The Bible Definition Of Hell
SUCH AS SHEOL, HADES, TARTARUS AND GEHENNA, TRANSLATED HELL
IN THE COMMON ENGLISH VERSION.
BY WALTER BALFOUR.
REVISED, WITH ESSAYS AND NOTES, BY OTIS A. SKINNER.
BOSTON: PUBLISHED BY A. TOMPKINS.
1854.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1854, by
A. TOMPKINS,
In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts.
Stereotyped by
HOBART & ROBBINS,
New England Type and Stereotype Foundry, Boston.
PREFACE.
Introductory essay, showing that Gehenna, in the time of Christ, was not used to signify a place of endless misery.
CHAPTER 1.
An inquiry into the meaning of the words Sheol, Hades, Tartarus and Gehenna.
SECTION 1.
All the passages of Scripture considered, in which Sheol occurs, translated pit, grave, and hell, in the common version.
SECTION 2.
All the passages in which Hades occurs, considered, rendered grave, and hell in the common version.
SECTION 3.
1 Peter 2: 4, in which Tartarus occurs, considered, rendered hell in the common version.
CHAPTER 2
Gehenna, uniformly translated hell in the New Testament, considered as a place of eternal punishment.
SECTION 4.
Remarks on Dr. Campbell’s views of Gehenna.
SECTION 5.
A number of facts stated, showing that Gehenna was not used by the New Testament writers, to express a place of endless misery.
SECTION 6.
All the passages in which Gehenna occurs, considered.
SECTION 7.
Additional facts stated, proving that Gehenna was not used by the sacred writers to express a place of endless misery.
SECTION 8.
The argument derived from the Targums, and other Jewish writings, showing that Gehenna means a place of endless misery, considered.
SECTION 9.
Objections considered.
SECTION 10.
Concluding remarks.
APPENDIX.
Christ and the apostles opposed the doctrine of endless misery.
Comments on Matthew 10: 28.
PREFACE TO THE REVISED EDITION
IN performing the work which was requested of me by the publisher of this volume (who has purchased the copy-right of the heirs of the author), I have been careful to make no change in the thought of any portion of it. I did not deem that I had any right whatever to modify, in the least, a single view it contained. Its doctrines and explanations belong to the author, and to alter them would be a sacrilege. The task I undertook was entirely of another character. When this work was written, the subjects discussed in it were new, and the views presented were radically different from those generally entertained. The author naturally felt a great solicitude to be distinctly understood, and to establish his position beyond contradiction. He, therefore, indulged in a repetition of questions, statements, and forms of expression, which the present state of theological knowledge renders unnecessary. This remark will indicate to the reader all the changes that have been made, except in the abridgment of sentences not as concise as they might have been. What has been added is over my own initials.
Though I read this Inquiry with care and profit in the early part of my ministry, and though in my theological studies I have had frequent occasion to consult its pages, I was never so deeply impressed with its great value as I am now. The author was very thorough in his researches, and performed the task which he undertook with remarkable ability. While no one had preceded him in his investigation for the purpose which he had in view, none who have followed him have been more thorough and satisfactory. I do not mean by this to say that in every point he attempted to make he was conclusive or clear, or that I concur in every opinion he expressed; but this I mean to say, that he entered upon his labor with a mind well stored with knowledge, that he had that strength and acuteness of intellect which enabled him to write with a powerful pen, and that he has proved his main positions beyond controversy. For honesty of heart, devotion to truth, and respect for the Scriptures, no man was his superior.
The appearance of this Inquiry produced a great sensation. The author, for over twenty years, had been an advocate for endless punishment, and during a great portion of this time had been on terms of the most intimate communion with several eminent orthodox clergymen of New England. The position he took was new and startling. Boldly he said, “There is no place of endless suffering; the idea of a future hell has no authority in the Bible.” This changed entirely the ground of controversy in regard to endless punishment; and several replies, in the course of a few years, appeared against the work. In his introduction to the third edition, the author speaks with reference to them in the following manner:
“In presenting the third edition of the Inquiry to the public, it may be proper to inform the reader of the following things respecting it. The first edition was published in 1824. It would be tedious, and would occupy more room than we can spare, to notice all the attacks which have been made upon it from the pulpit and in the public journals. The instances which have come within the range of our own personal knowledge and observation have not been few. We shall only notice the attempts which have been made to refute it in regular book form.
“The first attempt was made by Mr. James Sabine, a Boston clergyman, soon after the Inquiry was published. A gentleman called on the clergy, in the public journals, either to refute the Inquiry or confess they were deceiving the people. This call roused Mr. Sabine, and he announced in the public papers his intention to refute the Inquiry, provided a suitable meeting-house could be obtained, his own being inconvenient for the purpose. When all sects declined offering him a house for the purpose, the Universalist society in Charlestown unanimously voted him the use of theirs. He accepted their offer, and delivered six discourses, one every other Sabbath evening, to excessively crowded audiences. He afterwards published his discourses, and our reply to them appeared in 1825. This public and published attack on the Inquiry hastened a second edition of it in a cheaper form, but in every material respect the same as the first. Mr. Sabine’s reply was considered very generally a total failure. He did not pretend to advocate endless punishment, nor did his discourses touch the principal facts and arguments contained in the Inquiry. All seemed to allow that his discourses did more evil than good to the cause of endless punishment. They, however, excited inquiry in the public mind, and somewhat promoted the demand for my work, which was very unpopular. Most people denounced it as a pernicious book, but felt perplexed with the evidence it contained, and were desirous to see it refuted.
“The next attempt to refute the Inquiry was made by Mr. Charles Hudson, a Universalist clergyman, in Westminster, Mass. His letters appeared in 1827, and were replied to in my Essays, which were published in 1828. Mr. Hudson’s ‘Reply’ to my Essays appeared in 1829, and in the same year my Letters in answer to it were published. From some cause or other, like Mr. Sabine, he passed over the principal facts and arguments of the Inquiry, still leaving the book to be answered by some one else.
“Dr. Allen, President of Bowdoin College, Maine, was the next person who made an attack on the Inquiry. This he did in a lecture, which he first delivered before the students of the college, and afterwards published. We replied to his lecture in a letter, which was published in 1828. The doctor’s attempt to refute the Inquiry was deemed so weak, even by his own friends, that his pamphlet was withdrawn from the bookstores and suppressed, if our information is correct. It is certain it was frequently asked for in the bookstores of Boston, but could not be obtained, and very few persons in this region ever procured a copy of it. The very weakness of this effort to refute the Inquiry was calculated to lead many to think it could not be answered.
“Another attempt to refute the Inquiry was made by Professor Stuart of Andover. From some cause or other, the public had long looked to him to furnish a refutation. The failure of the preceding attempts was imputed, by some, to the want of talent. When Mr. Sabine did not succeed, we heard it remarked, ‘If Mr. Stuart only takes hold of it he will easily refute it.’ At last, his Exegetical Essays appeared. They were published in 1830. Though he avoids naming me or the Inquiry in them, it is obvious enough to all they were written to counteract the effect which the Inquiry had produced on the public mind; and, also, what I had written in my Second Inquiry on the words rendered ‘everlasting’ and ‘forever,’ in our common version. I replied to these Essays in a series of letters addressed to Mr. Stuart, which were published in 1831. He has not yet made any reply to them. Here the controversy for the present rests.
“Before Mr. Stuart’s Essays appeared, I supposed he must have something new and powerful to produce; that the Inquiry would receive a full and fair reply, and that I should see in what my error consisted. But I was entirely disappointed; for, like all the preceding attempts, the principal facts and arguments were passed over without notice. Indeed, many of Mr. Stuart’s statements confirm the views advanced in the Inquiry. I begin to suspect that no reply can be made which will prove that Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, or Gehenna, designates a place of endless misery. I have too high an opinion of Mr. Stuart’s understanding to think that he considers his Essays deserving the name of an answer to the Inquiry. I have never heard of a single intelligent man, orthodox or otherwise, who thinks his Essays a reply. But I have heard several express a contrary opinion. If the book, then, is not unanswerable, I may say it yet remains unanswered.
“I have a word or two to say respecting this third edition of the Inquiry. In every material respect it is the same as the first and second editions. The only alterations deserving notice are the following. All the texts under Sheol, Hades, Tartarus and Gehenna, are arranged and considered in the order they occur in the Bible. But the arguments and explanations are in substance the same as in the preceding editions. Perhaps this edition has been somewhat improved by the help afforded me by Mr. Stuart’s Essays. Objections and views urged by him have been noticed. Some slight alterations in the arrangement of the matter in a few places have been made, and some new matter has been introduced. But all the facts and arguments, and, indeed, the whole substance of the work, remains the same. I have seen nothing which alters the views expressed in the Inquiry. After all the attacks which have been made upon it, its foundation remains unshaken, and its pillars and posts unbroken. All the replies, to me, have only tended to show the solid foundation on which the views advocated in the Inquiry rest, and ought to excite my gratitude to the men who have made them. Without these I might have gone down to my grave doubting whether I might not, after all, be mistaken in my views. It would be almost sinful in me now to doubt their correctness, considering the character, talents, and standing of the men who have tried, but failed, to point out my error.”
Since the appearance of the third edition of the Inquiry, other books have been published against it. Among them is the work of Reverend Parsons Cooke, which is composed of a series of lectures delivered in Weare, Mass., to the parish over which the author was then settled. This appeared in 1834, under the imposing title of “Modern Universalism Exposed, in an Examination of the Writings of Rev. Walter Balfour.” We have seen nothing in this work which renders us unwilling to name it in this place. In conclusion, we will say, though we have read what the ablest and most learned men have published against this Inquiry, we think it has never been refuted, and that its leading views are unanswerable.
O. A. S.
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
EVER since the early ages of the Christian church, it has been generally believed that there is a place of woe, to which the wicked are consigned forever. Its tortures have been a fruitful theme of pulpit declamation, and have had a powerful influence on the minds of the old and the young. There are four words in the original language of the Scriptures, all translated hell (though not invariably), each of which, it has long been supposed, denotes this place of woe. Of late, however, that opinion has been discarded. The most learned writers of the present age have conceded that three of them—Sheol, Hades and Tartarus—do not mean such a place. But while they concede these words, they are positive that Gehenna does have such a meaning. The history, therefore, of the opinions in regard to the place, and of the word by which its existence is supposed to be proved, becomes a matter of much interest.
Ages before Christ there was a very general belief in an eternal prison for the wicked. It is a fact, however, of great significance, that we find no trace of it in the Old Testament. Jahn, in his Biblical Archaeology,—a work in high repute among the Orthodox, translated and published at the Andover Theological School, with the approbation of the Professors,—has given us the following as the doctrine of the Old Testament on the condition of man after death. Let it be remembered that he was a believer in future retribution. He says:
“That the ancient Hebrews, that the Patriarchs themselves had some idea of a future life, although we must acknowledge their information on the subject to have been limited and obscure, is evident,— “I. From the distinction which is made between the subterranean residence denominated SHEOL, and the grave or place of interment of the body, denominated, Genesis 25:8; 37:35; 49:33; 50: 2—10; Numbers 20: 24—26; Deuteronomy 34: 7; 31: 16; 1 Kings 11: 43.
“II. That they believed in the existence of the spirit after the death of the body, is evident likewise from the credit which they were disposed to give to the art of NECROMANCY, by means of which the Jews believed that the spirits of the dead, were summoned back to the present scene of existence. Leviticus 19:31; 20:6, 7, 26, 27; Deuteronomy 18:11; 1 Samuel 28:3—10; 2 Kings 23:24; 1 Chronicles 10:13; Isaiah 19:3; 29:4; Zechariah 13: 2—6.
“The objection which is sometimes made, namely, that persons whose minds are under the influence of superstition, are very inconsistent with themselves and in their opinions, does not avail anything in the present case, for it would in truth be a miracle of inconsistency, if those persons who believed that departed spirits were no longer existing, should nevertheless give full credit to the ability of such non-existent spirits to reveal the mysteries of the future.
“The belief of the ancient Hebrews, therefore, on this subject, was, that the spirits of the dead were received into SHEOL, which is represented as a large subterranean abode, Genesis 37:35. Com. Numbers 16:30—33; Deuteronomy 32: 22. Into this abode we are told that the wicked are driven suddenly, their days being cut short, but the good descend into it in tranquillity, and in the fullness of their years.
“This very spacious dwelling-place for those who have gone hence, is often described as dark, as sorrowful and inactive,—Job 10:21; Psalm 6:5; 88:11, 12; 115:17; Isaiah 38:18; but in Isaiah 14:9, et seq., it is represented as fall of activity; and in other places, as we may learn from Job 26:5, 6, and in 1 Samuel 28:7, more than human knowledge is ascribed to its inhabitants, which is indeed implied in the credit which was given to necromancers. In this abode, moreover, the DEPARTED SPIRITS rejoice in that rest so much desired by the Orientals,—Job 3:13; and there the living hope to see once more their beloved ancestors and children,—Genesis 37:35, comp. Genesis 25:10; 35:28; 49:29; Numbers 20:24—26; 1 Kings 2:10, 11, etc.; and there also the servant is at length freed from his master, and enjoys a cessation from his labours. Job 3:13—19.
“That the ancient Hebrews believed that there was a difference, in their situation in SHEOL, between the good and the bad, although it might indeed be inferred from their ideas of the justice and benignity of God (Matthew 22: 32), cannot be proved by direct testimony. The probability, however, that this was the case, seems to be increased, when it is remembered that the author of the book of Ecclesiastes, who, in chapter 3:18, speaks somewhat sceptically of the immortality of the soul, says, in chapter 12: 7, that the ‘spirit shall return to God who gave it.’
“We have not authority, therefore, decidedly to say that any other motives were held out to the ancient Hebrews to pursue the good and to avoid the evil, than those which were derived from the rewards and punishments of this life. That these were the motives which were presented to their minds, in order to influence them to pursue a right course of conduct, is expressly asserted in Isaiah 26: 9, 10, and may be learnt also from the imprecations which are met with in many parts of the Old Testament.
“The MEHESTANI, who were disciples of Zoroaster, believed in the immortality of the soul, in rewards and punishments after death, and in the resurrection of the body; at the time of which resurrection, all the bad would be purged by fire, and associated with the good. Zend Avesta, P. I., pages 107, 108, P. II., pages 211, 227, 229, 124, 125, 173, 245, 246, comp. Ezekiel 37: 1—14.
“There is some uncertainty respecting the passages in Daniel 12: 2, 3, 13; but it is possible, at any rate, that they may be a confirmation of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, and it is very clear that Haggai (2: 23) speaks of some state of glory after the termination of this present life. Compare Zechariah 3: 7. These sentiments of the later prophets, which are perfectly in unison with what is said of the justice and clemency of God, in other parts of the Old Testament, were at length adopted by the Jews generally, with the exception of the Sadducees, against whom they are defended in the following passages of the Apocryphal Books, namely, 2 Mac. 7: 9, 11, 14, 23, 29, 36; 12: 40—44, and Wisdom 3: 1—11; 4: 7—16. “Thus the Jews were gradually prepared to receive that broader and fuller light which Jesus shed upon them. 2 Timothy1:10.”
From the foregoing, it is certain that the idea respecting a place of endless woe did not originate with the inspired writers; its origin, therefore, must have been among the heathen. This, in the mind of every candid person, must awaken much suspicion in regard to it; for we cannot avoid the conviction that if God had prepared an eternal prison for the wicked, he would have declared the fact by his inspired servants. Their silence is an unanswerable argument against the existence of the place. Why did they withhold knowledge of infinite interest to the soul? And how did it happen that the heathen were in advance of revelation, respecting one of the most important arrangements in the government of God? These considerations can never be harmonized with the idea that there is a place of endless woe; for if there were, God certainly would have revealed it. Justice required it, for how could he withhold knowledge affecting the eternal interest of the soul? And may we not ask, also, how he could be just in dooming men to an endless torture of which he had never spoken? Were a human government to keep its penalties a secret, we should all say it had no right to inflict them. And yet, according to Jahn, Campbell, Stuart and others, God kept hell a secret for four thousand years, and that, too, when he was making constant communications to his chosen people!
Though the Old Testament is acknowledged to be entirely silent respecting a place of endless misery, the heathen notion was adopted by the Jews during the time between Malachi and the coming of Christ. When in this period it began to be embraced we cannot fully determine, though probably it was introduced among them by the Pharisees, who took their rise some two hundred years before Christ. The influence of this sect, in his time, was very great; and it is quite certain that it had brought over to its opinion on the subject of punishment nearly all except the Sadducees. On the fact of the general belief among the Jews in a world of woe at the coming of Christ, no authorities are deemed necessary; and we therefore pass to an inquiry in regard to the popular idea respecting that world. This is a subject of great moment, for it has a direct bearing on the question, whether Gehenna, during Christ’s minority, was used for hell. We wish, therefore, to direct attention to the following points: First, What was the prevailing opinion respecting hell among the Jews, in the time of Christ? Second, What was the prevailing opinion respecting it when Gehenna was applied to it?
It might, perhaps, be sufficient in answering our first inquiry, to give the popular opinions concerning hell, at the time of Christ; but it may be more satisfactory to go back to the time when the Jews adopted this heathen idea. The first trace of it is found in the Wisdom of Solomon and the second Maccabees. The second book of Esdras teaches the opinion, but that, it is now conceded, has been forged by some Christian since the New Testament was written. All the other Apocryphal books are silent on the subject of a future existence. Dr. Ballou says:
“The rewards of virtue and the punishment of sin they place expressly in the experience of this life, in the reputation that one leaves behind, and in the prosperous or adverse fortune of his descendants. And here the writers drop the subject, notwithstanding they had frequent occasions to carry it forward into another life, if such were the tenor of their views.”
In a note he directs the reader to the following passages, as an illustration of his statements: “On the subject of rewards and punishments, see Tobit 3: 10; 4: 5—9; 12: 8—10; 14: 9—11; Ecclus. passim, particularly 39: 9—11, 25—31; 40: 1—14; Baruch 3: 13, 14; 4: 1; 1 Mac. 2: 50—64; 6: 44. On the state of the dead, Tobit 3: 6; Ecclus. 14: 15—19; 17: 27—30; 22:11, 12; 38: 16—23; 41: 1—4; Baruch 2: 17, 18.”— Universalist Expositor, volume II.
As the date of the Wisdom of Solomon and the second Maccabees cannot be put more than one hundred and fifty years before Christ, it is manifest that the notion concerning hell as a place of endless woe had not been long held by the Jews when he appeared. Philo, an eminent Jewish writer, often refers to the place. His works appeared about the time of the Saviour’s ministry. These are the only authorities extant on which any information can be gained.
We come now to the main point of inquiry under this head, namely, What was the idea entertained concerning hell? Was it supposed to be a place of fire? Dr. Ballou, in the article from which we have quoted, says:
“Let it, then, be carefully observed, that, during the period now under review, the crude notions which spread among the Jews, concerning future misery, seem to have been altogether unconnected with the idea of fire, either as a reality or as a figure. The second book of Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, and the works of Philo, the only sources of information, never describe the condition of the wicked after death, by any metaphor of the kind. On the contrary, they represent it in another light. According to the first, the pious Jews, who suffered martyrdom or fell in battle, believed that God would, in due time, restore their souls from the realms of death to their former bodies; whether on this earth or in some other region does not appear.
Those, too, who died in defence of the law, though otherwise sinful and even rebellious, might expect the same favor, should an atonement be offered for their sins by the survivors. But while the faithful entertained such confidence for themselves, one of them is represented in his last moments as threatening the heathen tyrant, their ruthless persecutor, that he would ‘have no resurrection to life.’ His soul, after his decease, would be left forever in the place of the dead; a dark and undesirable abode, according to the opinion of the ancients, an obscure region, in which perpetual confinement must have presented a dreadful idea to the living. Such are the views we gather from the second book of Maccabees. In the Wisdom of Solomon, a Jewish production from the Alexandrian hot-bed of Platonism, we meet with a doctrine somewhat different.
