "whose two kings thou abhorrest," greatly simplifies this theory, as "the land," singular, would more naturally refer to Judah than to Syria and Ephraim collectively. The omen would then become an easily interpreted threat, referring to the overthrow of Judah rather than that of her enemies. Immanuel should eat curdled milk and honey (7:15), devastation reducing the land from an agricultural to a pastoral one. The obscure nature of the passage as it stands suggests strongly that it has suffered from interpolation. The contrary theory that the sign was a promise and not a prediction of disaster, has much to commend it, though it necessitates greater freedom with the text. The name "Immanuel" implies the faith of the young mother of the child in the early deliverance of her country, and a rebuke to the lack of that quality in Ahaz. It is certain also that Isaiah looked for the destruction of Syria and Ephraim, and that, subsequent to the Assyrian invasion, salvation should come to Judah through the remnant that had been faithful (11:11). The fact that the prophet later gave the name of Maher-shalal-hash-baz to his new-born son, a name of good omen to his country, further strengthens this position. The omission of 7:15,17 would make the sign a prophecy of the failure of the coalition. It is plain, whichever theory be accepted, that something must be eliminated from the passage to insure a consistent reading.

4. Its Relation to the Messianic Hope:

The question now presents itself as to what was the relation of Immanuel to the Messianic prophecies. Should the emphasis be laid upon "a virgin," the son, or the name itself? For traditional interpretation the sign lay in the virgin birth, but the uncertainty of implied virginity in the Hebrew noun makes this interpretation improbable. The identification of the young mother as Zion personified, and of the "son" as the future generation, is suggested by Whitehouse and other scholars. But there is no evidence that the term `almah was used at that time for personification. The third alternative makes Immanuel a Messiah in the wider use of the term, as anticipated by Isaiah and his contemporaries. There can be little doubt but that there existed in Judah the Messianic hope of a national saviour (2 Samuel 7:12). Isaiah is expecting the arrival of one whose character and work shall entitle him to the great names of 9:6. In him should dwell all the fullness of God. He was to be "of the stem of Jesse," the bringer of the Golden Age. The house of David is now beset by enemies, and its reigning representative is weak in faith. The prophet therefore announces the immediate coming of the deliverer. If he had intended the virgin-conception of Christ in the distant future, the sign of "Immanuel" would have possessed no immediate significance, nor would it have been an omen to Ahaz. With regard to the Messianic idea, Micah 5:3 ("until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth") is of importance as indicating the prevalent thought of the time. Recent evidence shows that even in Babylonia and Egypt there existed expectations of a divinely born and wonderful saviour. To this popular tradition the prophet probably appealed, his hearers being easily able to appreciate the force of oracular language that is to us obscure. There is much to confirm the view, therefore, that the prophecy is Messianic.

5. The Virgin Birth:

The use of the word as it relates to the virgin birth of Christ and the incarnation cannot be dealt with here (see PERSON OF CHRIST). These facts, however, may be noted. The Septuagint (which has parthenos, "virgin") and the Alexandrian Jews interpreted the passage as referring to the virgin birth and the Messianic ministry. This interpretation does not seem to have been sufficiently prominent to explain the rise of the idea of miraculous virgin conception and the large place it has occupied in Christological thought.

See VIRGIN BIRTH.

Arthur Walwyn Evans

Immer

im'-er ('immer):

(1) A priest of David's time (1 Chronicles 24:14), whose descendants are mentioned in Ezra 2:37; Ezra 10:20; Nehemiah 3:29; Nehemiah 7:40; Nehemiah 11:13.

(2) A priest of Jeremiah's time (Jeremiah 20:1).

(3) A place in Babylonia (Ezra 2:59; Nehemiah 7:61).

Immortal; Immortality

i-mor'-tal, im-or-tal'-i-ti (athanasia, 1 Corinthians 15:53; 1 Timothy 6:16, aphtharsia, literally, "incorruption," Romans 2:7; 1 Corinthians 15:1–58; 2 Timothy 1:10, aphthartos, literally, "incorruptible," Romans 1:23; 1 Corinthians 15:52; 1 Timothy 1:17):