Here, no return of departed spirits, nor reunion with their bodies is intimated. The souls of the righteous, the author represents, enter at death on a state of peace, hope and honor, and are entrusted with some kind of dominion over the living. But those of the wicked go into a darkness, of which that once brought upon Egypt was but an image. They are in tribulation, and are accounted a reproach among the dead. At a certain time, which the author calls the visitation of souls, the just will be conducted to a glorious palace, and receive a beautiful crown; but the unjust shall give in the account of their sins with fear, and behold with surprise and hopeless regret the deliverance of the godly whom they had contemned in this world. The whole creation shall fight against them. Thunderbolts and hailstones shall be discharged upon them from on high; the sea shall rage against them, and a mighty wind shall blow them away. It should be remembered that these more highly-colored representations are given by an Egyptian Jew, and not by an inhabitant of Palestine. Nearly the same are the ideas of Philo, another Egyptian Jew; if, indeed, he be not, as many account him, the identical author of the Wisdom of Solomon. Though born before the Christian era, he lived several years after our Lord’s crucifixion. In the works which bear his name, the immortality of the soul is clearly taught, together with the future happiness of the righteous and misery of the wicked. The place of the impious, hereafter, he describes as ‘a dark region, which is covered with profound night and perpetual blackness,’ where they live in an eternal death. But, we think, he never represents it as a scene of fire, nor even alludes to it by that glaring metaphor, which has always been the first and the favourite one wherever the notion of a burning hell prevailed. From the few traces, therefore, which remain to us of this age, and which have now been presented, it seems that the idea of future punishment, such as it was among the Jews, was associated with that of darkness, and not of fire; and we shall have occasion to see that among those of Palestine, the misery of the wicked was supposed to consist rather in privation than in positive infliction.”
We will not leave the subject here, for it is important to know whether these views of hell were retained for any considerable time after the period of which we have been speaking. The only authority, except the New Testament, which we have relating to the period under consideration are the works of Josephus, which bear date between A. D. 70 and A. D. 100. His writings, therefore, reveal the opinion concerning hell in the times of the New Testament. But we find in them no trace of the notion that hell was a place of fire. On the contrary, it was a dark, dismal prison, a deep, subterranean abode. If the reader wishes to satisfy himself on this point, he can refer to the following, which are the only places where Josephus introduces the subject: Book I., ch. 33, 2, and Antiq. B. XVIII., ch. 1, 3. See Antiq. B. XVIII., 1, 3; Jewish War, B. I., 33, 2; B. II., 8, 10—14; B. III., 8, 5; B. VII., 8, 7, and against Apion, B. II., 31. The discourse concerning Hades, in Whiton’s edition, is now generally regarded as the work of some Christian of the second or third century.
We have now reached about the year of our Lord 100, and yet we find that hell was never spoken of as a place of fire, but always as a gloomy prison, an abode of darkness. Thus we have answered our first question, and shown the prevailing opinion among the Jews respecting hell in the time of Christ. We are, therefore, prepared to consider our second question, namely, what was the prevailing opinion respecting hell, when Gehenna was applied to it?
Before adducing authorities on this point, it is necessary to refer to the great change which took place in the condition of the Jews, when their city was destroyed by the Romans, under the command of Titus Vespasian. History, perhaps, presents no more fearful ruin than that to which they were doomed. As a nation and as a church they were destroyed, and for a long time they had no political or ecclesiastical organization; and something like a hundred years elapsed before any Jewish writings appeared that have been preserved. In this distracted and ruined condition, it is natural to suppose that great changes would take place in their opinions. Accordingly we find that they adopted various wild conceits, and among them was the idea that hell was a place of literal fire, to which they applied the word Gehenna. In the Targum of Jonathan we find such expressions as the following:
“Abram saw Gehenna belching forth smoke and burning coals, and sending up sparks to punish the wicked therein.” “The wicked are to be judged, that they may be delivered to eternal burning in Gehenna.” “Like embers in the fire of Gehenna, which God created the second day of the creation of the world.” “The earth from which springs forth food, and beneath which is Gehenna, the cold of whose snow is changed so as to become like fire.”
These are comments, among others, on the following passage of Scripture, “Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? Who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?”—Isaiah 33: 14. These quotations show the sense in which Gehenna was employed when applied in the Targums to future woe. Other quotations might be given, but these are sufficient; they show beyond any doubt that when Gehenna began to be used to denote a future hell, the popular opinion had changed entirely in regard to the nature of its torment. Then it was not a prison of darkness, but a place of fire.
In this fact, so clearly proved, we see that Gehenna could not have been employed, till long after the destruction of Jerusalem, to denote a place of future misery. The sense in which we find it always used, when thus applied, was not at all applicable to the prevailing view respecting hell, till after all the New Testament was written. This conclusively shows that when Christ was upon the earth Gehenna had not begun to be employed as the synonym of hell.
But we do not propose to leave the subject here. We have other facts to present, which bear with equal weight with the foregoing upon the question under consideration. The works in which Gehenna is used to denote hell were all written after the destruction of Jerusalem. Dr. Ballou, in the very learned article from which we have quoted, says:
“Through all the times of the Old Testament, which descended within four centuries of the Christian era, it is plain that Gee Hennom (such as was then the form of the expression), had, among the people, no other than its literal application. Of this long period we therefore take our leave. It is likewise plain that during the much later age in which the Septuagint was written, Gehenna denoted, at least among the Jews of Egypt, where this version was made, simply the valley of Hinnom: that particular spot to which the border of the tribe of Benjamin descended on the south side of Jebusi, or Jerusalem. So the word is used in the only case of its occurrence, as we have seen; so another word, formed on the same principle, is likewise used in two other passages; and none of this class of terms is ever introduced in any different sense. Thus far we proceed on sure ground. To how late a period do these facts conduct us, in our progress towards the times of the New Testament?
“The Septuagint was begun about two hundred and seventy or two hundred and eighty years before Christ, when the five books of Moses, called the law, were translated. But the version of the other books, in which we find the usage just mentioned, was not undertaken, it is generally supposed, till within one hundred and seventy years of our Saviour’s birth. Even then the work does not seem to have advanced very speedily to its completion; for, although we have no positive facts to determine the question, it would appear, from the evident marks of different hands, and from the great diversity of style, that the several books were translated at various times, without much regard to the order of the canon, and by such as engaged in the task only when occasion required or inclination induced. On the decisive authority of the Septuagint, then, we may conclude that two hundred years at most, and perhaps but a hundred and fifty, before the date of the New Testament, Gehenna retained its etymological signification among the Jews of Egypt; and, probably, likewise among all those that spoke the Greek language, since they generally used this version and adopted its phraseology. It should now be observed that these conclusions have an important bearing on the Jewish usage in Palestine. It is well known, to such as have examined the matter, that in the gradual corruption of the Old Testament religion by the admixture of heathen philosophy, and in the corresponding change of the ancient forms of expression to a new meaning, the Jews of Egypt appear to have taken the lead, and to have been considerably before those of Judea. We cannot suppose, therefore, that Gehenna had acquired, in Palestine, an entirely new and far-fetched application, so long as we find it, in Egypt, still unchanged from its original and simple import. The preceding facts afford all the direct light that can be obtained on its usage at this time; since no other Jewish works have descended to us from the age of the Septuagint, except some of the older books of the Apocrypha, and these are wholly silent on our subject.”
The only other works which have descended to our times, are the Apocryphal books, the works of Philo and of Josephus; and in none of these do we find Gehenna applied to the world of woe. If we pass on to about A. D. 150, we find Justin Martyr, a Christian father, using the word to denote a future hell. It should be remembered that he believed in the annihilation of the wicked. This is the first case. The next case is that of Clemens Alexandrinus, about A.D. 195. He says, “Does not Plato acknowledge both the rivers of fire, and that profound depth of the earth which the barbarians [the Jews] call Gehenna? Does he not prophetically mention Tartarus, Cocytus, Acheron, the Phlegethon of fire, and certain other like places of punishment, which lead to correction and discipline?” Clemens was a Universalist.
But, it will be said, the Targums bear a much earlier date. So it was formerly believed, but the opinion has been generally abandoned. Concerning the Targums of Onkelos, we need make no inquiry, as they do not contain the word we are considering. In that of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, the word is frequently used. Though we have already quoted from it, we will ask the reader’s attention to the following extracts: “It [Gehenna] is ‘prepared of old, for the nations that have oppressed Israel: the King eternal hath prepared it deep and wide; a flaming pile is kindled therein, as of much wood; and the word of the Lord as a torrent of sulphur sets it on fire.’”
“‘Who among us shall dwell in Jerusalem, where the impious are to be judged and sent into Gehenna with eternal burning?’ The blessed shall see them descending into the land of Gehenna.’ Such as say, ‘Stand by thyself, come not near unto me, for I am holier than thou,’ shall have their punishment in Gehenna, where the fire burns continually; and their bodies shall be delivered to the second death.’”
It is fair to infer that when the Targums of Jonathan were written, Gehenna was generally used to signify hell. We ask, therefore, what was its date? The older critics among the moderns, like Prideaux, generally ascribe it to about the Christian era, on the authority chiefly of Jewish traditions. The same is true of the English critics down to this day. Horne says:
“According to the Talmudical traditions, Jonathan Ben Uzziel was chief of the eighty distinguished scholars of Rabbi Hillel, the elder, and a fellow-disciple of Simeon the Just, who bore the infant Messiah in his arms.” I will here add, according to these traditions, Jonathan was contemporary with Malachi, Haggai and Zechariah, and received his Targum from their lips. Not only so, according to these, while Jonathan was writing his Targum, there was an earthquake for forty leagues around him, and if any bird happened to pass over him, or a fly alighted on his paper while writing, they were immediately consumed by fire from heaven, without any injury being sustained either by his person or paper. So much for the authority of Jewish traditions.
Let us now examine what a majority of the most eminent late German critics say on this subject. Higher authority than these cannot be given.
Jahn says, “From this it is evident that he (the author of Jonathan’s Targum) must have lived long before the time of the Talmudists, and not, as some have supposed, in the fifth or sixth century, since in that case his history would have been better known. * * * We may properly infer that the work is a collection of the interpretations of several learned men, made towards the close of the third century [N. B. In the preceding instances, Jahn seems to prefer the date of about A. D. 282], and containing some of a much older date.”— Jahn’s Introduction to the Old Testament, Genesis Introduction, § 47, page 66.
Eichhorn, who in the beginning of the present century was probably accounted the first biblical scholar of Germany and of the world, says, “First, that many refer the author of Jonathan Ben Uzziel’s Targum to a period a little before the birth of Christ; but,” continues he, “he certainly lived later. His Targum, to judge by its style, is the work of some Palestine Jew; still the Jerusalem Talmud says nothing of it, any more than do Origen and Jerome. How could it remain unknown to those Talmudists as well as to those Christian fathers, who lived in Palestine, if it were already in circulation in their time? Moreover, it is full of such fables as first gained currency in Palestine at a later period. Finally, in its translation of passages, it strives to conceal all traces of the Messiah in those texts which the Christians applied to him; a manifest proof that the translator lived at a time when the Christians were already in controversy with the Jews, to say nothing of the circumstance that a Chaldaic translation [that is, Targum] was not used in the synagogue at so early a period.
Even if the Targum on the Chronicles, which mentions the Turks, should not be reckoned to belong to this, still it appears that no Targum on the prophets [N. B. Jonathan’s Targum is on the prophets] was in use before the fourth century, or rather later.”—Eichhorn’s Einleitung in des alte Testament. Kap. III., § 226, Band. II., S. 6364. Gottingen, 1823.
Bertholdt, a contemporary of Eichhorn, and one of the most eminent Orientalists of the last generation in Germany, after having mentioned Onkelos’ Targum says, “Another Targum on the earlier and later prophets, bears the name of Jonathan, the Son of Uzziel. The Talmud reckons him among the Jerusalem disciples of the aged Hillel; and therewith agrees the tradition of the later Jews, who made him to have flourished one hundred and sixty years before the destruction of the second temple. According to this reckoning, Jonathan would have been a contemporary with Onkelos, only somewhat younger. But we cannot possibly carry him back to so early an age. The Talmudists must have confounded a Jonathan who lived in Palestine in the end of the second or beginning of the third century, with the earlier Jonathan. For the Targum which bears Jonathan’s name cannot have been completed before the end of the second century. In it there are texts (for example Isaiah 53, and 63: 1—5) universally regarded by the Jews, at the birth of Christ, as prophecies of the Messiah, which are here explained in another manner. This betrays the spirit of the second century, when the Jews were deeply engaged in controversy with the Christians, and when being pressed, and seeking relief on every hand, they adopted new principles in the explanation of many Old Testament passages. Moreover, the language of Jonathan’s Targum, which abounds with foreign words, indicates the second or third century. Later than this, however, we cannot place it, for when Morinus and J. Vossius thought it was not composed before the seventh or eighth century, they did not consider that its language is far purer than in the later Targums, or in all the Aramoean writings of this late period.” —Bertholdt’s Historischeritsche Einleitung in Schriften des alt. und neu Test. Zweyter. Th. § 173.
I might mention other German Orientalists of reputation, as Bauer, etc., but I will only add, that though Gesenius, a distinguished Hebrew scholar, decides in favor of the earlier date of Jonathan’s Targum, placing it about the Christian era, his opinion does not seem to have been considered authoritative in Germany; for Kuinoel, the celebrated commentator on the historical books of the New Testament, in his commentary on John, revised in 1825, since Gesenius advanced his opinion above noticed; Kuinoel, I say, relies on Eichhorn as authority, and quotes the Targums as the work of the third or fourth century. And he probably, in such a work, took the prevalent opinion of the judges of such questions.— Comment in Evangelium Johan. Prolegom, p. 109. Lips. 1824.
Thus do we see that the prevalent opinion among the German critics is, that Jonathan’s Targum was written at the close of the second or beginning of the third century, and no higher authority on this point can be quoted. Mr. Dwight expressed an universal opinion, when, in his travels through Germany, he declared that the Germans in biblical knowledge were a century in advance of all the other nations of Europe. Thus as we cannot place the date of the Targum of Jonathan before about the beginning of the third century, there can be no authority for saying that Gehenna, in the times of Christ, had any other signification than that which it had in the Old Testament. And while there is no authority for saying this, it is evident that it could not then have been used for hell, because when so used it denoted a hell of fire, and none believed in such a place till long after the New Testament was written. If, then, Christ used the word in its prevailing acceptation, he certainly did not use it to denote a place of endless woe.
O. A. S.
AN INQUIRY INTO THE MEANING OF THE WORDS SHEOL, HADES, TARTARUS AND GEHENNA.
CHAPTER 1
WORDS, which are signs of ideas, were used by the inspired writers in their ordinary acceptation, as they must be by all who speak and write to be understood. In order, therefore, to have a correct view of their language, it is necessary to ascertain what sense they affixed to their words, and this we can only learn by consulting scripture usage. That men have attached ideas to some scripture terms which they were never meant to convey, will not be denied. That this is not the case with the words Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna, which we propose to examine, ought not to be taken for granted.
SECTION 1
ALL THE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE CONSIDERED,
IN WHICH SHEOL OCCURS, TRANSLATED PIT, GRAVE, AND HELL,
IN THE COMMON VERSION.
MOST Christians have supposed that the word hell denotes a place of eternal punishment for all the wicked. Wherever they meet the word, it calls up the idea of such a place, and by many it will be deemed the worst of heresies to give it any other signification. The cry of heresy ought not, however, to deter us from candidly inquiring, “what is truth” on this deeply interesting question.
There are four words in the original languages of the Bible, which are translated by the word hell, in our common version. These are Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna. The first two are translated grave, as well as hell; the two last always hell in the common version.
There is one fact, which deserves attention at the outset, of which many readers of the Bible are ignorant. In the Old Testament, Sheol, hell, never means a place of eternal misery for the wicked. This is indisputable. No one can doubt it who will take the trouble to examine for himself. Nor is this a novel opinion, a discovery of mine. The fact is attested by some of the ablest writers who believed in endless misery. Dr. Campbell, in his 6th Preliminary Dissertation, writes:—“As to the word Hades, which occurs in eleven places in the New Testament, and is rendered hell in all, except one, where it is translated grave, it is quite common in the classical authors, and frequently used by the Seventy, in the translation of the Old Testament. In my judgment it ought never in Scripture to be rendered hell, at least in the sense wherein that word is now universally understood by Christians. In the Old Testament, the corresponding word is Sheol, which signifies the state of the dead in general, without regard to the goodness or badness of the persons, their happiness or misery. In translating that word, the Seventy have almost invariably used Hades. This word is also used sometimes in rendering the nearly synonymous words or phrases bor and abne bor, the pit, tsal moth, the shades of death, dumeh, silence. The state is always represented under those figures which suggest something dreadful, dark and silent, about which the most prying eye and listening ear can acquire no information. The term Hades is well adapted to express this idea.
It was written anciently, as we learn from the poets (for what is called the poetic is nothing but the ancient dialect) aides, ab a privatio et eido video, and signifies obscure, hidden, invisible. To this the word hell, in its primitive signification, perfectly corresponded. For, at first, it denoted only what was secret or concealed. This word is found, with little variation of form, and precisely in the same meaning, in all the Teutonic dialects.
* Professor Stuart says, “Sheol designates future punishment,” but adds, we must also admit, that it does not determine, of itself, the duration of that punishment.”—Exeget. Essays, p. 107.
“But though our word hell, in its original signification, was more adapted to express the sense of Hades than of Gehenna, it is not so now. When we speak as Christians, we always express by it the place of the punishment of the wicked after the general judgment, as opposed to heaven, the place of the reward of the righteous. It is true, that, in translating heathen poets, we retain the old sense of the word hell, which answers to the Latin orcus, or rather infernus, as when we speak of the descent of Eneas, or of Orpheus, into hell. Now, the word infernus, in Latin, comprehends the receptacle of all the dead, and contains both Elysium, the place of the blessed, and Tartarus, the abode of the miserable. The term inferni comprehends all the inhabitants, good and bad, happy and wretched.
The Latin words infernus and inferni bear evident traces of the notion that the repository of the souls of the departed is under ground.* This appears also to have been the opinion of both Greeks and Hebrews, and indeed of all antiquity. How far the ancient practice of burying the body may have contributed to produce this idea concerning the mansion of the ghosts of the deceased, I shall not take upon me to say; but it is very plain, that neither in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, nor in the New, does the word Hades convey the meaning which the present English word hell, in the Christian usage, always conveys to our minds.
What sacred writer, I ask, says, “the repository of the souls of the departed is under ground?” We shall see afterwards, from Dr. Campbell himself, and Whitby, that this is a heathen notion. Mr. Stuart confirms this.
“It were endless to illustrate this remark, by an examination and enumeration of all the passages in both Testaments wherein the word is found. The attempt would be unnecessary, as it is hardly now pretended by any critic, that this is the acceptation of the term in the Old Testament. Who, for example, would render the words of the venerable patriarch Jacob, Genesis 37: 35, when he was deceived by his sons into the opinion that his favourite child Joseph had been devoured by a wild beast, ‘I will go down to hell to my son mourning?’ or the words which he used, chapter 42:38, when they expostulated with him about sending his youngest son, Benjamin, into Egypt along with them, ‘Ye will bring down my grey hairs with sorrow to hell?’ Yet in both places the word, in the original, is Sheol, and in the version of the Seventy, Hades. I shall only add, that, in the famous passage from the Psalms, 16: 10, quoted in the Acts of the Apostles, Acts 2: 27, of which I shall have occasion to take notice afterwards, though the word is the same both in Hebrew and in Greek, as in the two former quotations, and though it is in both places rendered hell in the common version, it would be absurd to understand it as denoting the place of the damned, whether the expression be interpreted literally of David the type, or of Jesus Christ the antitype, agreeably to its principal and ultimate object.”—I have made this long quotation from Dr. Campbell at the outset for several reasons.
1st. It shows that Sheol of the Old Testament, and Hades of the New, both translated by our English word hell, did not originally signify a place of misery for the wicked, but simply the state of the dead , without regard to the goodness or badness of the persons, their happiness or misery. It follows, of course, that wherever these two words are used in Scripture, though translated by the word hell, we ought not to understand a place of misery to be meant by the inspired writers.
2d. It establishes, also, that our English word hell, in its primitive signification, perfectly corresponded to Hades and Sheol, and did not, as it now does, signify a place of misery. It denoted only what was secret or concealed. What we wish to be noticed here, is, that people, generally, have connected the idea of misery with the word hell; but it is evident that it is a very false association. It is beyond all controversy that the word is changed from its original signification to express this idea.
3d. It is also obvious from the above quotation, and from other authors which might be quoted, that Gehenna is the word which is supposed to express the idea of a place of endless misery. The correctness of this opinion we shall consider afterwards. At present it need only be observed, that if the opinion be correct, it is somewhat surprising that the English word hell must assume a new sense to accommodate it with a name. Nor was this the original sense of the term Gehenna, as I shall show afterwards.