1. Preliminary--Need of Definition and Distinction

2. Biblical Conception

I. THE NATURAL BELIEF

1. Its Origin

2. Philosophical Arguments

(1) The Soul Spiritual

Soul not Inherently Indestructible

(2) Capacities of Human Nature

(3) The Moral Argument

II. THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE--THE OLD TESTAMENT

1. Starting-Point--Man's Relation to God

Man's Nature

2. Sin and Death

3. Grace and Redemption--The True Immortality

Deliverance from Sheol

4. Later Jewish Thought

III. THE CHRISTIAN HOPE

1. Immortality through Christ

(1) Survival of the Soul

(2) Union with Christ in Unseen World

(3) The Resurrection

(4) The Wicked Also Raised

(5) Eternal Life

2. Contrasts

LITERATURE

1. Preliminary--Need of Definition and Distinction:

In hardly any subject is it more necessary to be careful in the definition of terms and clear distinction of ideas, especially where the Biblical doctrine is concerned, than in this of "immortality." By "immortality" is frequently meant simply the survival of the soul, or spiritual part of man, after bodily death. It is the assertion of the fact that death does not end all. The soul survives. This is commonly what is meant when we speak of "a future life," "a future state," "a hereafter." Not, however, to dwell on the fact that many peoples have no clear conception of an immaterial "soul" in the modern sense (the Egyptians, e.g. distinguished several parts, the Ka, the Ba, etc., which survived death; often the surviving self is simply a ghostly resemblance of the earthly self, nourished with food, offerings, etc.), there is the more serious consideration that the state into which the surviving part is supposed to enter at death is anything but a state which can be described as "life," or worthy to be dignified with the name "immortality." It is state peculiar to "death" (see DEATH); in most cases, shadowy, inert, feeble, dependent, joyless; a state to be dreaded and shrunk from, not one to be hoped for. If, on the other hand, as in the hope of immortality among the nobler heathen, it is conceived of, as for some, a state of happiness--the clog of the body being shaken off--this yields the idea, which has passed into so much of our modern thinking, of an "immortality of the soul," of an imperishableness of the spiritual part, sometimes supposed to extend backward as well as forward; an inherent indestructibility.

2. Biblical Conception:

It will be seen as we advance, that the Biblical view is different from all of these. The soul, indeed, survives the body; but this disembodied state is never viewed as one of complete "life." For the Bible "immortality" is not merely the survival of the soul, the passing into "Sheol" or "Hades." This is not, in itself considered, "life" or happiness. The "immortality" the Bible contemplates is an immortality of the whole person--body and soul together. It implies, therefore, deliverance from the state of death. It is not a condition simply of future existence, however prolonged, but a state of blessedness, due to redemption and the possession of the "eternal life" in the soul; it includes resurrection and perfected life in both soul and body. The subject must now be considered more particularly in its different aspects.

I. The Natural Belief.

1. Its Origin:

In some sort the belief in the survival of the spirit or self at death is a practically universal phenomenon. To what is it traceable? A favorite hypothesis with anthropologists is that it has its origin in dreams or visions suggesting the continued existence of the dead (compare H. Spencer, Eccles. Instit., chapters i, xiv). Before, however, a dream can suggest the survival of the soul, there must be the idea of the soul, and of this there seems a simpler explanation in the consciousness which even the savage possesses of something within him that thinks, feels and wills, in distinction from his bodily organs. At death this thinking, feeling something disappears, while the body remains. What more natural than to suppose that it persists in some other state apart from the body? (Compare Max Muller, Anthrop. Religion, 281.) Dreams, etc., may help this conviction, but need not create it. It is only as we assume such a deeper root for the belief that we can account for its universality and persistence. Even this, however, while an instinctive presumption, can hardly be called a proof of survival after death, and it does not yield an idea of "immortality" in any worthy sense. It is at most, as already said, a ghostly reduplication of the earthly life that is thus far reached.

2. Philosophical Arguments:

(1) The Soul Spiritual.

The more philosophical arguments that are adduced for the soul's immortality. (or survival) are not all of equal weight. The argument based on the metaphysical essence of the soul (see Plato's Phaedo) is not in these days felt to be satisfying. On the other hand, it can be maintained against the materialist on irrefragable grounds that the soul, or thinking spirit, in man is immaterial in Nature, and, where this is granted, there is, or can be, no proof that death, or physical dissolution, destroys this conscious spirit. The presumption is powerfully the other way. Cicero of old argued that death need not even be the suspension of its powers (compare Tusc. Disp. i.20); Butler reasons the matter from analogy (Anal., I, chapter i); modern scientists like J.S. Mill (Three Essays, 201) and Professor Huxley (Life and Letters, I, 217 ff; compare William James, Ingersoll Lecture) concede that immortality cannot be disproved. The denial one hears from various sides more frequently than formerly is therefore not warranted. Still possibility is not certainty, and there is nothing as yet to show that even if the soul survives death, its new state of existence has in it anything desirable.

Soul not Inherently Indestructible

It was hinted that one use which the Greeks made of the metaphysical argument was to prove the indestructibility of the soul--its immortality in the sense of having no beginning and no end. This is not the Christian doctrine. The soul has no such inherent indestructibility. It is dependent on God, as everything else is, for its continued existence. Did He withdraw His sustaining power, it would cease to exist. That it does continue to exist is not doubted, but this must be argued on other grounds.

(2) Capacities of Human Nature.

A much more apprehensible argument for immortality--more strictly, of a future state of existence--is drawn from the rich capacities and possibilities of human nature, for which the earthly life affords so brief and inadequate a sphere of exercise. It is the characteristic of spirit that it has in it an element of infinitude, and aspires to the infinite. The best the world can give can never satisfy it. It has in it the possibility of endless progress, and ever higher satisfaction. It was this consideration which led Kant, with all his theoretical skepticism, to give immortality a place among his "doctrinal beliefs" (see his Critique of Pure Reason, Bohn's translation, 590-91), and moved J.S. Mill to speak of it as the only hope which gave adequate scope to the human faculties and feelings, "the loftier aspirations being no longer kept down by a sense of the insignificance of human life by the disastrous feeling of `not worth while' " (Three Essays, 249). Yet when these arguments are calmly weighed, they amount to no more than a proof that man is constituted for immortality; they do not afford a guarantee that this destiny might not be forfeited, or if they yield such a guarantee for the good, they hardly do so for the wicked. The belief, in their case, must depend on other considerations.

(3) The Moral Argument.

It is, as Kant also felt, when we enter the moral sphere that immortality, or the continued existence of the soul, becomes a practical certainty to the earnest mind. With moral personality is bound up the idea of moral law and moral responsibility; this, in turn, necessitates the thought of the world as a moral system, and of God as moral Ruler. The world, as we know it, is certainly a scene of moral administration--of probation, of discipline, of reward and penalty--but as obviously a scene of incomplete moral administration. The tangled condition of things in this life can satisfy no one's sense of justice. Goodness is left to suffer; wickedness outwardly triumphs. The evil-doer's own conscience proclaims him answerable, and points to future judgment. There is need for a final rectification of what is wrong here. But while a future state seems thus called for, this does not of itself secure eternal existence for the wicked, nor would such existence be "immortality" in the positive sense. In view of the mystery of sin, the lamp of reason grows dim. For further light we must look to revelation. II. The Biblical Doctrine--the Old Testament.

1. Starting-Point--Man's Relation to God:

The Biblical view of immortality starts from man's relation to God. Man, as made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), is fitted for the knowledge of God, for fellowship with Him. This implies that man is more than an animal; that he has a life which transcends time. In it already lies the pledge of immortality if man is obedient.

Man's Nature.

With this corresponds the account given of man's creation and original state. Man is a being composed of body and soul; both are integral parts of his personality. He was created for life, not for mortality. The warning, "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Genesis 2:17), implies that if man continued obedient he would live. But this is not an immortality of the soul only. It is a life in the body (compare Genesis 3:22). Its type is such cases as Enoch and Elijah (Genesis 5:24; 2 Kings 2:11,2 Kings 2:12; compare Psalms 49:15; Psalms 73:24).

2. Sin and Death:

The frustration of this original destiny of man comes through sin. Sin entails death (see DEATH). Death in its physical aspect is a separation of soul and body--a breaking up of the unity of man's personality. In one sense, therefore, it is the destruction of the immortality which was man's original destiny. It does not, however, imply the extinction of the soul. That survives, but not in a state that can be called "life." It passes into Sheol--the sad, gloomy abode of the dead, in which there is no joy, activity, knowledge of the affairs of earth, or (in the view of Nature) remembrance of God, or praise of His goodness (on this subject, and the Hebrew belief in the future state generally, see ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT; DEATH; SHEOL). This is not future "life"--not "immortality."

It is the part of grace and redemption to restore immortality in the true sense. Had the world been left to develop in sin, no further hope could have come to it. The picture of Sheol would have become ever darker as the idea of retribution grew stronger; it could never become brighter.

3. Grace and Redemption--the True Immortality:

But God's grace intervened: "Deliver him from going down to the pit, I have found a ransom" (Job 33:24). God's mercy breaks in on the hopelessness of man's lot. He gives to man His promises; makes His covenant with man; admits man to His fellowship (Genesis 3:15; Genesis 4:4; Genesis 5:24; Genesis 6:8,Genesis 6:9; Genesis 12:1–3; Genesis 12:15, etc.). In this fellowship the soul was raised again to its true life even on earth. But this held in it also a hope for the future. The promises placed in the forefront as tokens of God's favors were indeed predominatingly temporal--promises for this life--but within these (the kernel within the shell) was the supreme possession of God Himself (Psalms 4:6 Psalms 16:2). This held in it the hope of redemption and the principle of every good.