4th. I add, in regard to the statements made in the above quotation, that they are not opinions broached by a Universalist in support of his system. No; they are the statements of Dr. Campbell, who was not a Universalist. Nor are they his opinions alone, but admitted as correct by learned orthodox critics and commentators. In Mr. E. J. Chapman’s critical and explanatory notes, we find very similar statements made, on Acts 2: 27, which, to save room, I forbear transcribing.
5th. It is now generally conceded that the doctrine of endless punishment is not taught in the Old Testament. Mr. Stuart does not pretend that it is taught there; but thinks that probably future punishment may be taught in five texts. Was it then brought to light by the Gospel? The doctrine of endless punishment was current among the heathen nations long before the appearance of Christ. But who revealed it to heathen nations, yet left the Jewish nation in ignorance concerning it? If it is said it originated in early revelations which are now lost, I ask, how happened it that the heathen knew so much and the Jews so little about it?
And if Moses, learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, believed that the doctrine of endless misery originated in lost revelations, why did he not teach it in his writings? But how could he refrain from teaching it, had he believed it true? The Jews could not avoid endless misery, for they knew nothing about it; they died, went down to hell, and the first notice they had of its existence was the awful consciousness that they were doomed to its hopeless tortures. Surely, then, if there is such a place, the Jews have reason to thank the heathen, notwithstanding God prohibited all intercourse with them.
It being admitted that the Old Testament does not teach endless punishment, we will inquire whether it teaches future punishment. We will begin our examination by considering the passages where Sheol occurs.
Genesis 37:35. Jacob said, concerning his son Joseph, “I will go down unto the grave (Sheol), unto my son, mourning.” Grave is here the correct rendering of Sheol, for surely no one thinks Jacob believed Joseph had gone to hell, and that he also expected to go down to the same place of misery. But Dr. Allen says, “It is altogether probable that he (Jacob) had reference to the abode of departed spirits, where he hoped to meet his son. But our translators, by using the word grave, have excluded this important and interesting idea, annihilated the strong hopes of paternal affection and enlightened piety.” But what is it which makes this probable? for there is not a text in the Bible which says Sheol is “the abode of departed spirits,” or even names “departed spirits.”
Genesis 42: 38. Concerning Benjamin, Jacob said, “If mischief befall him by the way in which ye go, then shall ye bring d own my grey hairs with sorrow to the grave (Sheol).” Evidently grave, in the same sense as the preceding passage.
Genesis 44: 29. Jacob again says, “Ye shall bring down my grey hairs with sorrow to the grave,” in the same sense as above.
Genesis 44: 31. Judah, in making a speech for the liberation of Benjamin, said, “Thy servants shall bring down the gray hairs of thy servant our father with sorrow to the grave (Sheol).” Obviously grave, as in the three preceding passages. See the quotation from Dr. Campbell. Numbers 16: 30. Moses said, concerning Korah and his company, “But if the Lord make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth and swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go down quick into the pit (Sheol).” If Sheol, here rendered pit, means hell in its common acceptation, then Korah, his company, and all appertaining to them, went down alive there. But what is meant is explained, verse 32, by “the earth opening her mouth and swallowing them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods.” They were swallowed up as whole cities have been by an earthquake. Who believes that people go down alive, soul and body, to hell, or endless misery? The common opinion teaches that no bodies go there until after the resurrection. Besides, did those persons, houses, and their goods, go there with them? for all went down into the pit, whatever place that was.
Numbers 16: 33. “They and all that appertained to them (that is, Korah and his company), went down alive into the pit (Sheol); and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation.” The sense here is the same as in the chapter preceding. But in reference to both these passages, it is said by Professor Stuart, “That Korah and his company wen t to the world of woe, there can be but little if any reason to doubt, considering their character and the nature of their crime.” This is being wise above what is written, for neither Moses nor any other sacred writer intimates any such thing. Mr. Stuart says, in the very next sentence, “But the words of Moses, in this place, seem to refer primarily to the event which was about to take place, namely, to Korah and his company being swallowed up alive, and thus going down into the under world.” Can a particle o f evidence be produced that Moses referred to anything else?
Deuteronomy 32: 22. “For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell (Sheol), and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.” Moses is here foretelling God’s judgments on the Jewish nation; and it required strong imagery to describe them. The figure of fire is common in Scripture to describe God’s judgments on men; and as on the Jewish nation came all the righteous blood shed on the earth, so here the description of their punishment is set forth by a fearful fire. But if by the lowest hell we understand a place of endless misery, there must be three divisions of it, for the lowest hell supposes some hells above it, and all these hells must be burnt through for this fire to reach it. But who believes this? Besides, it may be asked, was David ever in this lowest hell? For he says to God, “Thou hast delivered my soul (me) from the lowest hell,” Psalm 86:13. I may add, no intimation is here given, or anywhere else, that in this lowest hell any persons are suffering misery.
1 Samuel 2: 6. “The Lord kills and makes alive; he brings down to the grave (Sheol), and brings up.” Grave, or state of the dead, is evidently the meaning of Sheol here, as the two parts of the verse show. The words in the last part, “He brings down to Sheol and brings up,” answer to the words in the first, “The Lord kills, and makes alive.” Indeed, who believes that the Lord brings men up from Sheol, or hell, in the popular sense of this term? and yet, if Sheol means hell, it is here plainly asserted. 2 Samuel 22: 6. “The sorrows of hell (Sheol), compassed me about; the snares of death prevented me,” or came upon me. The parallelism, here, shows what is meant. In the first part of the verse, “The sorrows of hell (Sheol) compassed me about,” is explained by the second, “the snares of death prevented me.” “Sorrows of Sheol,” and “snares of death,” express the same idea. See on Psalm 18: 5, below.
1 Kings 2: 6. David charged Solomon thus, “Do therefore according to thy wisdom, and let not his (Joab’s) hoar head go down to the grave (Sheol) in peace; “let him die, according to the laws, a violent death for the crimes he hath committed. Solomon could not send Joab to hell.
1 Kings 2: 9. David charged Solomon thus concerning Shimei, “But his hoar head bring thou down to the grave (Sheol) with blood.” No fault is generally found with David, in charging Solomon respecting Joab, but he has often been blamed for cruelty towards Shimei. I quote the following from the Missionary Magazine, volume 7., page 333, which places his conduct in a different light. It is there said, “David is here represented, in our English version, as finishing his life with giving a comm and to Solomon to kill Shimei; and to kill him on account of that very crime for which he had sworn to him, by the Lord, he would not put him to death. The behaviour thus imputed to the king and prophet should be examined very carefully as to the ground it stands upon. When the passage is duly considered, it will appear highly probable that an injury has been done to this illustrious character. It is not uncommon, in the Hebrew language, to omit the negative in a second part of a sentence, and to consider it as repeated when it has been once expressed, and is followed by the connecting particle.
The necessity of so very considerable an alteration as inserting the particle NOT, may be here confirmed by some other instances. Thus, Psalm 1: 5, ‘The ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, NOR (the Hebrew is and, signifying, and not) sinners in the congregation of the righteous.’ Psalm 9: 18; 38: 1; 75: 5; Proverbs 24: 12. If, then, there are many such instances, the question is whether the negative here expressed in the former part of David’s command may not be understood as to be repeated in the latter part? And if this may be, a strong reason will be added why it should be so interpreted. The passage will run thus, ‘Behold, thou hast with thee Shimei, who cursed me; but I sware to him by the Lord, saying, I will not put thee to death by the sword. Now, therefore, hold him NOT guiltless, (for thou art a wise man, and knows what thou ought to do unto him), but bring NOT down his hoary head to the grave with blood.’ Now, if the language itself will admit this construction, the sense thus given to the sentence derives a very strong support from the context. For how did Solomon understand this charge? Did he kill Shimei in consequence of it? Certainly he did not. For, after he had commanded Joab to be immediately slain in obedience to his father, he sends for Shimei, and knowing that Shimei ought to be well watched, confines him to a particular spot in Jerusalem for the remainder of his life. 1 Kings 2: 36—42. See Kennicott’s Remarks, page 131.” Those who wish to see this verse noticed at considerable length, may consult the Christian’s Magazine, volume i., page 172—181. David could not surely mean that the hoary head of either Joab or Shimei should be brought down to endless misery with blood.
Job 7:9. “As the cloud is consumed and vanishes away; so he that goes down to the grave (Sheol) shall come up no more.” The next verse explains the writer’s meaning; “he shall no more return to his house, neither shall his place know him any more.” Job 11:8. “It is high as heaven; what canst thou do? Deeper than hell (Sheol); what canst thou know?” The antithesis here shows what is meant by Sheol, for it is contrasted with the heaven for height. The sea, or abyss, is probably alluded to. See verse 7. No man can by searching find out God, any more than he can measure the height of heaven, or the depth of the abyss. Sheol included the abyss, for it was the state of all the dead, whether in the abyss, grave or tomb, etc.
Job 14:13. “O that thou wouldst hide me in the grave (Sheol).” The context shows Job longed for death, to find rest in the grave. No man supposes Job prayed that God would hide him in the place of endless misery.
Job 17:13. “If I wait, the grave (Sheol) is mine house.” I must die at last, and I may as well die now as at any future period.
Job 17:16. “They shall go down to the bars of the pit (Sheol), when our rest together is in the dust.” The grave or sepulchre is here evidently referred to by Sheol, rendered pit. Corruption and the worms were to be with Job there, which he explains to be “in the dust.” Not surely in hell, or endless misery.
Job 21:13. “They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave (Sheol).” Our translators understood Sheol here to mean grave, and have rendered it so; and the fact stated, we see daily occurring around us. This is the first of Professor Stuart’s five texts, in which he thinks Sheol “may designate the future world of woe.” But he places little dependence on it, for he says, “Job 21: 13 is not altogether so probable as to afford e ntire satisfaction. Verses 17, 18, 21, 30—33, it may be alleged, seem rather to incline the mind to construe Sheol in verse 13 as meaning grave; and so our translators have done.” The general usage of Sheol, by his own confession, is also opposed to construing it otherwise than grave.
Job 24: 19. “Drought and heat consume the snow waters; so doth the grave (Sheol) those which have sinned.” This is true of the grave; but does hell, the world of woe, consume those which have sinned?
Job 26: 6. “Hell (Sheol) is naked before him, and destruction hath no covering.” What is called hell or Sheol in the first part of the verse, is called destruction in the last. Hell, here, has the sense of grave, as in the apostles’ creed, and other texts.
Psalm 6: 5. “For in death there is no remembrance of thee; in the grave (Sheol) who shall give thee thanks?” The parallelism here shows that grave is the meaning of Sheol. The first part of the verse, “in death there is no remembrance of thee,” explains what is meant in the last, “in the grave (Sheol) who shall give thee thanks?” Did David expect to go to the world of woe? And who ever supposed it was a place for praising God?
Psalm 9: 17. “The wicked shall be turned into hell (Sheol), and all the nations that forget God.” This is Professor Stuart’s second text to prove that “Sheol may designate the future world of woe.” But, probably perceiving that the context stood opposed to such a view of it, he passes it without remark. Dr. Allen gives this text up as teaching future punishment. He says, “But probably the punishment expressed is cutting off from life, destroying from the earth, by some special judgment, and removing to the invisible place of the dead.” But there is no text in which the word Sheol occurs, which has been more frequently quoted than this, to prove that by hell is meant a place of misery for the wicked. The wicked are the persons spoken of, and they are said to be turned into hell, with all the nations that forget God.
Plausible as this appears, we have only to consult the context, to see that no such idea was intended by the writer. The Psalm in which the words stand is treating of God’s temporal judgments upon the heathen nations. We think, if verses 15—20 are consulted, this will sufficiently appear. What leads people to think that this passage refers to eternal misery, is the false idea which they have attached to the word hell. But surely no one, who has attended to all the texts, can continue to believe that Sheol here has such a meaning. It is the hell into which the wicked are turned, and to which Jacob said he would go down mourning. It is the hell in which the Saviour’s soul was not left. It is the same one David prayed the wicked might go down quick, or alive, into.
When I can believe that David prayed the wicked might go down alive to a place of endless misery, and that Korah and his company did go there alive, it is possible I may believe the text before us contains the answer to David’s prayer. But it will not be easy to produce evidence of this. The fact is, it would prove too much. It would prove that all the heathen nations must go to eternal misery, a thing which few are prepared to admit. Ask the question of the most zealous advocates of the doctrine, Are all the heathen nations turned into eternal misery? They hesitate to say, yes. But why, if Sheol means such a place? The passage is explicit in declaring it.
But it will be asked, Are not all good people turned into Sheol, or the state of the dead, as well as the wicked? Why, then, is it said the wicked shall be turned into hell, with all the nations that forget God? We answer: though all good people in David’s day, went to Sheol, as well as the wicked, yet not in the way he here represents. He is speaking of God’s public judgments on the heathen, by which they were to be cut off from the earth, or turned into Sheol. It is one thing to die, and quite another to be cut off by the judgments of God. I shall only add, if all the wicked, yea, all the nations who forgot God in those days, were turned into a place of endless misery, upon what principles are we to justify the character of God, or of good men, for their want of feeling towards them, or their exertions to save them from it? We are told that the times of this ignorance God winked at: that he suffered all nations to walk after their own ways. If all the heathen nations were turned into a place of endless misery, neither God nor good men felt, spoke or acted, as if this was true.
Psalm 16: 10. “For thou wilt not leave my soul (me) in hell (Sheol): neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption.” Peter quotes this text, Acts 2: 24—32, and applies it to the resurrection of Christ. He was not left in Sheol, or the grave. That grave only is meant, seem s obvious from the next words, “neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption.” Professor Stuart says, “Can the soul of Jesus be supposed to have been in the world of woe, the p lace of the damned? I know, indeed, that there are some, who deduce from this passage the doctrine of a purgatory, into which Christ descended, in order to preach to the spirits who are in prison! But there is no foundation in this text for any such deduction.” But is there not just as much foundation for such a deduction in this text as there is in any text where Sheol occurs, that it is “a world of woe, the place of the damned”?
The Bible may as well be quoted to prove purgatory a spiritual prison. Where does it teach such a prison? or what text can be adduced to prove there are any spirits in it who need preaching? We will thank Mr. Stuart, or any other man, to prove these things from Scripture. He takes for granted the existence of such a prison, and that there are damned spirits in it, but lacks in benevolence to let Christ go there and preach to them. But if one of these things is believed without scripture authority, why not all of them?
Psalm 18: 5. “The sorrows of hell (Sheol) compassed me about; the snares of death prevented me.” See on 2 Samuel 22: 6, for the sense of Sheol. In both places, and in others where Sheol is rendered hell, nothing but the popular sense attached to this word leads people to think of a place of future punishment. It would have been well if Sheol had in all cases been left untranslated, for then people would have looked to the context for its meaning.
Psalm 30: 3. “O Lord, thou hast brought up my soul (me) from the grave (Sheol): thou hast kept me alive, that I should not go down to the pit.” The parallelism in this verse shows its meaning; for what is expressed in the first part is explained in the second. Was the writer ever in the future world of woe? And was he ever brought up from it?
Psalm 31: 17. “Let the wicked be ashamed, and let them be silent in the grave (Sheol).” On this text I ask, 1st. If Sheol means hell, the world of future punishment, how could David or any good man pray, “Let the wicked be silent in this hell”? If so, David was like the bold blasphemer who sends his companions to hell with his prayers and curses. But, 2d. If Sheol means hell, did David think it a place of silence? He says, “Let them be silent in Sheol.” None believe now that hell is a place of silence; for it is said to be a place where the wicked are weeping, and wailing and gnashing their teeth. But, 3d. Admit David here only means, let the wicked be ashamed, and let them be silent in the grave; how could he ever pray for this, as a good man, if he believed in any future punishment? for just so sure as they were turned into the grave, their souls went to hell to be punished, according to the common opinions.
By implication then, if he believed in any future punishment, he prayed that the wicked might suffer the agonies of an endless hell. What good man now prays so? 4th. But, if we admit David knew of no future punishment after death, all difficulty is removed. As a good man, and a king, David might pray that the wicked might be cut off by death; or, as Mr. Stuart expresses it, “that the justice due to them, in a civil respect, might be executed.”
Psalm 49: 14. “Like sheep they are laid in the grave (Sheol); death shall feed on them; and the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning; and their beauty shall consume in the grave (Sheol), from their dwelling.” Sheol occurs here twice, and is properly rendered grave by our translators; for are any sheep laid in hell, the world of woe; or does any person’s beauty consume there?
Psalm 49: 15. “But God will redeem my soul (me) from the power of the grave (Sheol), for he shall receive me.” Evidently grave is used here as in the last verse; for in what sense could David be under the power of the world of woe, and be redeemed from it? On this text Mr. Stuart says, “Whether under this imagery more than a literal meaning is not conveyed, as also in the example above (Psalm 49: 14), will be matter of inquiry in the sequel.” But all he says in the sequel, is, page 113, “Let any one now, in addition to these texts, carefully inspect such passages as Numbers 16: 30, 33. Deuteronomy 32: 22; 1 Kings, 2: 6; Psalm 49: 14, 15; Is. 5: 14, and then say, whether the Hebrew, believing in a state of future retribution, did not connect such language, in his own thoughts, with the apprehension of future misery in regard to those of whom he thus spoke.”
But the very question in dispute is, did the Hebrew “believe in a state of future retribution?” Until this point is settled, it is premature to inquire, “whether the Hebrew did connect such language, in his own thoughts, with the apprehension of future misery in regard to those of whom he thus spoke.” It is surprising that a man of Mr. Stuart’s attainments, should assume the very question in debate. Besides, who can tell what the Hebrew thought, or connected with his thoughts, but by what he has expressed in the language he used?
Psalm 55: 15. “Let death seize upon them, and let them go down quick into hell (Sheol).” Mr. Stuart on this text says, “There is a serious difficulty in the way of supposing the Psalmist to have prayed that his enemies should go down suddenly to the world of future woe. Here, however, our English version renders Sheol by hell; but why this should be done here, and not in Psalm 31: 17, it would be difficult to say.” This is indeed a serious difficulty, which we have noticed in Psalm 31: 17, above. We have shown that there is no possible way of getting rid of it, but by admitting that Sheol does not in any case designate the world of woe, and that David did not believe in any punishment after death.
Psalm 86: 13. “Great is thy mercy toward me; and thou hast delivered my soul (me) from the lowest hell (Sheol).” On this text, Mr. Stuart says, “The next verse seems plainly to indicate that deliverance from temporal death is here meant. It runs thus: ‘O God, the proud are risen up against me; and the assemblies of violent men have sought after my soul (my life), and have not set thee before them.’ The word nephish, which our translators have here rendered soul, is a common Hebrew word for life; and is very often so rendered. It clearly has that meaning here; for David’s enemies surely did not seek after his soul in any other sense.
Consequently, we must conclude that the deliverance, commemorated in verse 13, is from the grave, or underworld, that is, from death. By saying lowest grave or sepulchre, the writer designates a most terrible and cruel death, or a death of the most shocking nature.” This is very much to the purpose. Let the reader notice, that lowest Sheol, hell, grave, or sepulchre, simply means, by Mr. Stuart’s own confessions, “a death of the most shocking nature.” Psalm 88: 3. “My soul is full of trouble; my life draws near unto the grave (Sheol).”
Certainly grave is here the proper rendering of Sheol, for the writer surely did not mean to say his life drew near unto hell or endless misery. The context decides the sense of Sheol to be grave, for, in verse 4, he says, “I am counted with them that go down into the pit;” and in verse 5, “like the slain that lie in the grave.” Yea, says verse 6, “thou hast laid me in the lowest pit;” and, asks verse 10, “wilt thou show wonders to the dead?” The phrase “lowest pit” is equivalent to “lowest hell” or Sheol. Psalm 86: 13.
Psalm 89: 48.What man is he that lives and shall not see death? shall he deliver his soul (life) from the hand of the grave (Sheol)?” The hand of the grave simply means the power of the grave. And the parallelism determines that Sheol is correctly rendered “grave.” Thus some are delivered from hell, the world of woe.
Psalm 116: 3. “The sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell (Sheol) gat hold upon me.” The “sorrows of death” and “pains of hell” are equivalent expressions. The same sentiment is expressed, 2 Samuel 22: 6, and 18: 5, already noticed.
Psalm 139: 8. “If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there; if I make my bed in hell (Sheol), behold, thou art there.” The writer, here, surely did not mean to say, if I make my bed in hell, the world of woe. This language is evidently used to express the omnipresence of God, as the context shows.