Deliverance from Sheol.

Here we reach the core of the Old Testament hope of immortality. Such fellowship as the believer had with God could not be lost, even in Sheol; beyond that was deliverance from Sheol. In their highest moments it was this hope that sustained patriarchs, psalmists, prophets, in their outlook on the future. Doubt might cloud their minds; there might be seasons of darkness and even despair; but it was impossible in moments of strong faith to believe that God would ever really desert them. The eternal God was their dwelling-place; them were everlasting arms (Deuteronomy 33:27; compare Psalms 90:1). Their hope of immortality, therefore, was, in principle, the hope not merely of an "immortality of the soul," but likewise of resurrection--of complete deliverance from Sheol. Thus it is clearly in the impassioned outburst of Job (19:25-27; compare 14:13 ff), and in many of the psalms. The hope always clothes itself in the form of complete deliverance from Sheol. Thus in Psalms 17:14 f, the wicked have their portion "in this life," but, "As for me, I shall behold thy face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness" (the American Standard Revised Version "with beholding thy form"); and in Psalms 49:14 f, the wicked are "appointed as a flock for Sheol," but "God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol; for he will receive me" (same expression as that regarding Enoch, Genesis 5:24; compare Psalms 73:24). It will be remembered that when Jesus expounded the declaration, "I am the God of Abraham," etc., it was as a pledge of resurrection (Matthew 22:31 f). The idea comes to final expression in the declaration in Da of a resurrection of the just and unjust (12:2). For further development and illustration see ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

4. Later Jewish Thought:

Later Jewish thought carried out these ideas of the Old Testament to further issues. A blessed future for the righteous was now accepted, and was definitely connected with the idea of resurrection. The wicked remained in Sheol, now conceived of as a place of retribution. The Gentiles, too, shared this doom.

See ESCHATOLOGY.

III. The Christian Hope.

1. Immortality through Christ:

In full consonance with what is revealed in part in the Old Testament is the hope of immortality discovered in the New Testament. The ring of this joyful hope is heard in every part of the apostolic writings. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," says Peter, "who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, unto an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you" (1 Peter 1:3 f). Paul declares, "Our Saviour Christ Jesus, who .... brought life and immortality (incorruption) to light through the gospel" (2 Timothy 1:10). In Romans 2:7 he had spoken of those who "by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life." This immortality, it is seen, is part of the eternal life bestowed through Jesus on believers. It is guaranteed by Christ's own resurrection and life in glory. The nature of this hope of the gospel may now be further analyzed.

(1) Survival of the Soul.

The soul survives the body. A future state for both righteous and wicked is plainly declared by Jesus Himself. "He that believeth on me," He said to Martha, "though he die, yet shall he live; and whosoever liveth and believeth on me shall never die" (John 11:25 f). To His disciples He said, "If I go and prepare a place for you, I come again, and will receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also" (John 14:3). Compare His words to the penitent thief: "To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43). The survival of both righteous and wicked is implied in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31). So in many other places (e.g. Matthew 5:29 f; 10:28; 11:21-24; 12:41, etc.). The same is the teaching of the epistles. The doctrine of a future judgment depends on and presupposes this truth (Romans 2:5–11; 2 Corinthians 5:10, etc.).

(2) Union with Christ in Unseen World.

Death for the redeemed, though a result of sin, does not destroy the soul's relation to God and to Christ. The eternal life implanted in the soul in time blossoms in its fruition into the life and blessedness of eternity (Romans 8:10 Philippians 1:21; Colossians 1:27). The soul is, indeed, in an incomplete state till the resurrection. It "waits for our adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body" (Romans 8:23). But its state, though incomplete, is still a happy one. Hades has lost its gloom, and is for it a "Paradise" (Luke 23:43). It dwells in a chamber of the Father's house (John 14:2 John 17:24). It is to be, even in the unclothed state ("absent from the body"), "at home with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:8). It is for it an object of desire to be "with Christ" in that state after death (Philippians 1:21). The pictures in Rev, though highly figurative, indicate a condition of great blessedness (Revelation 7:9–17).

(3) The Resurrection.