Psalm 141: 7. “Our bones are scattered at the grave’s (Sheol) mouth.” This is true of the grave; but are people’s bones scattered at the mouth of hell, the world of woe?
Proverbs 1: 12. “Let us swallow them up alive as the grave (Sheol);” and whole, as those that go down into the pit.” The parallelism, as well as the context, sufficiently shows that Sheol means grave, as our translators have rendered it.
Proverbs 5: 5. “Her feet go down to death; her steps take hold on hell (Sheol).” The equivalent to “her steps take hold on Sheol,” is, “her feet go down to death.” Both express the premature or sudden death of a lewd woman. The parallelism is similar here to that in
Psalm 6: 5, Proverbs 1: 12, and other texts noticed already. This is Professor Stuart’s third text, in which he thinks “Sheol may designate the future world of woe.” He is correct in saying, “This and Proverbs 9: 18, have respect to prostitutes,” page 109. But the argument he draws from them is founded on the mistake that in the ancient world, “disease in some of its most awful forms” was not, as now, a concomitant attending illicit intercourse. In my reply to his essays I have fully considered this argument, and to this I beg leave here, and on all his book, to refer. It is sufficient, now, to notice that v. 11 of the context shows Mr. Stuart must be mistaken.
It runs thus, “And thou mourn at the last, when thy flesh and thy body are consumed.” What do these words mean, if “disease in some of its most awful forms” was not then a concomitant attending illicit intercourse? Medical men aver that such a disease is produced without illicit intercourse, and that it no doubt existed in the ancient world, though not known then by its modern names.
Proverbs 9: 18. “But he knows not that the dead are there, and that her guests are in the depths of hell, (Sheol).” This is Professor Stuart’s fourth text in proof that “Sheol may designate the future world of woe.” But his argument, founded on this text, is drawn from the same mistake as noticed on the preceding text. He renders this passage thus, “But he knows not that the ghosts are there.” What ghosts? Are they living beings, disembodied spirits?
Not a word of this can be true, by Mr. Stuart’s own confessions, for he says, page 121, “A deep region beneath, peopled with ghosts, is what we do not believe in.” Besides, we have shown in our reply to his essays, that the term repaim, rendered “ghosts” by him, and “dead” in the common version, has no reference to living beings of any kind, but to the dead body. Proverbs 15: 11. “Hell (Sheol) and destruction are before the Lord; how much more, then, the hearts of the children of men?” Here Sheol and destruction are joined, and plainly refer to the grave, where destruction takes place. If these are obvious to the sight of the Lord, much more the hearts of men.
Proverbs 23: 14. “Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell (Sheol).” The verse which precedes this explains what is meant. “Withhold not correction from the child.” Why? To save his soul from the world of woe? No; it is added, “for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shalt not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul (him) from the grave (Sheol).” The child will bring himself to a premature death by his wicked course of life; but, if you apply the rod in time, it will drive his folly far from him and prevent it. But this is Professor Stuart’s fifth and last text, where he thinks “Sheol may designate the future world of woe.” Let us now hear what he concedes about these texts. He says, “It is possible to interpret such texts as Proverbs 5: 5; 9: 18; 23: 14, as designating a death violent and premature, inflicted by the hand of Heaven.”
Thus much he concedes respecting three of his texts. Again, he says, “The probability that Sheol designates the future punishment of the wicked, in the passages just cited (all his five texts), depends perhaps, in a great measure, on the state of knowledge among the Hebrews with regard to future rewards and punishments.” But were not these very texts quoted to show what was “the state of knowledge among the Hebrews with regard to future rewards and punishments?” But it is confessed they do not teach this; for their teaching it depends, in a great measure, on the state of knowledge among the Hebrews with regard to future rewards and punishments, a thing they do not teach. If they did teach it, they would not need to depend on anything else. The texts, then, are nothing to Mr. Stuart’s purpose, even by his own confession, until it is proved that the Hebrews believed as he asserts. He even concedes that the texts are susceptible of a different interpretation.
Proverbs 27: 20. “Hell (Sheol) and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied.” Here, again, Sheol and destruction are joined. The grave and destruction never say they have enough; so the eyes of man are never satisfied with seeing. Why render Sheol “hell” here?
Proverbs 30: 15, 16. “There are three things that are never satisfied, yea, four things say not, It is enough. The grave (Sheol), and the barren womb; the earth that is not filled with water; and the fire that saith not, It is enough.” It is strange our translators should have rendered Sheol, “hell,” in the last text, and render it here, “grave,” where the same idea is conveyed. No one can suppose that, in either text, Sheol means hell, the world of woe.
Ecclesiastes 9: 10. “Whatsoever thy hand finds to do, do it with all thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave (Sheol), whither thou goes.” No one doubts that Sheol, here, means the grave, as rendered in the English version; for such things could not be said concerning it if it meant hell, a place of future punishment. But if it meant in any case hell, he who should thus speak would be liable to be misunderstood concerning it.
Song Solomon 8: 6. “For love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave (Sheol).” We know that the grave is cruel, for it spares neither age nor sex, and is a fine figure to describe the effects of strong jealousy. But how is it known that hell, the world of woe, is cruel, or that jealousy resembles it?
Isaiah 5: 14. “Therefore hell (Sheol) hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoices, shall descend into it.” All allow that Sheol, the grave, is here personified. It is represented as having a mouth, opening it wide without measure, to receive the wicked with all their pomp and glory.
Isaiah 14: 9. “Hell (Sheol), from beneath, is moved to meet thee at thy coming: it stirs up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.” On this verse Professor Stuart says, “The prophet is speaking of the king of Babylon, who was to be slain; and when he should go down into the under-world, or Sheol, the ghosts, or umbrae of the dead there, would rise up to meet him with insult and contumely.” Our English version renders Sheol “hell.” But, plainly, the region of the dead, the land of ghosts, is here meant; for, in verse 18, all the kings of the nations are said to repose in glory there, that is, to lie in their sepulchres, attended with all the ensigns of splendour which were deposited around the bodies of deceased kings. See in the next passage for further remarks.
Isaiah 14: 15. “Yet thou (the king of Babylon) shalt be brought down to hell (Sheol), to the sides of the pit.” On this text, Professor Stuart adds, “The word here is most evidently in the same sense as above; for so the parallelism, which follows, cleanly shows, namely, to the sides of the pit.” On the two last texts he gives us the following excellent remarks, page 121, 122.
“A deep region beneath, peopled with ghosts, is what we do not believe in. Nor is there any more certainty that it is true because this method of speaking about it in Scripture is adopted, than that the sun goes round the earth because they speak of it as doing so. In most cases, it is the language of poetry, which employs the popular methods of representation. It is poetry which gives a kind of life and animation to the inhabitants of the underworld. Poetry personifies that world. So in Isaiah 5: 14; Proverbs 27: 20; 30: 15, 16; 1:12. Above all, is this the case in that most striking passage, Isaiah 14: 9—20 (the two last passages), in which all commentators are compelled to admit a fictitious or imaginary costume. Here the ghosts rise up from their places of repose, and meet and insult the king of Babylon, and exult over his fall. All is life and animation when he goes down into the under-world. Yet who was ever misled by this passage, and induced to regard it as a passage to be literally understood? But if this be very plain, then are other passages of a nature in any respect similar, equally plain also.” On this quotation from Professor Stuart I have a few remarks to make.
1st. He explicitly declares that he has no faith in a deep region beneath, peopled with ghosts. There is no more reason to believe this true than that the sun goes round the earth. But, we ask, are not disembodied souls or spirits considered ghosts? Mr. Stuart believes in them. Perhaps his scepticism respects not their existence, but the place of their existence; they are not in “a deep region beneath.” Be it so; where, then I cannot find from his writings. 2d. The professor tells us “It is poetry which gives a kind of life and animation to the inhabitants of the under-world. Poetry personifies that world,” and in the passages he cites, he assures us “All commentators are compelled to admit a fictitious or imaginary costume. Here the ghosts rise up from their places of repose, and meet and insult the king of Babylon, and exult over his fall. All is life and animation when he goes down into the under-world.”
Very well; but if this is the language of poetry, where will he find a text in the Old Testament which is the language of reality, declaring that persons were alive in Sheol after death? We do not demand what, on his system, we have a right to demand, that he produce a text which says persons are punished there. No, we only ask him to name the text which teaches that the king of Babylon, or any other person, was in a state of conscious existence after death, either in a region beneath, or in any other region in the universe of God. He says “In most cases it is the language of poetry, which employs the popular methods of representation.” If not so in every case, he can produce the exceptions where the language of reality gives to persons in Sheol real life and animation.
3d. If the plainest texts which represent persons alive after death, are abandoned by Mr. Stuart as the mere language of poetry, how is his system to be supported? He has abandoned them, and we are confident that none others give his idea half so much support. Would he have abandoned them as the language of poetry, if it had only been said concerning the king of Babylon, or any other person, “And in Sheol he lifted up his eyes, being in torment”? This would have altered the passages from a fictitious and imaginary costume, to solemn reality.
Doubtless this would have been said, had the poets then known that in the Hebrew Sheol there was a Tartarus, a place of torment. But at that period the poets had not given such a representation to Sheol. We shall see that the Greeks gave to Hades this representation; this fictitious and imaginary costume, which Mr. Stuart adopts without scruple, as the truth of God. It is a strange inconsistency to say, when the king of Babylon goes down to Sheol, and all is life and animation on his arrival, this is only fiction; and when the rich man, Luke 16:23, goes down to Hades, and all is life and animation, this is solemn reality. Does not Mr. Stuart admit that Sheol and Hades are only the Hebrew and Greek names for the same place? And is he ignorant how Hades came to differ from Sheol respecting such a representation? We shall refresh his memory about this in the sequel.
Isaiah 28: 15. “Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell (Sheol) are we at agreement.” The persons mentioned, fancied themselves so secure that they say “with Sheol, the grave, we are at agreement.” They add, “When the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us; for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves.” But thus their way was their folly, for it is added,
Isaiah 28: 18. “Your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell (Sheol) shall not stand.” No covenant can be made with death and the grave; all must die, all go to Sheol. Hence, it is added, “When the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.”
Isaiah 38: 18. “For the grave (Sheol) cannot praise thee; death cannot celebrate thee; they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth.” Here, what is expressed by the words, “the grave (Sheol) cannot praise thee,” is explained by the next words, death cannot celebrate thee.” It is still further explained by the words, “they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth.” On this text Mr. Stuart says, “The meaning here is plain, namely, how can the dead, or those in the sepulchre, praise thee? Surely, we cannot well suppose Hezekiah means to say here, that hell, that is, the world of torment, cannot praise God. He did not expect to perish forever, when he should die. But when he says, ‘Sheol cannot praise thee,’ does he mean that after death there is no ability to praise God, no existence of the powers and capacities of the soul? I think not. It seems to me clear that this is not his design, although not a few of the later critics have affirmed it to be so. Shall we represent the Hebrews, and a Hebrew monarch enlightened as Hezekiah was, as being more ignorant in respect to futurity than the Egyptians? The people of God, who lived under the light of a revelation, more ignorant than those who were in the midst of Egyptian night? Believe this who will, I must have stronger evidence of its correctness than I have yet found in order to give it credit.” On this quotation I have to remark:
1st. Hezekiah did not expect to perish forever when he should die, for, like all believers in divine revelation, he hoped for a future life by a resurrection from the dead. But did he or any other person ever intimate that he should praise God or be alive in Sheol after death? No. But it was incumbent on Mr. Stuart to produce some declaration or example from Scripture, that in Sheol there is “ability to praise God; an existence of the powers and capacities of the soul” to do this. If this could have been found, he would have produced it.
2d. Mr. Stuart’s argument proves too much. It proves that the transmigration of souls is a scripture doctrine, for it was believed by those in Egyptian night. I then say to Mr. Stuart, in his own words, “Shall we represent the Hebrews, and a Hebrew monarch enlightened as Hezekiah was, as being more ignorant respecting the transmigration of souls than the Egyptians? The people of God, who lived under the light of a revelation, more ignorant than those in the midst of Egyptian night? Believe this who will, I must have stronger evidence of its correctness than I have yet found in order to give it credit.” Does Mr. Stuart think the Hebrews, the people of God, believed in the doctrine of transmigration of souls?
3d. Mr. Stuart forgets himself. He furnishes evidence that the Egyptians in the midst of their night knew all about future rewards and punishments, and yet he cannot show that the Hebrews, the people of God, knew anything about them, or that they were taught in the Old Testament. Now, how will he, or any other man, be able to account for the fact that the Egyptians taught this doctrine in the days of Moses and the prophets, yet they never taught it? If they were better informed than the Egyptians on this subject, as Mr. Stuart asserts, how happened it that they gave us no information upon it? But,
4th. Mr. Stuart adds, “I regard the simple meaning of this controverted place (and of others like it, e. g., Psalm 6: 5; 30: 9; 88: 11; 115: 17; comp. 118: 17), as being this, namely, ‘The dead can no more give thanks to God nor celebrate his praise among the living on earth, and thus cause his name to be glorified by them,’ or thus do him honour before them. So the sequel of Isaiah 38: 18; ‘The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day; the father to the children shall make known thy truth,’ that is, thy faithfulness. This last clause makes the whole plain; and one is ready to wonder that so much scepticism about the views of the Hebrews in regard to a future state of existence, could have been eked out of the verse in question.” No man disputes, with Mr. Stuart, that “the dead can no more give thanks to God, nor celebrate his praises among the living on earth.” What he has to prove is, that the dead celebrate God’s praises in Sheol; that there, people have powers and capacities to do this. Isaiah 57: 9. “And thou didst debase thyself even unto hell (Sheol).” Sheol here evidently means grave; and to be debased even unto Sheol, Hades, or the grave, expresses the lowest state of debasement or degradation.
Ezekiel 31: 15. “In the day when he went down to the grave (Sheol), I caused a mourning.” The prophet is here speaking of the death of the king of Egypt; and Sheol is correctly rendered grave by our translators.
Ezekiel 31: 16. “I made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall, when I cast him down to hell (Sheol).” But why is Sheol rendered hell here, and grave in the verse preceding, for the prophet has not changed his subject? This is a striking example of inconsistency in the translators. Many other examples may be found.
Ezekiel 31: 17. “They also went down into hell (Sheol) with him, unto them that be slain with the sword.” The same subject is continued, as in the two preceding verses already noticed, and “grave” ought to have been the rendering of Sheol.
Ezekiel 32: 21. “The strong among the mighty shall speak to him out of the midst of hell (Sheol), with them that help him.” This is spoken of the king of Egypt, and is similar to what is said Isaiah 14: 9—20, concerning the king of Babylon, above noticed. This is one of the texts which Mr. Stuart considers the language of poetry. See Isaiah 14: 9—20.
Ezekiel 32: 27. “And they shall not lie with the mighty that are fallen of the uncircumcised, which are gone down to hell(Sheol), with their weapons of war; and they have laid their swords under their heads.” Grave, vault or tomb, is the meaning of Sheol here; for do people carry their weapons of war with them to hell, the world of woe? And do they lay them under their heads there? The allusion is evidently to the custom of burying the hero’s implements of war with him. Another text which is only the language of poetry. See Isaiah 14: 9—20.
Hosea 13: 14. “I will ransom them from the power of the grave (Sheol); I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave (Sheol), I will be thy destruction.” If Sheol means hell, the world of woe, its destruction is here plainly declared. But if it means grave, this is agreeable to Scripture, for death and the grave are to be destroyed when men are raised from the dead immortal and glorious. There is a double antithesis in this passage, which shows that Sheol means grave. The first member of the verse is explained by the second; and the fourth member is explained by the third; Sheol, in the first and fourth members, answers to death in the second and third.
Amos 9: 2. “Though they dig into hell (Sheol), thence shall mine hand take them.” People may dig down into the lowest grave. But can any person dig down to Sheol, if it means the world of woe, hell, in the common acceptation of this term? If it does mean this in any instance, it is here supposed that men may dig into it. But can any man seriously believe this? Besides, hell must be a region beneath peopled with ghosts, Mr. Stuart’s scepticism on the subject to the contrary, notwithstanding.
Jonah 2: 2. “Out of the belly of hell (Sheol) cried I, and thou heard my voice.” But how could Jonah be in hell, the world of woe, for he was only in the belly of the fish? He thought his situation the same as if he had been in the grave. And, unless there are two or more Sheol’s or hells, how can it mean both grave and world of woe, for all at death go to Sheol?
Such are all the places where Sheol occurs in whatever way rendered in our common version. The examples of its usage are numerous; but, numerous as they are, I do not find that, in a single instance, Sheol is used to designate hell, the world of woe. To this conclusion I have come after patient and repeated investigations. Mr. Stuart’s attempt to establish a contrary conclusion, only confirms me in my own. Indeed, the result of his examination leaves his mind doubtful as to the truth of his conclusion that Sheol means hell in the common use of this word. Let us hear him respecting the result of his inquiries.
He says, page 93, “There can be no reasonable doubt that Sheol does most generally mean the under-world, the grave or sepulchre, the world of the dead, in the Old Testament Scriptures. It is very clear that there are many passages where no other meaning can reasonably be assigned to it. Accordingly, our English translators have rendered the word Sheol grave in thirty instances out of the whole sixty-four instances in which it occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures. In many of the remaining cases, where they have given a different version of the word, that is, translated it hell, it is equally clear that it should have been rendered grave, or region of the dead. This has been clearly shown, by producing the instances in the above exhibition of examples. In three cases, they have recognized the same principle (at least this seems to have been their view), namely, Numbers 16:30, 33; Job 17:16, where it is translated pit. In regard to most of the cases in which they have rendered the word hell, it may be doubtful whether they meant thereby to designate the world of future torment. The incongruity of such a rendering, at least in not a few cases, has be en already pointed out in the citations of the respective examples above, and, therefore, need not be here repeated. The inconstancy with which they have sometimes rendered the word Sheol, in the same connection and with the same sense, is a striking circumstance which cannot but be regarded with some wonder by an attentive inquirer. Nor is this always to be attributed to different translators (who are known to have been employed in making the English version); but the same translator has been occasionally inconsistent with himself; e. g., Ezekiel 31: 15, compared with Ezekiel 31: 16, 17.”
Such are Mr. Stuart’s own frank confessions respecting the term Sheol; and how far the result of his investigations differs from mine, let the reader judge. But it will no doubt be said, Professor Stuart contends that there are at least five texts “in which Sheol may designate the world of woe.” True, but as the conclusion of this whole matter, he says, page 114, “The sum of the evidence from the Old Testament, in regard to Sheol, is that the Hebrews did probably, in some cases, connect with the use of this word the idea of misery subsequent to the death of the body.” He puts these words in capital letters, no doubt to make them the more conspicuous. But with or without this parade of capitals, it is conspicuous enough that all he contends for is a mere probability that Sheol, in some cases, does mean what he says. Or rather, “The Hebrews did probably, in some cases, connect with the use of this word, the idea of misery subsequent to the death of the body.”
It is obvious this probability is not founded on the original signification of the term Sheol, its general scripture usage, or the five texts which he deemed most to his purpose. He allows that Sheol originally signified the grave, or state of the dead; and that the general usage of Sheol is in favour of my views is obvious from his own statements. Besides, the five texts on which he places his dependence are susceptible of a different interpretation from the one he has given them, by his own confession. On what, then, does he found his probability that Sheol in some texts means hell, the world of woe? We answer, on assertions; he begs the question of his readers; he assumes that the Hebrews, in some cases, when they used the term Sheol, had in their minds the idea of future punishment. But he has not produced a single text to show this, and he could not.
Mr. Stuart exhibited his sagacity in making some show of defending the doctrine of future punishment from the term Sheol. This is the foundation of the whole superstructure of punishment after death. If it gives way the whole falls to irrecoverable ruin. If a Tartarus is not found in Sheol, it cannot be found in Hades, its corresponding word in the Greek, except on heathen authority. And we shall see, from Mr. Stuart himself, that Gehenna did not originally mean Tartarus, but came through a superstitious notion to designate hell, the world of woe. This Tartarus, this world of woe, was first invented by men, and then terms were invented, or words had new senses affixed to them, to designate it. It would be alarming frankly to state that Sheol had no Tartarus in it. People would naturally ask, Had the ancient Hebrews no hell, no world of woe? If they had none, why should we have one? Of course, it is of the last importance to contend that the Hebrews had a Tartarus in their Sheol, for if this was abandoned, no other word, no other text in the Old Testament furnishes a shadow of foundation for it.
The reader must have noticed that, in the text quoted, Sheol is often rendered by the word hell, which, to most ears, conveys the sound of terror and dismay. But he has also seen that the word, in its original signification, excited no such terror. Mr. Stuart confesses that, in a great many instances, it is a very improper rendering of Sheol. Let us hear him again respecting the word hell. He says, pp. 113, 114, “On the whole, it is to be regretted that our English translation has given occasion to the remark that those who made it have intended to impose on their readers, in any case, a sense different from that of the original Hebrew.
The inconstancy with which they have rendered the word Sheol, even in cases of the same nature, must obviously afford some apparent ground for this objection against their version of it. But I cannot persuade myself that men of so much integrity as the translators plainly were, and, I may add, of so much critical skill and acumen also, would undertake to mislead their readers in any point where it is so easy to make corrections. I am much more inclined to believe that in their day the word hell had not acquired, so exclusively as at present, the meaning of world of future misery. There is plain evidence of this in what is called the Apostles’ Creed; which says of Christ (after his crucifixion), that he descended into hell!
Surely the Protestant English Church did not mean to aver that the soul of Christ went to the world of woe; nor that it went to Purgatory. They did not believe either of these doctrines. Hell, then, means, in this document, the under-world, the world of the dead. And so it has been construed by the most intelligent critics of the English Church. With this view of the meaning of the word hell, as employed in past times, we may easily account for it, why it has been so often employed as the translation of Sheol. This view of the subject, also, enables us to acquit the translators of any collusion in regard to this word; and to acquit them in this respect does seem to be an act of simple justice, due to their ability, their integrity, and uprightness.”
Mr. Stuart here makes a very handsome apology for the translators of our common version. “In their day the word hell had not acquired, so exclusively as at present, the meaning of world of future misery.” In proof of this, he very properly refers to the use of this term in the Apostles’ Creed, and might also have appealed to the marginal readings in our English translation. But we have two or three remarks to make about this. 1st. Who has been so kind as to make world of future misery the exclusive sense of hell since the common translation was made? for now it is used in no other sense but this. We have been improving the wrong way since that period. 2d. Why should hell have the sense of “world of future misery” at all? for certainly this was not its original signification, as is allowed by Dr. Campbell, Parkhurst, and many others. Who, then, first gave to it such a meaning? Not God, but probably the poets. 3d. Is it correct, is it honest, to attach such a new sense to the term hell, making it a bugbear to frighten women and children, and men who know no better? This subject, if it was only generally examined, would put an end to people’s terrors about eternal hell torments. The confessions of Mr. Stuart enable us to see that hell is not exactly what they have supposed.
I have now finished what Dr. Campbell called an endless labour, and shown, by an enumeration of all the passages in the Old Testament where Sheol is found, that it does not designate hell in the common usage of this term. I shall briefly advert to some facts and observations which have occurred to me in my examination.
1st. In no passage is Sheol represented as a place of fire or torment. Nothing of this kind stands connected with it in the Old Testament. It is frequently represented as a place of darkness, silence, ignorance, insensibility, but never as a place of pain and misery, arising from torment by fire. But how happens this to be the case, if there was in the Hebrew Tartarus a Sheol, as Mr. Stuart supposes? for all know Tartarus is represented as a place of fire and torment. So he represents his hell, for he calls it “the lake of fire;” and also positively asserts “that in Hades, Sheol, according to the views of the Hebrews, there was a place of torment.” But from no text in which Sheol occurs does he attempt to show a vestige of evidence for such an assertion. No evidence for this can be produced. On the contrary, it will be shown how the later Hebrews came to include in Sheol a Tartarus, which reflects no great honour on the doctrine of hell torments for which Mr. Stuart contends.
2d. It is a fact that olim, rendered everlasting, forever, etc., is never connected with Sheol in any shape whatever. For example, you never read of an everlasting Sheol or hell. So far from this, we are told that Sheol is to be destroyed, Hosea 13: 14. But supposing we did read of an everlasting Sheol, and everlasting punishment in it, this would not prove either of endless duration, for this term is often applied to things, yea to punishment, not of endless duration, as shown in my Second Inquiry. Mr. Stuart does not pretend that endless punishment is taught in the Old Testament. But if the doctrine be true, as he asserts, why is it not taught there, and taught with as much plainness and frequency as by modern preachers? Eternal hell and everlasting fire are very common expressions now. But why was there no everlasting fire in the Hebrew Sheol? Why was it not eternal? for Mr. Stuart says, there was a Tartarus in it. But he must be sensible that Sheol in no instance is ever represented as a place of punishment, either by fire or anything else.
3d. No persons are said to be alive in Sheol, to be punished in any way, or by any means whatever. The only texts which speak of persons as alive in Sheol, Mr. Stuart positively declares, are merely the language of poetry; they have a fictitious or imaginary costume. And no other text has he adduced, or can he adduce, to show that Sheol is a receptacle of souls, or of any living beings, bodied or disembodied, rational or irrational. Hence, we are told, without qualification, that there “is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in Sheol.” Ecclesiastes 9: 10. It is represented as a place of insensibility,—“for the dead know not anything.” Therefore Hezekiah says, “The grave (Sheol) cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee; they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth.” If men are not alive in Sheol, they cannot suffer misery there, either by fire or anything else; they cannot either praise God or curse him.
4th. The Old Testament writers and modern Christians speak very differently about Sheol and hell, if both designate the same thing, and include in them a place of future punishment. I shall merely give a specimen of their disagreement. Notice, then, 1st, how the inspired writers in those days, and good men in these, speak about Sheol or hell, in regard to themselves. Jacob, Job, and others, speak of going to hell, and expecting it as a thing of course, which they could not avoid. Yea, Job prays to be hid in hell. I need not be more particular, for these texts show what were the views and feelings of the very best of men in those days about this. But I ask, is there a Christian in the world, who, in the present day, speaks and prays about hell, as those Old Testament saints did? But why not? The reason is obvious. In those days Sheol or hell signified not a place of punishment, but the state of the dead. In these days, when Christians speak about hell, they always mean a place of endless misery for the wicked. This show s that we have affixed a very different sense to this word from what they did. If we are to understand the Scriptures correctly, we must ascertain what sense the original writers attached to the words they used, without regarding the sense men may have given them since Revelation was completed. What right have we to alter the sense of the inspired language?
2d. The sacred writers in those days, and pious people in these, speak about hell for the wicked, but no instance can I find where it is intimated that any such went to a world of woe. Both good and bad went to Sheol, but not a word is said showing that this was a place of misery. If the Old Testament saints entertained the same ideas about hell as most Christians now do, I wish some person would rationally and scripturally account also for the following facts:—
1st. If their belief was the same as in our day, why did they never express themselves as people now do in books, sermons, and common conversation? None can deny the wide difference in the language used, or that the difference is proof that the new language had its origin in new views concerning the future. An unscriptural doctrine always gives rise to unscriptural language; for the words of Scripture are the very best which could be chosen to express the will of God to men. If the doctrine were of God, the words of Scripture would be sufficient to express it. As we do not find this new phraseology in the Bible, we infer that the doctrine it was introduced to teach is not there.
2d. How is it to be accounted for that the fears and feelings and exertions of good people, under the old dispensation, were so different from the fears and feelings and exertions of Christians in our day, about saving men from hell? I do not find that they express any fear of hell, and it is fair to conclude that they had none. I find no examples of their fears about their children, their relations, their neighbours, or the world at large, going to eternal misery. As to their feelings, I do not find a sigh heaved, a tear shed, a groan uttered, a prayer offered, or any exertions made, as if they believed men were exposed to endless misery. We see parents, and others, deeply affected at the loss of their children and friends by death; we see pious people grieved on account of their disobedience to God’s laws; but we find no expressions of feeling arising from the belief that such persons would lift up their eyes in endless misery.
Now, is it not strange that all this should be the state of the fears and feelings of good people, if they believed such misery was to be the portion of the wicked? The whole race of mankind was swept from the earth by a flood, Noah and his family excepted; but does this good man deplore, in any shape, that so many precious souls should be sent to hell? God also destroyed the cities of the plain. Abraham interceded that they might be spared, but used no argument with God that the people might not go to hell to suffer eternal misery. If Abraham believed this doctrine, is it possible he should have failed to urge it as an argument, that all those wicked persons must go to hell, if God destroyed them? No notice is taken of the very argument, which, in our day, would be most urged in prayer to God, if anything similar was to take place. All who have read the Old Testament know what vast numbers were cut off in a day, by war and pestilence, and other means; yet do you ever hear it deplored by a single individual, as is often done in our day, that so many were sent out of the world to eternal misery? If, in short, this doctrine was then believed, a dead silence and the most stoical apathy were maintained even by good men about it.
Under the Old Testament dispensation the sinful condition of the heathen nations is often spoken of. But do we ever find the inspired writers representing those nations as all going to eternal misery, or did they use similar exertions to save them from it as are used in the present day? If the doctrine of eternal misery was known and believed in those days, is it not unaccountable that so many ages should pass away before God commanded the gospel to be preached to every creature, and before those who knew their danger should use exertions to save them from it? If the doctrine be false, we may cease to wonder at this; but if it be true, it is not easy to reconcile these things with the well known character of God, and the feelings of every good man. What an immense multitude of human beings, during four thousand years, must have lived and died ignorant that such a place of misery awaited them!
It is evident that both Jews and Gentiles, during this period, were often threatened with, yea, suffered, temporal punishment. God raised up and sent prophets to warn them of his judgments against them. I am, then, totally at a stand what to say in justification of God’s character, the character of the prophets sent by him, yea, of all good men in those days, if eternal misery awaited every heathen, yea, every wicked Jew, as nothing was said to them on this subject. Jonah was sent to Nineveh, and the sum of his message was, “Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown.” But did he receive, or did he deliver, any message declaring that their souls were in danger of eternal misery? No; and every one who has read the Old Testament knows that this is only a single example from many more I might adduce. The reason why Jonah refused to go to Nineveh was, he knew that God was a merciful God, and would spare Nineveh. After he did go, his pride was hurt, because God did not destroy the city as he had predicted. His peevish disposition was sufficiently manifested about this; but not a word escapes him, that the Ninevites were exposed to endless punishment. I ask, can a single instance be produced from the Old Testament, where a prophet of the Lord was ever sent to any people to warn them against eternal misery in a place called Sheol, or hell? I do not find that either true or false prophets did so under that dispensation, or that this doctrine was known and believed by a single individual. As men were not threatened with such a punishment, so none were ever congratulated upon being saved from it. As it was never held up to deter men from sin while ignorant of God, so it was never urged on believers to stimulate them to gratitude and obedience.
Is it possible, then, that this doctrine could have been believed, yet all remain silent on the subject? If no revelation was given about it, how could men avoid such a punishment? If a revelation was given, how is it accounted for that it is not mentioned by one of the Old Testament writers? That it is mentioned by any of them, under any other name than Sheol, is not pretended by those who believe the doctrine.
Another fact deserving notice is, that the living, in speaking of their dead friends, never speak as if they were to be separated from them after death, but always as associated with them. This appears to have been the case whether the persons were good or bad. An instance to the contrary cannot be produced. But it is well known that persons in our day not only expect to be separated from many of their friends forever, but say they shall give their hearty amen to their everlasting condemnation. Yea, it is even said that the happiness of those in heaven is to be greatly enhanced by looking down on those in eternal torments, in seeing the smoke of it ascend forever and ever. This was once current popular divinity, and, though not yet altogether out of use, I am happy to say sober-minded men reject it.
But, it may be asked, is it true that persons under the Old Testament expected to be associated with their deceased friends after death? I do not recollect a single instance to the contrary, and shall here, in proof of this assertion, refer to Jahn’s Biblical Archaeology, page 234. To this it may probably be objected, that association with their friends after death only referred to their bodies mingling in the dust together, and had no reference to their spirits. Admitting this to be true, permit me to ask, can any proof be adduced that their spirits were separated from each other after death? I further ask, did their spirits exist in a state of either happiness or misery after death? I demand proof of this. As I am unable to adduce any proof, I request those who say so to produce evidence of it from the Old Testament. I shall give it all due consideration. At any rate, if the Old Testament is silent on the subject, it ill becomes us to assert that such was the case. Its very silence is to me an indication that no such idea was entertained. As it is not expressed by any of the Old Testament writers, how is it known that such an idea was entertained by them?
In concluding this investigation of the term Sheol, we shall briefly notice the following objections.
1st. Does not David intimate that his child was alive somewhere after death, when he says, “I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me”? 2 Samuel 11: 23. We answer, no. David no more says his child was alive than Joseph was after death, when his father said, “I will go down into Sheol unto my son mourning.” But let me ask, where did those parents suppose their children were after death? In hell? Surely not, for why were they in this case desirous to go to them? If there, well might Jacob say he would go down to Joseph mourning. Were they then in heaven? If so, Jacob ought to have said he would go down to Joseph rejoicing.
But if in heaven, why did he speak of going down to him, for people always speak of going up to heaven? Where, then, did David and Jacob suppose their children had gone? I answer to Sheol; the house appointed for all the living, Job 30: 33; the place Solomon refers to when he says “all go to one place,” Ecclesiastes 12: 23. All, good or bad, went to Sheol. Psalm 89: 48. This was the world of the dead; and the small and the great are there. There the wicked cease from troubling; there the weary be at rest. Job 3. David knew his child had gone there; and, impressed with his own mortality, he says, “I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.”
2d. It may be objected, when Samuel said to Saul, “To-morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me,” that he intimates he was alive somewhere after death, and his conversing with Saul is proof of it. He that believes this, must take Saul and his sons to heaven, for no one supposes Samuel went to hell. Moreover, he must believe that a woman had power to bring a departed spirit out of heaven. But we have shown, in Essays, Sect. 2, that this woman was an impostor. The popular notion was that Sheol was a deep region in the earth, where the ghosts of the dead all resided. The woman’s trade was to consult with the dead, and for this purpose Saul resorted to her. But all such superstitious practices God condemned, and expressly prohibited the Jews from giving any countenance to them. It is strange Christians in the nineteenth century should suppose there was any truth in them.
3d. It may be objected, future existence was not known under the Old Testament; and if its silence on the subject of endless misery proves it false, it also proves there is no future existence. Answer. We admit the force of this argument, if it can be proved the Old Testament is silent on the subject of future existence. But we are surprised that any man should aver this. As it would be aside from our present design to discuss the point, we refer to Jahn’s Bib. Arch. Sect. 314. We doubt if this ever would be denied, except for the purpose of getting rid of the stumbling argument that the Old Testament does not teach the doctrine of endless punishment. That it does not teach, and, rather than abandon it, some are willing to allow future existence is not taught there.
4th. It may be further objected, if men are at death reduced to dust, lose their powers and personal identity, and for a time cease to be susceptible of either enjoyment or suffering, why may not this state continue forever? What reason have we to hope that their powers and personal identity will ever be restored? To this I answer, God has promised man a future and an immortal life by a resurrection from the dead; and the example and pledge of it are given in Christ’s resurrection.
http://www.ThreeAngels.com.au Page 26
No man will deny this who regards the authority of the Scriptures, or doubt its accomplishment, until he doubts the truth of divine revelation, and the power of God to effect it. But to doubt the competency of God’s power to restore to man his powers and personal identity is not doubting enough. The man who doubts this ought also to doubt the competency of his power to create man at first with such powers and personal identity. Creating at first, and a resurrection from the dead, are both ascribed to the power of God in Scripture. If I am asked, How are the dead raised up, and with what body do they come? I refer the reader to 1 Corinthians 15: 36—50, for the answer.
To conclude. It is now generally conceded, by all critics and intelligent men, that endless punishment was not taught under the first covenant. But it is generally believed to be taught under the new and better covenant. If this is true, how can it be called a better covenant, and “established upon better promises”? Is endless punishment a better promise? And was it the fault in the first covenant, which required the second and better covenant, that it did not teach the doctrine of endless punishment? If all this be true, how is Christ the mediator of a better covenant? If endless punishment is not threatened in the law which came by Moses, how can it be threatened in the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ? If it is not heard in the thunders, fire, and tempests of Mount Sinai, who can think it is to be heard from Mount Zion?
SECTION 2
ALL THE TEXTS IN WHICH HADES OCCURS, CONSIDERED.
ALL critics agree that the Greek Hades in the New Testament corresponds in meaning to the Hebrew Sheol in the Old. In the Septuagint version the translators have rendered the term Sheol sixty times by the word Hades, out of the sixty-four instances where it occurs. Hades also occurs sixteen times in the apocryphal books, and is used in a similar way as the Hebrew Sheol is in the canonical writings of the Old Testament. Besides, the New Testament writers, in quoting from the Old, use Hades as the rendering of Sheol. See Psalms 16: 10, compared with Acts 2: 27, etc.
The term Hades occurs eleven times in the Greek of the New Testament. In the common version it is once rendered grave, and in the other ten places by the word hell. The following are all the passages.
Matthew 11: 23. “And thou Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell (Hades).” Dr. Campbell, in the dissertation already quoted, says, “As the city of Capernaum was never literally raised to heaven, we have no reason to believe that it was to be literally brought down to Hades. But, as by the former expression we are given to understand that it was to become a flourishing and splendid city, or, as some think, that it had obtained great spiritual advantages; so by the latter, that it should be brought to the lowest degree of abasement and wretchedness.” See on Isaiah 7: 9, where Sheol is used in a similar sense. This text has often been quoted to prove that all who have abused spiritual privileges shall be brought down to hell, or endless misery.
Matthew 16: 18. “Upon this rock I w ill build my church, and the gates of hell (Hades) shall not prevail against it.” Dr. Campbell says, “It is by death, and by it only, the spirit enters into Hades. The gates of Hades is, therefore, a very natural periphrasis for death.” But this is not altogether in unison with what the Dr. has said elsewhere concerning Hades; and we shall see, from Dr. Whitby, that Hades is not a receptacle of souls or spirits. This was not believed by the ancient Hebrews, but was a mere heathen notion. Certainly, no text in the Bible says it is by death the spirit enters into Hades, or speaks of souls or spirits being there.
Luke 10: 15. “And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell (Hades).” See on Matthew 11: 23. This is the parallel text.
Luke 16: 23. “And in hell (Hades) he lifted up his eyes, being in torment.” As this is the only text in which Hades occurs, where it is alleged it signifies hell, the world of woe, we shall give it a full consideration. The following are all the remarks which Mr. Stuart makes on this passage. “That in the heathen Hades was a Tartarus, a place of punishment and suffering, is too well known to need illustration and proof on the present occasion. More will be said on this point when I come to treat of Tartarus. That in Hades, Sheol, according to the views of the Hebrews and of Jesus himself, there was a place of torment, is put out of all question by the passage now before us.” All this is mere assertion, but, as it comes from Mr. Stuart, we shall examine it. Let us inquire,
1st. Was the Tartarus in the heathen Hades real, or was it fictitious? This question ought to be fully examined; for if it was fictitious, the mere fancy of the poets, Mr. Stuart’s hell is built on the sand. But he is so confident it was a reality, he says, “That in the heathen, Hades was a Tartarus, a place of punishment and suffering, is too well known to need illustration and proof on the present occasion.” We are surprised that he should take this bold ground, for we shall show from his own statements that the heathen Tartarus was a mere fiction. Sorry are we to think he should allege our Lord in this passage sanctioned a heathen fable for truth. That Tartarus was a mere heathen fable, and had its origin in heathenism, we shall now show.
Cicero, one of the wisest men among the heathen, in his seventh oration, says, “For it was on this account that the ancients invented their infernal punishments of the dead, to keep the wicked under some awe in this life, who, without them, would have no dread of death itself.” Intelligent heathen had no more faith in infernal punishments, than people now have in the Salem witchcraft. See my letters to Mr. Hudson, pp. 266, 267, where I have quoted Mosheim, who says, “Such punishments were invented for state and military purposes.” See, also, the next section.
But, as Mr. Stuart will not dispute his own testimony, let us see what he has said elsewhere about Tartarus. After describing Cimmeria as an imaginary place, and Erebus as no better, though contiguous to Hades, he thus describes it. “Last and lowest of all was Hades, which is subdivided into the upper and lower. In the upper part are the Elysian fields, the abode of the good; and beneath these, that is, in the deepest dungeon in the bowels of the earth, is Tartarus, the place of punishment for the wicked, answering in some respects to the Gehenna of the Hebrews. Had es, then, in the view of the Greeks, and Romans, was the under-world, the world of the dead, a place deep in the earth, dark, cheerless, where everything was unsubstantial and shadowy. The Manes were neither body nor spirit, but something intermediate, not palpable to any of the senses, except to the sight and hearing; pursuing the mere shadows of their occupations on earth, and incapable of any plans, enjoyments, or satisfaction which were substantial.”—Exeget. Essays, pp. 124—128. Such is the heathen Hades and its Tartarus, as described by Mr. Stuart himself. This Tartarus, he avers, Jesus sanctions as real in the passage in question. But did Jesus convert a heathen fable into truth? Did the heathen invent a hell for him? But let us look at this Hades or hell?