The fullness of the blessedness of immortality implies the resurrection. The resurrection is a cardinal article of Christ's teaching (Matthew 22:29–32; John 5:25–29; John 11:23–26). He Himself is the Lord of life, and life-giver in the resurrection (John 5:21,John 5:25,John 5:26; John 11:25, "I am the resurrection, and the life"). The resurrection of believers is secured by His own resurrection. Jesus died; He rose again (see RESURRECTION). His resurrection carries with it the certainty of the resurrection of all His people. This is the great theme of 1 Corinthians 15:1–58. As Christ lives, they shall live also (John 14:19). The believers who are alive at His Parousia shall be changed (1 Corinthians 15:51; 1 Thessalonians 4:17); those who are dead shall be raised first of all (1 Thessalonians 4:16). The resurrection body shall be a body like to Christ's own (Philippians 3:21)--incorruptible, glorious, powerful, spiritual, immortal (1 Corinthians 15:42, 1 Corinthians 15:53). This is not to be confused with sameness of material particles (1 Corinthians 15:37 f), yet there is the connection of a vital bond between the old body and the new. This is the hope of the believer, without which his redemption would not be complete.

(4) The Wicked Also Raised.

The wicked also are raised, not, however, to glory, but for judgment (John 5:29; Acts 24:15; Revelation 20:12–15). The same truth is implied in all passages on the last judgment. Excluded from the blessedness of the righteous, their state is described by both Jesus and His apostles as one of uttermost tribulation and anguish (e.g. Matthew 25:46; Mark 9:43–50; Romans 2:8 f). This is not "immortality" or "life," though the continued existence of the soul is implied in it (see PUNISHMENT, EVERLASTING; HELL; RETRIBUTION).

(5) Eternal Life.

The condition of the blessed in their state of immortality is one of unspeakable felicity of both soul and body forever. There are, indeed, degrees of glory--this is carefully and consistently taught (Matthew 25:14; Luke 19:12; 1 Corinthians 3:10–15; 1 Corinthians 15:41; Philippians 3:10–14; 2 Timothy 4:7; 1 John 2:28)--but the condition as a whole is one of perfect satisfaction, holiness and blessedness (compare Matthew 13:43; Matthew 25:34; Romans 2:7,Romans 2:10; Romans 12:3 ff, etc.). The blessedness of this eternal state includes such elements as the following:

(1) restoration to God's image and likeness to Christ (1 Corinthians 15:49; 2 Corinthians 3:18; Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10; 1 John 3:2);

(2) perfect holiness in the possession of God's Spirit (2 Corinthians 7:1; Philippians 1:6; Revelation 21:27; Revelation 22:4,Revelation 22:11);

(3) the unveiled vision of God's glory (Revelation 22:4; compare Psalms 17:15);

(4) freedom from all sorrow, pain and death (Revelation 21:3 f);

(5) power of unwearied service (Revelation 22:3).

2. Contrasts:

The contrast between the Biblical view of immortality and that of heathenism and of the schools will now be obvious. It is not mere future existence; not a bare, abstract immortality of the soul; it is the result of redemption and of renewal by God's spirit; it embraces the whole personality, soul and body; it is not shared by the unholy; it includes the perfection of rational, moral and spiritual blessedness, in an environment suitable to such glorified existence. As such it is the supreme prize after which every believer is called to strive (Philippians 3:13 f).

LITERATURE.

Ingersoll Lectures on Immortality, by Professor William James, Professor Osler, etc.; Salmond, Christian Doctrine of Immortality; Orr, Christian View of God and the World, Lects iv, v, with App. to v; works specified in the article on ESCHATOLOGY.

James Orr

Immutability; Immutable

i-mu-ta-bil'-i-ti, i-mu'-ta-b'-l (ametathetos): Occurs in Hebrews 6:17,Hebrews 6:18 of the unchangeableness of the Divine counsel. It is the perfection of Yahweh that He changes not in character, will, purpose, aim (Malachi 3:6; so of Christ, Hebrews 13:8).

See FAITHFULNESS; UNCHANGEABLE.

Imna

im'-na (yimna`): A descendant of Asher (1 Chronicles 7:35).

Imnah

im'-na (yimnah):

(1) Eldest son of Asher (Genesis 46:17, the King James Version "Jimnah"; Numbers 26:44, the King James Version "Jimna"; 1 Chronicles 7:30).

(2) A Levite of Hezekiah's time (2 Chronicles 31:14).

Imnites

im'-nits (yimni): Descendants of IMNAH (q.v. (1)) (Numbers 26:44, the King James Version "Jimnites").

Impart

im-part' (metadidomi, "to share"): "They .... imparted (the King James Version "added") nothing to me" (Galatians 2:6); that is, did not propose any correction or addition to my teaching. "That I may impart unto you some spiritual gift" (Romans 1:11) expresses the apostle's hope that the Roman believers may increase in faith and love through his teaching and influence.

"To impart unto you .... our own souls" (1 Thessalonians 2:8) meant to spend their utmost strength and to expose their lives in their service.