Where is Hades? The above quotation says, “It is a place deep in the earth.” What is the use of this Hades? The usual answer is, “The abode of departed souls.” Again, How is it divided? The answer is, “It is subdivided into the upper and lower. In the upper part are the Elysian fields, the abode of the good; and beneath these, that is, in the deepest dungeon in the bowels of the earth, is Tartarus, the place of punishment for the wicked, answering in some respects to the Gehenna of the Hebrews.” Mr. Stuart must have forgotten that he said, “A deep region beneath, peopled with ghosts, is what we do not believe in.” It is a great mistake to say, Tartarus answers in some respects to the Gehenna of the Hebrews, if by Hebrews he means the ancient Jews, or the sacred writers. Not a trace of Tartarus is to be found in the Old Testament, and its writers never use Gehenna in the sense of Tartarus.
But the principal question to be decided is, was Tartarus real or imaginary? Mr. Stuart says it is a reality. The fact he considers so well known as to save him all trouble of giving proof or illustration of it. But here he strangely forgot what he said, page 126, “Virgil in his AEneid, book vi., has given a vivid picture of Orcus or Hades. It is mo re adapted, however, to convey the fancies of his own poetic imagination, than it is to convey an exact idea of the more ancient and general opinions of the Greeks in respect to Hades. He loses sight, in some measure, of the views of Homer, and is more intent on making out a striking picture, than on giving an exact account of tradition.”
But again, he says, page 128, “Virgil describes the progress of Enea s in the region of Hades, in terms which show what a doleful place he thought it to be. However, when he brings his hero to Elysium, to the locus laetos et amoena vireta, sedesque (vi. 737, seq.), he seems to make something more substantial out of them than can be found in any of the preceding heathen writers. But it is plainly the fancy of the poet which does this, and not the tradition of the Greek and Roman nations.” On the same page, he adds, “Of the Elysium of Virgil, Homer knows little or nothing; and it is sufficiently plain that it is principally the offspring of his own imagination.” But if all this be the fancy of the poet, “the offspring of his own imagination,” why did Mr. Stuart say, “That in the heathen Hades was a Tartarus, a place of punishment and suffering, is too well known to need illustration and proof on the present occasion”? He would have said the truth, and maintained consistency in his statements, had he said that in the heathen Hades was a Tartarus, which was the fancy of the poet, the offspring of his own imagination. But he assumes the heathen Tartarus to be a reality, and declares that Jesus taught it in the parable before us.
I shall now proceed to show from other writings, approved by Mr. Stuart, that this Tartarus was of heathen origin. It is well known that Mr. Isaac Stuart, his son, lately translated from the French, J. M. Greppo’s Essay on the Hieroglyphic System of M. Champollion, junior. He and his father have added notes and illustrations to this work, which furnishes the following information on this subject. See all they have said in notes M and N, a part of which I shall quote. In note M, page 232, it is thus written:—
“Osiris was the chief god of the Egyptian Amenti, answering to the Pluto of the Greeks and Latins. It is sufficient for our purpose to know where his dominion was exercised. This was over the souls of men after their decease—a fact which is revealed by almost every legend and painting relating to the dead. The Amenti of the Egyptians, corresponding to the Hades of the Greeks and to the Tartarus of the Latins, was the place of the dead. It was governed by Osiris as chief, and by many subordinate divinities.” On this I remark, 1st. It is confessed “the Amenti of the Egyptians, corresponded to the Hades of the Greeks, and to the Tartarus of the Latins.” But why not also confess it corresponds to the hell of Christians? Mr. Stuart identifies his hell with the heathen Tartarus, and of course with the Egyptian Amenti.
2d. If “Osiris was the chief god of the Egyptian Amenti, answering to the Pluto of the Greeks and Latins,” is not the Devil the chief god in the hell of Christians? Where was the dominion of Osiris and Pluto exercised? It is answered in the above quotation, “This was over the souls of men after their decease.” And is not this the very dominion which Christians assign to their Devil? Is not his dominion over the souls of men after their decease? Is not he represented as the chief god or ruler in their hell? And if it be “a fact, which is revealed by almost every legend and painting relating to the dead,” among the Egyptians, that this was the proper dominion of their Osiris, do not almost every sermon and tract among Christians reveal that hell is the proper dominion of the Devil? In a word, who can well deny that the Devil among Christians answers the same purposes to them that Osiris did to the Egyptians, and Pluto to the Greeks and Latins?
But, again, in pages 235, 236, the following account of an Egyptian burial is quoted from Spineto. Mr. Stuart assigns this reason for the quotation: “We quote the whole, as it shows from whence an important part of the Greek mythology was derived.” It runs thus: “The common place of burial was beyond the lake Acherjsia, or Acharejish, which meant the last state, the last condition of man, and from which the poets have imagined the fabulous lake of Acheron. On the borders of this lake Acherjsia sat a tribunal, composed of forty-two judges, whose office, previous to the dead being permitted to be carried to the cemetery beyond the lake, was to inquire into the whole conduct of his life.
“If the deceased had died insolvent, they adjudged the corpse to the creditors, which was considered as a mark of dishonour, in order to oblige his relations and friends to redeem it by raising the necessary sums among themselves. If he had led a wicked life, they ordered that he should be deprived of solemn burial, and he was consequently carried and thrown into a large ditch, made for the purpose, to which they gave the appellation of Tartar, on account of the lamentations that this sentence produced among his surviving friends and relations. “This is also the origin of the fabulous Tartarus, in which the poets have transferred the lamentations made by the living, to the dead themselves who were thrown into it.
“If no accuser appeared, or if the accusation proved groundless, the judges decreed that the deceased was entitled to his burial, and his eulogium was pronounced amidst the applauses of the bystanders, in which they praised his education, his religion, his justice, in short all his virtues, without, however, mentioning anything about his riches or nobility, both of which were considered as mere gifts of fortune.
“To carry the corpse to the cemetery, it was necessary to cross the lake, and this was done by means of a boat, in which no one could be admitted without the express order of the judges, and without paying a small sum for the conveyance. This regulation was so strictly enforced that the kings themselves were not exempt from its severity.
“The cemetery was a large plain, surrounded by trees and intersected by canals, to which they had given the appellation of elisout or elisioens, which means nothing else but rest. And such, again, is the origin of the poetical Charon and his boat, as well as of the fabulous description of the Elysian Fields.”
But, again, pages 241, 242, it is said, “In comparing the Egyptian Amenti with the Hades of the Greeks and with the Tartarus of the Latins, Spineto briefly adverts to some points of assimilation as follows: ‘Upon the whole, the first seems to have been the prototype and the origin of the two last. Orpheus, who had been initiated into all the secrets of the mysteries of Egypt, carried into Greece these mysteries;* and the Greeks soon so altered the whole, as to render them no longer cognizable. Osiris became Pluto; Sme, Persephone [or rather Themis simply]; Oms, Cerberus; Thoth, Mercurious Psychopompos; Horus, Apis and Anubis, the three infernal judges, Minos, AEacus and Rhadamanthus. To conclude the whole, the symbolical heads of the different animals under which the forty-two judges were represented, being deprived of their primitive and symbolical meaning, were changed into real monsters, the Chimeras, the Harpies, and the Gorgons, and other such unnatural and horrible things with which they peopled their fantastic hell; and thus the Amenti of the Egyptians, as, indeed, the greater part, if not the whole, of their religion, became, in the hands of the Greeks and Romans, a compound of fables and absurdities.’”
It is very obvious from these quotations, 1st. That the Egyptian Amenti became the Hades of the Greeks, and the Tartarus of the Latins. The first was the prototype and origin of the two last. Mr. Stuart does not pretend that Tartarus had its origin in divine revelation. On the contrary, it is called “the fabulous Tartarus.” Why, then, say it is a reality and sanctioned by our Lord in the parable before us? Tartarus had just as little truth in it as the “fabulous lake, Acheron,” the “poetical Charon and his boat,” or “the ideal Elysian fields.” It is here admitted Tartarus, or hell, had its origin in the Egyptian Amenti.
2d. We are told, in the above quotations, “that Orpheus carried this knowledge of the Egyptian Amenti, or hell, with other mysteries, into Greece; and in the hands of the Greeks and Romans it soon became a compound of fables and absurdities.” Was it TRUTH, I ask, which, in the hands of the Greeks and Romans, “became a compound of fables and absurdities”? Surely not. It was only absurdities which became more absurd. The Greeks and Romans improved on the Egyptian hell, as they did on everything else. And have not Christians adopted the Egyptian hell, with the Grecian and Roman improvements, yea, made some improvements of their own? The Grecian and Roman hell is more like the Christian hell than the original Amenti of the Egyptians. Does not Mr. Stuart aver that our Lord teaches a Tartarus in the parable before us, and is not this his hell?
3d. It seems now to be conceded that the Egyptian Amenti is the prototype and the origin of the Hades of the Greeks, the Tartarus of the Latins, and the hell of Christians. Dr. Good, in his Book of Nature, says: “It was believed in most countries that this hell, Hades or invisible world, is divided into two very distinct and opposite regions by a broad and impassable gulf; that the one is a seat of happiness, a paradise, or elysium, and the other a seat of misery, a Gehenna, or Tartarus; and that there is a supreme magistrate and an impartial tribunal belonging to the infernal shades, before which the ghost must appear, and by which he is sentenced to the one or the other, according to the deeds done in the body.
Egypt is said to have been the inventress of this important and valuable part of the common tradition; and, undoubtedly, it is to be found in the earliest records of Egyptian history.” The only question to be settled is, Did the knowledge of this Egyptian Amenti, hell or invisible world, come from God, or was it of man’s invention? If this question can be fairly determined, the hell of Christians stands or falls with it. Can it then be determined that this Amenti or hell of the E gyptians was of man’s invention? We answer yes, and that to a moral certainty.
*Any one who will take the trouble to compare the mysteries of Isis and Osiris with those of Ceres and Proserpine, with those of Venus and Adonis, and with those of Bacchus, will discover many striking resemblances.—TR.
1st. Dr. Good allows, Egypt was “the inventress “of this doctrine. Mr. Stuart admits this by his silence, for he does not intimate it had its origin from God. 2d. What puts this out of all question is, Moses was brought up in Egypt; was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians,—consequently knew all about their Amenti or hell,— yet, says not a word about it in his five books. But why was he silent on such an important doctrine, if he believed it came from God? What, I ask, could prevent him from teaching it, except this, that Egypt, not God, was the inventress of it, as Dr. Good affirms. If it is found in the earliest records of Egyptian history, as Dr. Good affirms, why is it not found in the earliest records of divine revelation, if the doctrine is from God? Mr. Stuart indeed asserts that there was a Tartarus in the Hebrew Sheol; but assertions will not answer on a subject of this nature. Dr. Campbell, Dr. Whitby and others, adduce evidence in point-blank contradiction of this assertion. The very silence of Moses and the prophets, about an Amenti, Tartarus, or hell, shows no such doctrine was believed by them. See my Essays and Letters to Mr. Hudson, where the history of hell torments is given, and I show how this doctrine came to be embraced by the Jews, and was finally introduced into the Christian Church. Further evidence of this will appear by considering another question; namely,
2d. Is it true, as Mr. Stuart asserts, “That in Hades, Sheol, according to the views of the Hebrews, and of Jesus himself, there is a place of torment, is put out of all question by the passage now before us?” This assertion I shall now examine. It divides itself into two parts.
1st. It is asserted “That in Hades, Sheol, according to the views of the Hebrews, there was a place of torment, is put out of all question by the passage before us.” If Mr. Stuart here by Hebrews means the ancient Hebrews, the Scripture writers, his assertion is false. His own examination of Sheol sufficiently proves this, for not in a single text did he show that any scripture writer believed that in Sheol there was a place of torment. Dr. Whitby, in the following remarks on Acts 2: 27, proves the assertion false. He says, “That Sheol throughout the Old Testament, and Hades in the Septuagint, answering to it, signify not the place of punishment, or of the souls of bad men only, but the grave only, or the place of death, appears, 1st. From the root of it, Shaal, which signifies to ask, to crave and require, because it craves for all men, Proverbs 30: 16, and will let no man escape its hands. Psalm 88: 48. It is that Sheol or Hades whither we are all going, Ecclesiastes 9: 10.
“2d. Because it is the place to which the good as well as the bad go, for they whose souls go upwards descend into it. Thither went Jacob, Genesis 37: 35. There Job desired to be, chapter 14: 13, for he knew that Sheol was his house, chapter 17: 13, and to descend into the dust was to descend into Hades. Is not death common to all men? Is not Hades the house of all men? Hezekiah expected to be there after he went hence, for he said ‘I shall go to the gates of Hades,’ Isaiah 38: 30. That is, saith Jerome, to those gates of which the Psalmist speaks, saying, ‘Thou wilt lift me up from the gates of death.’ The ancient Greeks assigned one Hades to all that died, and therefore say, Hades receives all mortal men together; all men shall go to Hades.
“3d. Had the penmen of the Old Testament meant by Hades any receptacle of souls, they could not truly have declared there was no wisdom or knowledge in Sheol, Ecclesiastes 9: 10; no remembrance of God there, Psalm 6: 5; no praising of him in Sheol, Isaiah 38: 18. For those heathens who looked upon it as the receptacle of souls held it to be a place in which they would be punished or rewarded.” Compare this with M r. Stuart’s assertion. It is unquestionable that Hades, in its original signification, did not include in it a Tartarus, any more than Sheol. Dr. Campbell says, it signified “obscure, hidden, invisible. So did the word hell originally.” Dr. Whitby has just told us, “the ancient Greeks assigned one Hades to all that died,” the same the ancient Hebrews did, in regard to their Sheol. Indeed, the above quotation stands in direct opposition to Mr. Stuart’s views of both Sheol and Hades. Can he or any other man show that Whitby is mistaken?
I repeat the question, then, what Hebrews does Mr. Stuart refer to in the above assertion? If he means the later Hebrews, the Hebrews in the days of our Lord, his assertion is true; but the way they came to believe that in Sheol, Hades, there is a place of torment, does no credit to the doctrine of endless hell torments. Let us hear Dr. Campbell, one of its professed friends. In his sixth Prelim. Diss., sect. 19, he thus writes: “But is there not one passage, it may be said, in which the word Hades must be understood as synonymous with Gehenna, and consequently must denote the place of final punishment prepared for the wicked, or hell in the Christian acceptation of the term? Ye have it in the story of the rich m an and Lazarus, Luke 16: 23. “In hell,” en to ade, “he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and sees Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. This is the only passage in Holy Writ which seems to give countenance to the opinion that Hades sometimes means the same thing as Gehenna. Here it is represented as a place of punishment. The rich man is said to be tormented there in the midst of flames. These things will deserve to be examined narrowly. It is plain that in the Old Testament, the most profound silence is observed in regard to the state of the deceased, their joys or sorrows, happiness or misery. It is represented to us rather by negative qualities than by positive,—by its silence, its darkness, its being inaccessible, unless by preternatura l means, to the living, and their ignorance about it. Thus much in general seems always to have been presumed concerning it, that it is not a state of activity adapted for exertion, or indeed for the accomplishment of any important purpose, good or bad. In most respects, however, there was a resemblance in their notions on this subject to those of the most ancient heathens.
“But the opinions neither of Hebrews nor of heathens remained invariably the same. And from the time of the captivity, more especially from the time of the subjection of the Jews, first to the Macedonian empire, and afterwards to the Roman, as they had a closer intercourse with Pagans, they sensibly imbibed m any of their sentiments, particularly on those subjects whereon their law was silent, and wherein, by consequence, they considered themselves as at greater freedom. On this subject of a future state, we find a considerable difference in the popular opinions of the Jews in our Saviour’s time, from those which prevailed in the days of the ancient prophets. As both Greeks and Romans had adopted the notion that the ghosts of the departed were susceptible both of enjoyment and of suffering, they were led to suppose a sort of retribution in that state, for their merit or demerit in the present. The Jews did not indeed adopt the Pagan fables on this subject; nor did they express themselves entirely in the same manner; but the general train of thinking in both came pretty much to coincide. The Greek Hades they found well adapted to express the Hebrew Sheol.
This they came to conceive as including different sorts of habitations for ghosts of different characters. And though they did not receive the terms Elysium or Elysian fields, as suitable appellations for the regions peopled by good spirits, they took instead of them, as better adapted to their own theology, the Garden of Eden, or Paradise, a name originally Persian, by which the word answering to garden, especially when applied to Eden, had commonly been rendered by the Seventy. To denote the same state, they sometimes used the phrase Abraham’s bosom, a metaphor borrowed from the manner in which they reclined at meals. But, on the other hand, to express the unhappy situation of the wicked in that intermediate state, they do not seem to have declined the use of the word Tartarus.
The apostle, 2 Peter 2: 4, says of evil angels, that God cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment. So it stands in the common version, though neither Gehenna nor Hades are in the original, where the expression is seirais zophou Tartarosas paredoken eis krisin teteremenous. The word is not Gehenna, for that comes after judgment; but Tartarus, which is, as it were, the prison of Hades, wherein criminals are kept till the general judgment. And as, in the ordinary use of the Greek word, it was comprehended under Hades, as a part, it ought, unless we had some positive reason to the contrary, by the ordinary rules of interpretation, to be understood so here. There is, then, no inconsistency in maintaining that the rich man, though in torments, was not in Gehenna, but in that part of Hades called Tartarus, where we have seen already that spirits reserved for judgment are detained in darkness.”
Such are the statements of Dr. Campbell. For a correction of his views of 2 Peter 2: 4, and some other things in this quotation, we refer to the next section. Here we submit, for the consideration of the reader, the following remarks.
1st. He declares that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is the only place in Holy Writ which seems to give countenance to the opinion that Hades sometimes means the same as Gehenna. We have seen already he denies that Hades is the place of eternal punishment; and in the next chapter we shall see that he says Gehenna is the place.
2nd. He says, “It is plain that in the Old Testament the most profound silence is observed in regard to the state of the deceased, their joys or sorrows, happiness or misery.” If the Old Testament maintains a profound silence on this subject, it ought to be inquired,
3d. How did the Jews in our Lord’s day come to consider Hades as a place of punishment for the wicked? That a change in their opinions on this subject had taken place is evident; for he says, “On this subject of a future state, we find a considerable difference in the popular opinions of the Jews in our Saviour’s time from those which prevailed in the days of the ancient prophets.” Well, how did this change in their opinions take place? Was it by some new revelation which God made to them? He thus accounts for the change of their opinions.
“But the opinions neither of Hebrews nor of the heathen remained invariably the same. And from the time of the captivity, more especially from the time of the subjection of the Jews, first to the Macedonian empire, and afterwards to the Roman, as they had a closer intercourse with Pagans, they insensibly imbibed many of their sentiments, particularly on those subjects whereon their law was silent, and wherein, by consequence, they considered themselves as at greater freedom.* As both Greeks and Romans had adopted the notion that the ghosts of the deceased were susceptible both of enjoyment and of suffering, they were led to suppose a sort of retribution in that state for their merit or demerit in the present. The Jews did not indeed adopt the Pagan fables on this subject, nor did they express themselves entirely in the same manner; but their general train of thinking in both came pretty much to coincide.” This statement is surely too plain to be misunderstood. How much plainer could he have told us, that a punishment in Hades was a mere heathen notion, which the Jews learned from their intercourse with them?
He declares that neither Sheol nor Hades is used in Scripture to express a place of punishment, and shows that the Pagan fables teach it, and the Jews learned it from them. What are we then to think, when this is the account of the doctrine of hell torments by one of its professed friends? Had this statement been given by a professed Universalist, the cry would be raised that it was a mere fabrication of his own, in support of his system. But this is the statement of Dr. Campbell, late principal of Marischal college, Aberdeen, who lived and died a celebrated theologian in the Church of Scotland. To this popular opinion, which the Jews imbibed from their intercourse with the heathen, our Lord alluded in his parable of the rich man and Lazarus. He no more attempts to correct this Pagan notion, than the common opinion that Satan had bound a woman eighteen years with an infirmity.
4th. Dr. Campbell further declares, that though the Jews did not adopt the Pagan fables on this subject, yet their train of thinking pretty much coincided. “The Greek Hades they found well adapted to express the Hebrew Sheol. This they came to conceive as including different sorts of habitations for ghosts of different characters.” They did not adopt the term Elysian fields, to express the region of good spirits; but, he says, “they do not seem to have declined the use of the word Tartarus” to express the unhappy situation of the wicked in an intermediate state. Concerning the word Tartarus, he says, “The word is not Gehenna, for that comes after judgment, but Tartarus, which is, as it were, the prison of Hades, wherein criminals are kept till the general judgment.” What then is to be done with the criminals which have been confined in this prison? They are not to be released and made happy. They must be sent somewhere after this period, and no place so suitable could be devised as Gehenna. But whether it be a very happy device in establishing the doctrine of eternal misery, will appear from the next chapter. All we wish noticed here, is, that then we shall have done with Hades, and Tartarus, the prison of Hades, and all punishment in them, for they are to be no more. This is not only the opinion of the authors we have quoted, but we believe is the general opinion of all the learned.
* But who has the freedom to adopt or invent opinions on the subject of a future state? The indulgence of this freedom by others before us occasions our difficulties now on the subject.
2d. Mr. Stuart also asserts, “That in Hades, Sheol, according to the views of Jesus himself, there was a place of torment, is put out of all question by the passage now before us.” Well, by the same passage, it is put out of all question that literal fire was the cause of the torment, for the rich man said, “I am tormented in this flame.” The passage also puts it out of all question that he had bodily members in hell. He had eyes, and could see; ears, and could hear; a tongue, and could speak in hell. Besides, the passage puts it out of all question that the good and bad are after death located so near each other that they can familiarly converse together, etc. But does Mr. Stuart also believe all this? We presume not.
3d. If this parable puts it out of all question that in Hades, Sheol, there is a place of torment, then other passages put it out of all question that our Lord believed in demons; in an evil being called Satan; in ghosts; and that the sacred writers believed in witchcraft. Did not Jesus often speak of demons as real beings? Did he not speak as if Satan had bound a woman eighteen years with an infirmity? And are not ghosts and witchcraft spoken of as realities? Now, if it is said in these cases the writers only speak in accommodation to popular opinions, the same must be said respecting the parable in question. There is no escape here but by boldly affirming they are all realities. But Mr. Stuart must then abandon his scepticism about ghosts; for is not his Tartarus a deep region beneath peopled with ghosts? The evidence is fifty times more that demons are real beings, than that Hades is a place of torment; and yet, I question if he believes in demons.
4th. If this parable puts it out of all question that in Hades, Sheol, there is a place of torment, then Isaiah 14: 9— 20, puts it out of all question that persons are alive in Sheol, and insult one another there. Mr. Stuart takes the liberty to say about this passage, pages 121, 122, “A deep region beneath, peopled with ghosts, is what we do not believe in. Nor is there any more certainty that it is true because this method of speaking about it in the Scriptures is adopted, than that the sun goes round the earth because they speak of it as doing so. In most cases it is the language of poetry, which employs the popular methods of representation. It is poetry which gives a kind of life and animation to the inhabitants of the under-world.
Poetry personifies that world, so in Isaiah 5: 14; Proverbs 27: 20; 30: 15, 16, and 12: 1. Above all, is this the case in that most striking passage Isaiah 16: 9—20, in which all commentators are compelled to admit a fictitious or imaginary costume. Here the ghosts rise up from their places of repose, and meet and insult the king of Babylon, and exult over his fall. All is life and animation, when he goes down into the under-world. Yet who was ever misled by this passage, and induced to regard it as a passage to be literally understood? But if this be very plain, then are other passages, of a nature in any respect similar, equally plain also.” On this quotation, in connection with the parable before us, we remark,
1st. Are not Isaiah 14: 9—20, and Luke 16: 19—32, very similar? The king of Babylon in the one, and the rich man in the other, are both represented as in Sheol or Hades after death. Both are represented as alive there. All is life and animation, when both go to Sheol or Hades. Both find company there. Both find persons ready to converse with them there. In these and other things the passages are very similar indeed; so much so that they may be called the same.
2d. By what rule of scripture interpretation does Mr. Stuart then conclude, Isaiah 14:9—20, is not to be understood literally, but that Luke 16: 19—32, is to be thus understood? How does he determine that the one is the language of poetry, but the other is a reality; that the one has “a fictitious or imaginary costume,” but the other is a plain narrative of facts? What, I ask, is there in the one passage more than the other which leads him to such different interpretations of them? Has he not told us, “other passages of a nature in any respect similar” to Isaiah 14: 9—20, must be interpreted as the language of poetry; as having a fictitious and imaginary costume?
If the one passage is the language of poetry, the other is the language of parable. And if the one passage “employs the popular method of representations,” so does the other. And what intelligent man can deny that the representations in both had their origin in fable? If it is poetry or fable “which gives a kind of life and animation to the inhabitants of the under-world,” it is also poetry or fable which represents Hades as a place of torment. And if there is no “certainty that it is true, because this method of speaking about it in Scripture is adopted” in the one case, neither is there any certainty in the other. There is no more certainty in either case than that the sun goes round the earth because the Scriptures thus speak of it.
3d. I am aware it will be said, there is one great difference between the two passages. In Luke 16: 19—32, the rich man in Hades is represented as in torment; but no such representation is given of the king of Babylon in Sheol, Isaiah 14: 9—20. This is freely granted; but a few remarks will account for this difference, and place the subject in a proper light. We ask, then, why it was not said, concerning the king of Babylon, that he w as in torment in Sheol, just as well as the rich man in Hades? Was the king of Babylon so much better than the rich man that he did not deserve it? As no man will affirm any Old Testament writer said, concerning the worst man that ever went to Sheol, “And in Sheol he lifted up his eyes being in torment,” how are we to account for this difference? If what Mr. Stuart asserts be true, “that in Hades, Sheol, according to the views of the Hebrews, and of Jesus himself, there was a place of torment,” this ought to have been said, and said frequently, both in the Old and New Testaments. It is incumbent on him to account for the silence of the Old Testament writers on this subject, if his assertion be true. But it is without foundation, and opposed above by Dr. Campbell and other critics. Dr. Whitby, we have seen, declares that Sheol, Hades, was not a receptacle of souls, but that this was a mere notion of the heathen Greeks. But I shall account for the difference between the two passages.
1st. In the days of Isaiah, the Jews did not believe Sheol or Hades was a place of torment. The doctrine had not then been imported from the heathen. This is testified by Dr. Campbell, Whitby, Macknight, and others. Poetry then had given a kind of life and animation to the dead in Sheol, as Mr. Stuart shows, but the poets had not gone so far as to represent them as either in torment or happiness. It was impossible, therefore, for Isaiah, chapter 14:9—20, to represent the king of Babylon as tormented in Sheol, for then no such popular opinion among the Jews prevailed.
2d. But when our Lord spoke the parable, Luke 16: 19—32, the opinion prevailed among the Jews that there was torment in Hades. How they obtained this opinion we have seen from Dr. Campbell; and Mr. Stuart and his son have traced the doctrine of punishment in Hades to heathen origin. That our Lord in this passage speaks in accordance with the heathen opinions which prevailed in Judea at the time, is rather reluctantly admitted by Dr. Macknight. Perhaps he foresaw the danger of admitting it. He says, “Verse 23, ‘Sees Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bosom.’ Because the opinions as well as the language of the Greeks had by this time made their way into Judea, some imagine that our Lord had their fictions about the abodes of departed souls in his eye when he formed this parable. But the argument is not conclusive. (Where lies its defect?) At the same time it must be acknowledged that his descriptions of these things are not drawn from the writings of the Old Testament, but have a remarkable affinity to the descriptions which the Grecian poets have given of them.
They, as well as our Lord, represent the abodes of the blessed as lying contiguous to the region of the damned, and separated only by a great impassable river or gulf, in such a sort that the ghosts could talk with one another from its opposite banks. In the parable, souls whose bodies were buried knew each other, and conversed together as if they had been embodied. In like manner, the Pagans introduce departed souls talking together, and represent them as having pains and pleasures analogous to what we feel in this life; it seems they thought the shades of the dead had an exact resemblance to their bodies. The parable says the souls of wicked men are tormented in flames; the Grecian mythologists tell us they lie in Pryiphligethon, which is a river of fire, where they suffer the same torments they would have suffered while alive, had their bodies been burnt.”
Macknight here confesses, first, that “the opinions as well as the language of the Greeks, had by this time made their way into Judea.” He also confesses that “our Lord’s descriptions about the abodes of departed souls are not drawn from the writings of the Old Testament, but have a remarkable affinity to the descriptions which the Grecian poets have given of them.” This confirms what Dr. Campbell and others stated above.
As it is admitted that our Lord’s descriptions of the abodes of departed souls are not drawn from the writings of the Old Testament, and as such descriptions have a remarkable affinity to that of the Grecian poets, I ask, Were those descriptions true? If it is answered yes, I then ask, Why were not the sacred writers in the Old Testament as able to give such descriptions as the Grecian poets?
If such descriptions are here sanctioned as truth by our Lord, it is evident the heathen had the honour of inventing hell torments, and from them Jews and Christians have learned this doctrine. But such a view of this parable stands opposed to the whole usage of Sheol and Hades in the Old and New Testaments. This is the solitary text, in a parable too, where Sheol or Hades can be supposed to teach future punishment. He who asserts that our Lord sanctioned this doctrine here, virtually says he understands the parable better than Christ’s apostles, for not one of them so understood it. Who can think they believed “that in Hades, Sheol, according to the views of Jesus himself, there was a place of torment,” yet never taught this doctrine to the world?
Should any one object, If our Lord in this parable only spoke in accommodation to the prevailing popular opinions, was he not liable to be misunderstood?—I answer, no; not any more than when he spoke of demons, Satan, ghosts, etc. The Scriptures, which the Jews had in their hands, were opposed to such a popular opinion, for they taught nothing about immortal souls, departed souls, separate spirits, or their being tormented in Sheol or Hades. Nothing is said about the soul of the rich man. I may add, if our Lord, on this occasion, by speaking in accommodation to the popular opinions, meant to sanction them as truth, he acted contrary to his usual practice on other occasions. I know of no instance where he ever spoke of a popular opinion which had no authority from the Old Testament, with a view to sanction it as truth. Our Lord’s work was to teach the truth, not to correct the popular modes of speaking.
3d. There are other heathen popular opinions alluded to in the New Testament, which the Jews in the Old seem to have known nothing about. For example, what is more common in the New Testament than to read of demons or devils; of persons possessed with them; and of their being cast out of them? But nothing of this kind is found in the Old Testament. I might ask, how is this difference to be accounted for? The answer is precisely the same as in the case before us. In the days of Moses and the prophets, the popular opinions about demons were unknown among the Jews. But in the days of our Lord they were common, and are often alluded to in the New Testament. But, like torment in Hades, such opinions had been adopted by the Jews from their intercourse with the heathen, after the Babylonian captivity.
Sheol, in Isaiah 14: 9—20, and in most other texts where it occurs, Mr. Stuart says means the grave, underworld, or the region of the dead. Why not interpret Hades, Luke 16: 23, in the same way, for it is allowed on all hands that Sheol and Hades are only the Hebrew and Greek names for the same place.
Wakefield interprets Hades so, for he says, “Verse 23, in the grave; en to ade; and conformably to this representation, he (the rich man) is spoken of as having a body, verse 24. It must be remembered that Hades nowhere means hell, Gehenna, in any author whatsoever, sacred or profane; and, also, that our Lord is giving his hearers a parable (Matthew 13: 34), an d not a piece of real history. To those who regard the narrative as exhibiting a reality, it must stand as an unanswerable argument for the purgatory of the papists. The universal meaning of Hades is, the state of death; because the term sepulchrum, or grave, is not strictly applicable to such as have been consumed by fire, etc. See verse 30.”
Understanding Hades, then, in this parable, to mean what Sheol does, Isaiah 14: 9—20, all is plain, and natural, and in agreement with the Old Testament. The only material difference between the two passages is, the rich man is said to be in torment in Hades; and this difference we think has been rationally accounted for above. Hades, Sheol, grave, under-world, region of the dead, is here represented, in conformity to the prevailing opinions in our Lord’s day, as a place of torment, and this was only a small addition to the popular opinions in the days of Isaiah. Since persons had been represented as alive and full of animation in Sheol, or Hades, it was natural for the fancy of the poet to describe them as
happy or miserable.
Dr. Ha mmond, on this passage, says, “That this is not a story but a parable, may appear by Gamara Babyj. Ad. Cod. Berachoth, where thus much of it is set down, that a king made a great feast, and invited all the strangers, and there came one poor man and stood at his gates, and said unto them, Give me one bit or portion; and they considered him not; and he said, My Lord the king, of all the great feast thou hast made, is it hard in thine eyes to give me one bit or fragment among them?” He adds, the title of this parable is, “A Parable of a King of Flesh and Blood.” See also, my Letters to Mr. Hudson, for what Dr. Whitby has said respecting this parable. The views of Christians in former ages, as stated by him, were very different respecting this parable from those which are now entertained.
3d. The only other question to be considered is, What did our Lord mean to teach when he uttered this parable? That he was not speaking on the subject of a future state when he introduced it, is obvious from the context.
See verses 14—18. And no one ought to say our Lord taught in parables a doctrine nowhere taught in plain language in the Bible. But this must be said, if in this parable he did teach that in Hades there is a place of punishment. No Old or New Testament writer says Sheol or Hades is a place of torment; a repository for good or bad souls after death. Nor did our Lord’s disciples so understand this parable. What our Lord uttered in parables, they were to proclaim on the house-tops, or express in plain language. But none of them say that Hades is a place of torment; a doctrine they certainly would have taught, had they believed it announced by our Lord in this parable.
What, then, did our Lord mean to teach, by representing Hades as a place of torment? This question may be answered by asking one or two more. What did our Lord mean to teach, when he spoke of demons as real beings? And what did he mean to teach when he spoke of Satan as a real being, Luke 13: 10—18? Did he mean to recognize these beings as real? We should think not, but only availed himself of the prevailing opinions, in reasoning with his opponents, to enforce his instructions and convince them. Is it not so here? Our Lord was reasoning with the Pharisees, who believed that in Hades there was a place of torment. They also professed faith in Moses’ writings. But he here says, if they did not believe him to be the Messiah, from what Moses and the prophets had said concerning him, they would not be persuaded of this, if one coming from Hades, their supposed repository of souls, testified it to them. This view of the parable is in conformity with our Lord’s conduct and teaching on other occasions.*
* What is a parable? Dr. Johnson says, “A parable is a relation under which something else is figured.” The Greek verb from which the word parable is derived signifies to compare things together. Webster says, “A parable is a fable or allegorical relation or representation of something real in life or nature, from which a moral is drawn for instruction.” Dr. Barnes, one of the ablest writers among the Presbyterians, says, “A parable is a narrative of some fictitious or real event, in order to illustrate more clearly some truth that the speaker wished to communicate.” He also says, “It is not necessary to suppose that the narrative is strictly, true. The main thing, the inculcation of spiritual truth, was gained equally whether it was true or only a supposed case. Nor was there any dishonesty in this. It was well understood; no person was deceived.
The speaker was not understood to affirm the thing literally narrated, but only to fix the attention more firmly on the moral truth presented.” According to these views, the account given of the rich man and the poor man is the narrative of the parable, used to teach something real. It was made up of opinions common among the Jews concerning the future state. In weaving those opinions into his narrative, Jesus did not endorse them any more than he did the opinions of the Jews respecting demons when he spoke the parable of the unclean spirit, of which Dr. Lightfoot says, “Here the Saviour takes a parable from something commonly believed and entertained, that he might express the thing which he propounded more plainly and fully.” Neither are we to infer that the narrative of the parable is true—that a rich man died and went to hell. We cannot infer this, for nearly all the particulars stated concerning the rich man and the poor man, though according to Jewish opinions, are known to be false. A spirit has not eyes, a tongue, fingers, etc. In a spiritual state there can be no gulf; neither can there be fire and water. It will not do to say these are to be understood figuratively, for a narrative cannot be made of figures of speech. The very idea of a narrative implies literality.
We cannot say this expression is literal and that figurative, as in a discourse; but the whole must he understood as a literal account. We know, therefore, that the narrative cannot be true, any more than that of Jotham’s parable, in which the trees are represented as going forth to anoint themselves a king. The author of a parable is never supposed to endorse the narrative. He uses manners, customs, laws, opinions, fiction, anything that suits his purpose, without implying the least approval of what he uses. The question with us, then, is, not was there a rich man who went to hell, where he was tormented in flames; but what does the Saviour employ this narrative to represent? Let it be remembered that a parable is a relation or story under which something else is figured, and that Dr. Barnes says, “It is not necessary to suppose that the narratives were strictly true.” Now I shall not, I am certain, be considered as affirming too much when I say, that the whole force of this parable, so far as supposed to bear against Universalism, is derived from the idea that the narrative is true, and that one man, at least, has been sent to a hell of fire in the future world.
Hence the question, how can a future hell be denied when the Saviour declares that the rich man at his death went there? But you might as well ask, how can it be denied that the trees had a meeting to anoint a king, when Jotham declares they did; or that a demon went and got seven other demons more wicked than himself and took possession of a man, when Jesus declares he did? These statements belong to the story of a parable, and are made, not as truths, but to set forth truth.
Perhaps it will be said, if we grant all that is claimed with regard to the narrative of this parable, nothing will be gained thereby, inasmuch as the scenes of it are laid in the future world. But are we to infer from this that it must have been designed to represent the condition of mankind there? If so, it must be explained in agreement with the popular opinions of the times. For instance, it has been said as the Pharisees believed in an endless hell, they must have understood that part of the narrative descriptive of the rich man in his torment as a figure of the punishment which the wicked will endure in a future hell. Suppose we grant this, what then? Christ must have represented hell to be just such a place as the Pharisees believed it to be, so that, instead of saying the fire in which the rich man was burning was a figure of the horrors of a guilty conscience, it was a literal representation of what all the wicked would suffer. But why must we say the parable refers to the future world because the scenes of the narrative are there? The scenes of one country are used to represent what will take place in another; and scenes in time to represent what will take place in eternity. Is it not equally as proper to borrow imagery from common opinions of the future world to represent what would take place here, as to borrow imagery from this world to represent what will take place in the future world?
Do not reply, we represent spiritual things by things temporal; for though that is the case, we know that vulgar opinions borrowed from the heathen were used to represent the condition of the Jews at the close of their dispensation. We have an instance of this in the parable of the unclean spirit. If, then, opinions, and even false opinions, may be used to represent what takes place here, why may not opinions respecting futurity, and those that are false, be used to express what would take place here? Such opinions had the requisites for the imagery of a parable. They were well known, and they were applicable. But we must not prolong our remarks, and will close this note by mentioning two or three things to show that the parable was not designed to represent the fate of all men, but was spoken with reference to the Jews.
O. A. S.
Acts 2: 27. “Because thou wilt not leave my soul (me) in hell (Hades), neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption.” Grave is evidently the sense of Hades here, and refers to Christ’s resurrection.
Acts 2: 31. “He, seeing this before, spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul (he) was not left in hell (Hades), neither his flesh did see corruption.” Grave, as in the last text, the same as Sheol, Psalm 16: 10.
1 Corinthians 15: 55. “O death, where is thy sting? O grave (Hades), where is thy victory?” Hades here plainly means grave, and was so understood by our translators. The grave shall not always retain its dead; hence the question, “O grave, where is thy victory?” The dead shall be raised incorruptible.
Revelation 1: 18. “I am he that lives, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive forever more, amen; and have the keys of hell (Hades), and of death.” This is explained by Acts 2: 27, 31. To have the keys of Hades or the grave, shows that Jesus has power to raise from the dead, which he will do in the last day.
Revelation 6: 8. “And I looked, and behold a pale horse; and his name that sat on him was Death, and hell (Hades) followed with him.” Hades here evidently means grave. It follows death, as is here represented. Mr. Stuart, on this text observes, “Here is the king of the empire of the dead, with his subjects in his train. Hades, in this passage, stands for the inhabitants of Hades; just as, in innumerable cases, we employ the name of a country in order to designate the inhabitants of the same.” But I ask, is the king of the empire of the dead a living being? Are his subjects living beings? No, the inhabitants of Hades, the grave, are all the dead; and death, the king of terrors, of the grave, shall reign over them until raised from the dead. See 1 Corinthians 15: 55.
Revelation 20: 13. “And the sea gave up the dead which w ere in it; and death and hell (Hades) delivered up the dead which were in them.” Here death, “the king over the region of the dead,” is again introduced. What does this passage say he “delivered up”? Was it immortal souls which Hades delivered up? No. Were they living beings of any kind? No; not any more than the sea delivered up immortal souls or living beings. The sea delivered up the dead which were in it. And “death and Hades delivered up the dead which were in them.” But, according to the common views of Hades in Luke 16: 23, Hades ought to have delivered up the immortal souls which had long been in torment there. Had John believed as most people do now about Hades or hell, no doubt he would have told us this. But wherever the resurrection of the dead is mentioned in Scripture, not a word is said about immortal souls, coming forth from Hades, hell, or any other place. But why not, if immortal souls are punished there from death until the resurrection?
Revelation 20: 14. “And death and hell (Hades) were cast into the lake of fire; this is the second death.” On this passage, Dr. Campbell pertinently remarks, “If we interpret Hades, hell, in the Christian sense of the word, the whole passage is rendered nonsense. Hell is represented as being cast into hell; for so the lake of fire, which is, in this place, also denominated the second death, is universally interpreted.”
Concerning the usage of Hades in the Apocalypse, Mr. Stuart says, “It is the genuine Sheol of the Hebrews, with the exception, perhaps, that the Hebrew sacred books have nowhere represented Hades as having a king over it.” I then ask, Does John in this book say that in Hades there is a Tartarus? No. Why then did Mr. Stuart say, “that in the Hebrew Sheol there was a Tartarus”? Does he know more about this than John did? We have seen why the Hebrew sacred books have nowhere represented Sheol or Hades as having a king over it. This opinion, like many others derive d from the heathen, was unknown to the ancient Hebrews. They knew of no king, God, or devil, who ruled in Sheol. Such are all the passages where Hades occurs in the New Testament. We add the following remarks.
1st. It will not be disputed by any man that what the Hebrew writers of the Old Testament expressed by the word Sheol, the Greeks expressed by the word Hades.
2d. Observe that the heathen Greeks not only attached similar ideas to the word Hades that the Hebrew writers did to the word Sheol, but also the additional idea that in Hades persons were punished or rewarded, according to their merits or demerits in the present world. This punishment was by fire. This was their own addition; for no such idea seems to be conveyed in all the Old Testament by the word Sheol. The very circumstance that Hades, and not Sheol, is represented as a place of torment, shows that this doctrine is of heathen origin. Hades is a Greek word; and it is well known that Greek was the language of the heathen, and Hebrew that of the Jews. There is nothing, then, but what we ought to expect, in the use of the term Hades in the New Testament. Besides, the Jews had blended many of the heathen notions with their own religion.
If we then find the New Testament writers, in using the Greek word Hades, speak as if this was a place of punishment, it is easily accounted for without admitting that they believed any such thing, or wished to inculcate this doctrine as a part of divine revelation. But of this they have been very sparing; for only in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus can it be supposed there is any allusion to such an idea. In all the other places where they use the term Hades it is plain no such doctrine seems to be hinted at, but the reverse. In face of these facts and circumstances, and current usage of the word Hades, we think it would be well for persons to pause and reflect, before they attempt to establish the doctrine of future misery from the language of a parable. If a Universalist was obliged to establish his views from a parable, and in face of so much evidence to the contrary, he would be considered as driven to the last extremity for proof in support of his system, and obliged to abandon it as indefensible. But this parable is regarded as the most plain and conclusive part of Scripture, in proof of a place of endless misery. It is considered more conclusive than all the passages which speak of Gehenna. What critics and orthodox commentators give up as no proof of the doctrine, by the least informed, is considered as the very strongest.
3d. Since neither Sheol, Hades, nor hell, originally signified a place of endless misery, we have a few questions to put to those who believe in this doctrine. We ask, then, is it not a perversion of the divine oracles to quote any of the texts in which Sheol or Hades occurs, to prove it? It is well known that such texts are often quoted for this purpose. But I ask again, is it not a very great imposition upon the ignorant to quote such texts in proof of this doctrine? The simple, honest-hearted, English reader of his Bible has been taught from a child that hell means a place of endless misery for the wicked. Every book he reads, every sermon he hears, tends to deepen his early impressions and confirm him in this opinion. Those who know better are not much disposed to undeceive him. On the one hand, they are perhaps deterred from it by a false fear of disturbing public opinion; and, on the other, by reluctance to encounter the odium of the Christian public, in being looked on as heretics. Select the most celebrated preacher you can find, and let him frankly tell his audience that neither Sheol, Hades, nor hell, originally meant a place of endless misery, and his celebrity is at an end. He would from that moment be considered as a heretic, and his former admirers would now be his warm opponents.
But I ask again, and I solemnly put it to every man’s conscience who professes to fear God, Ought not men to be honestly told the truth about this, let the consequences be what they may? Are we at liberty to pervert the Scriptures in favour of any sect or system in the world? Must we be guilty of a pious fraud, in concealing from the people what they ought to know, because the disclosure may excite popular prejudices against ourselves, and afford cause of suspicion that the doctrine of endless misery is not true? If it be true, it can and must be supported from other texts than those in which Sheol and Hades are used. Perhaps some may think, if all these texts are given up, some of the principal supports of the doctrine are removed. Well, allowing this true, would any one wish to retain them but such as are determined to hold fast the doctrine of eternal misery at all hazards? It is a false system of religion, or those who embrace it do not know how to defend it, who wish to support it by perverting a single text of Scripture. To found the doctrine of endless misery on the texts which speak of Sheol or Hades, is building on the sand. When the building is assailed by reason and argument, and an appeal to the Bible, it must fall if it has no better support. Even if it could be proved true from other texts, this is calculated to bring the doctrine into suspicion.
4th. The translators of our common version appear to have had more correct ideas about Sheol, Hades or hell, than most people who read their translation. They, certainly, were at some pains to guard us against attaching to the word hell the idea of a place of misery. In many places where they render Sheol and Hades by the word hell, they have put grave in the margin. Besides, let it be remembered that the word hell originally signified the same as Sheol and Hades. It was then the very best word they could use in rendering these two words. If men have now fixed a different sense to the word hell, the translators are not to blame.
Admitting that when our translation was made it had acquired the sense of a place of endless misery, what could the translators do but use this word in rendering Sheol and Hades? It meant the same as those words originally, and, to prevent misunderstanding, they frequently put grave in the margin. They, no doubt, thought that this, together with the context, was security against all misapprehension. Unfortunately this has not been the case. But no blame attaches to them, for they must in this case have either coined a new word, expressed themselves by a circumlocution, used always the word grave, or left these words untranslated.
I am inclined to think that if Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenn a, had been left untranslated, few persons would ever have thought that by any of these words a place of misery after death was meant. Every reader would then have been obliged to consult the context, wherever these words were used, to attain the sense of the writer. Obliged to do this, he would soon have become familiar with them, and must have seen, from the way in which they were used, that the idea of a place of future misery was never intended to be conveyed by them. Let any one go over all the texts where these words are found, and put this remark to a fair trial. It is true that our translators, in rendering the word Gehenna, have also used the word hell. But, here again, what could they do, for this word had acquired a new sense?
This new sense, they supposed, answered to the word Gehenna, the place of endless misery. Here they were under the necessity of either again coining a new word, leaving Gehenna untranslated, or expressing themselves by a circumlocution. We doubt if the translators were at liberty to do any of these without shocking public prejudice, and exciting the displeasure of those in high authority, under whose patronage they made their translations. They were not left at liberty to give us the best translations which their own judgments and the progress of Biblical criticism, even at that day, could have afforded. In proof of this, see the king’s instructions to the translators.
5th. Several very serious evils arise from understanding Sheol or Hades to mean a place of endless misery. In the first place, it is a perversion of the texts in which these words occur. This perversion of them leads to a misunderstanding of many others. By this means the knowledge such texts convey is not only lost, but our growth in divine knowledge is greatly retarded, and our minds are perplexed and embarrassed on other connected subjects. Every text of Scripture, misunderstood, lays a foundation for a misunderstanding of others; and thus error is not only rendered perpetual, but progressive. But this is not all. Understanding Sheol and Hades to mean a place of endless misery is perverting God’s word to caricature himself.
It is putting our own sense on his words to make him say things against ourselves which he never intended. It is giving a false colour to the language of the Bible, that we may support the false views we entertain of his character, and his dealings with the children of men. 6th. I may add respecting Hades, what was noticed about Sheol, that we never find the words eternal, everlasting, or forever, used in connection with it or concerning it. We never read of an everlasting or eternal Hades or hell, or that men are to be punished in it forever. Nothing like this is to be found in Scripture. Such epithets added to the word hell, found in books and sermons, are among the improvements in divinity which man’s wisdom has made. The word hell is first perverted from its original signification, and then the word eternal is added to it to make the punishment of endless duration.
SECTION 3
THE PASSAGE CONSIDERED IN WHICH THE WORD TARTARUS IS RENDERED HELL.
“FOR if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (Tartarosas), and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.” See Jude 1:6, to which I shall also advert in my remarks.
Although the word Tartarus does not occur in the Bible, yet the word Tartarosas occurs in this single text. It is equivalent to Tartarus; it signifies “to cast into Tartarus.” See Parkhurst. Professor Stuart says, “That a place of punishment is here indicated by Tartarus, is put beyond all doubt by the context, ‘he spared not,’ ‘chains of darkness,’ ‘imprisoned for judgment or condemnation.’” But what is there in these expressions which says the angels or any other beings suffered pain or misery in Tartarus? They are not even said to be alive there, far less suffering torment. In my reply to his Essays, I have considered pretty fully what he says about Tartarus. See, also, a quotation from Dr. Campbell, in the preceding section, which relates to this subject. In what follows I shall principally confine the reader’s attention to what I consider the true sense of the passage or passages in question.
1st. Let us examine what period is referred to, called in the one passage simply “judgment,” and in the other “the judgment of the great day.” These expressions are supposed to refer to a day of general judgment at the end of this material world. But I know of no sacred writer who uses such language to describe such a day. I find, however, this or very similar language used to describe God’s judgments on the Jewish nation at the close of the Mosaic dispensation. “The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come.” Joel 2: 31. Peter, Acts 2: 20, quotes these words, and applies them to this very event. Again, Malachi, 4: 5, says, “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord,” in reference to the same event. Our Lord, alluding to this period, said, Luke 21: 22, “For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.” Matthew 24: 21, “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.” But are the tribulations of this supposed day of judgment to be less than the tribulations which came on the Jewish nation at the destruction of Jerusalem? If not, how can our Lord’s words be true? In Revelation 6: 17, we read also of “the great day,” and “the great day of God Almighty;” but no man will say that this refers to a day of general judgment at the end of this world. The context shows that this cannot be meant.
2d. Let us now consider who are referred to by the angels that kept not their first estate (principality), but left their own habitation. The reader ought to notice particularly, that neither of the texts gives the least intimation that they were angelic spirits that sinned in heaven, and were cast out of it. It is said they sinned, but not in heaven. They kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation; but it is not said this habitation was heaven. Indeed, if we admit that angelic spirits once sinned in heaven, and were cast out of it, what security is there that this may not take place again; yea, that all who are there may not become sinners, and share the same fate? The question then is, what angels are meant? It is well known that the term rendered angel, signifies not nature but office. It is frequently rendered messenger, and is often applied to human beings. Some have thought the angels here mentioned were the spies sent out to view the land of Canaan. I am of opinion, however, that Korah and his company are the angels here intended. Their history is given, Numbers 16. My reasons for entertaining this opinion I shall briefly detail, and let the reader judge for himself.
1st. Korah and his company were “two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown.” Numbers 16: 2. From the high station which they held in the congregation, with scriptural propriety they might be termed angels. Certainly, with just as much propriety as men are called angels in many other passages. See, for example, Revelation chaps. 2d and 3d.
2d. It will not be questioned that Korah and his company sinned; that they kept not their first estate, or the station God assigned them in the congregation of Israel. They raised a rebellion against Moses and Aaron, Numbers 16: 3, with a view to their pre-eminence. They sought the priesthood also, verse 10. Certainly the passage applies much better to them than angelic spirits who sinned in heaven, and were cast out of it. People are more indebted to Milton’s Paradise Lost than to their Bible for the information that angelic spirits sinned in heaven and were cast down to Tartarus.
3d. The connection in which the passage is introduced, favours this view of the subject. Peter, in verses 1—4, speaks of false teachers, and the troubles which their heresies gave to the congregation of Christians. At the close of verse 3, he says of them, “whose judgment now of a long time lingers not, and their damnation slumbers not.” Was is not then very natural for him, in verse 4, to refer to Korah and his company, who produced similar troubles in the congregation of Israel, and the judgment which came on them? He then, from verse 5—9, mentions God’s judgments on the old world and the cities of the plain, confessedly inflicted on human beings, and of a temporal nature. It is very incongruous, then, to suppose, that in verse 4 he referred to angelic beings, and punishment of endless duration in another world. But the connection of the parallel text in Jude is still more clearly in favour of the view I have given. Jude, verse 4, also speaks of false teachers and the pernicious effects of their teaching on others. He adds, by way of warning, verse 5, “I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.” And what could be more natural than for him, in verse 6, to refer to Korah and his company, as a signal example of God’s destroying such unbelievers?
It is certainly more rational than to suppose he immediately breaks off, and introduces an example of God’s judgment on angels who sinned in heaven. He also refers, in verse 9, to God’s judgments on the cities of the plain. But if verse 6 refers to angelic spirits, we must conclude that he first gives an example in general of God’s judgments on men, verse 5, then in verse 3, starts off and gives an example of his judgment on angelic spirits in heaven, and then comes back to his judgments on men in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. But if my views are admitted, it makes both writers refer to temporal judgments on men, uniformly throughout both passages. Certainly all will allow that it is not the custom of the sacred writers to blend in this way examples of God’s judgments on men and angels together. If it is done here, another example of the kind cannot be produced from the Bible.
4th. It will be admitted that all the other examples mentioned in the contexts of these passages of God’s judgments on men were adduced as a warning to ungodly men. They are all of a temporal nature, and are calculated for this purpose. But, if we understand by angels, in these passages angelic spirits, how could God’s casting them out of heaven down to Tartarus be any warning to ungodly men? No man had seen this done, or had any means of knowing the fact, if it was true. It rested entirely on Peter and Jude’s statements in these passages, for no other sacred writer ever mentions such a remarkable event as angels sinning in heaven and being cast down to Tartarus. But the case of Korah and his company is detailed at length in the Jewish scriptures, was well known, and calculated to be a warning to those who lived ungodly. But it will be asked, what Tartarus did God cast them down to? We shall find an answer by considering,
3d. The punishment here said to have been inflicted on them. Peter says, “God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (Tartarosas), and delivered them into chains of darkness to be reserved unto judgment.” Jude says, “He hath reserved them in everlasting chains of darkness, unto the judgment of the great day.” Let us here inquire, 1st. What Peter meant by Tartarus? Mr. Stuart says, as “to the usus loquendi of the classics, in Greek, the word Tartarus is employed to designate a supposed subterranean region, as deep down below the upper part of Hades, as the earth is distant from heaven. It is the place where the distinguished objects of Jupiter’s vengeance are represented as being confined and tormented. It is placed in opposition to, or in distinction from, Elysium. I remark, moreover, that the heathen had no apprehension of deliverance from Tartarus. Tanta lus, Sisyphus, Ixion, and all others sent there, were doomed to endless punishment, in view of the Greeks and Romans.” Such are the views given us of Tartarus by Mr. Stuart; and it is commonly supposed that in this sense Peter used the word in the passage before us. But in the preceding section it has been shown http://www.ThreeAngels.com.authat Tartarus and its punishment were heathen fictions, and originally of Egyptian origin. The Egyptians furnished the first hints, and the Greeks and Romans manufactured a tremendous hell out of them.
But Mr. Stuart is obliged to confess that the above is not the exclusive sense in which classical writers use the term Tartarus. He says, “It is occasionally employed in the later classic writers, for the under-world in general; but in such a connection as to show that it is only when writers mean to speak of the whole as a region of gloom, that they call it Tartarus.” This concession of Mr. Stuart is enough for our purpose, together with his explanations of Sheol and Hades. He concedes that “the later classic writers” use Tartarus for the under-world in general, which is his general sense of Sheol and Hades, as seen above. And he also concedes that they use it in this sense when they “mean to speak of the whole as a region of gloom.” With these concessions in view, I observe, 1st. Peter was a later scripture writer. This answers to “the later classic writers,” of whom Mr. Stuart speaks. And if they used the word Tartarus “for the under-world in general,” and not for a place of punishment, why not allow Peter to use it in the same sense in this passage? But the reader may notice he speaks of it, not as a place of fire and torment, such as the heathen supposed it to be, but as the Hebrews spoke of Sheol.
2d. But we are told when the “later classic writers” used Tartarus for the under-world, it was “in such a connection as to show that it is only when writers mean to speak of the whole as a region of gloom that they call it Tartarus.” Well, all I ask is to allow Peter the same privilege taken by these classic writers. This cannot with any show of reason be denied him. The question then is, Does Peter show, from the connection, that he means to speak of Tartarus as a place of punishment, yea, of endless punishment; or does he speak of it as the underworld, a region of gloom? In the latter sense, as I shall now attempt to show. Let it then be observed, 1st. Whoever may have been meant by the angels in this passage, they are not said to be suffering any pain in Tartarus. Nor is it even said that they are reserved there to suffer pain or torment at the day of judgment mentioned. If it is maintained the angels mentioned are angelic spirits, the passage has no reference to human beings at all.
3d. If Peter used the term Tartarus in the sense of a place of misery, or “endless punishment in view of the Greeks and Romans,” he did what no other scripture writer did before him . Not one of them ever uses this term, which shows they cared nothing about Tartarus. But, had they believed this doctrine of endless punishment, and that Tartarus was the most “significant” word the Greek language afforded to express it, why do they all avoid this word? Mr. Stuart asks, “What term, then, in order to express the horrors of future punishment, could Peter select from the whole Greek language, which was more significant than Tartarosas?” This question implicates not only the sacred writers, but even the Holy Spirit, as not knowing what word was most “significant” to express the horrors of future punishment.
3d. But if Peter used the term Tartarus “for the under-world in general,” as “it is occasionally employed in the later classic writers,” he agrees with all the scripture writers in their usage of Sheol and Hades, and even with those classic writers also. What is more common than to put a part for the whole, or the whole for a part, in the language of Scripture? Tartarus was supposed to be a part of Hades, and here a part is used for the whole. In Luke 16: 23, the whole, Hades, is put for a part, Tartarus; for, according to the representation given, the rich man was in Tartarus, yet he is said to be in Hades.
4th. But we are told this word was used for the under-world, “in such a connection as to show that it is only when the writers mean to speak of the whole as a region of gloom, that they called it Tartarus.” If Peter then used it in “such a connection,” as to show he meant “to speak of the whole as a region of gloom” the question is settled. Does he then say, either in the text or context, that Tartarus was a place of torment? No. Does he intimate the angels were alive in Tartarus? No. Does he then speak of it as a region of gloom? Certainly he does. Hear him: “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (Tartarosas).” Well, did he deliver them there into flames and torments? No. He “delivered them into chains of darkness.” Is not this “a region of gloom”? Let us hear Jude: “The angels which kept not their first estate but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains of darkness.” Is not this, again, a region of gloom? This is too palpable, I think, to be denied.*
* In the Second Inquiry we have given our views very fully upon this text. But as that interpretation may not be satisfactory to all, we will ask the reader to consider the following. The text says, “They were cast down to hell, to be reserved unto judgment.” To be reserved. Where? In hell. How long? Unto judgment. Here is an important consideration. It is generally thought, by the multitude who are daily quoting this text, that the hell of which it speaks is a place of endless torture; but the language employed directly contradicts such an idea. It simply says, “The angels shall be reserved in hell unto judgment;” not reserved there endlessly, but unto a certain time. It is like this: When a man is guilty of a capital offence, he is doomed to prison, to remain till the day of his execution. He is reserved there unto judgment or punishment. So with these messengers. They were reserved in hell unto judgment. The text then limits their continuance in hell.
This fact wholly rescues it from the hands of those who employ it to prove the eternity of woe. You can prove by it no punishment in hell after the judgment of which it speaks. How different from the common opinion! According to that, there is an endless hell after the judgment; but according to the text, the hell is before the judgment. I want all to remember this fact. Though preachers say nothing of it, when they quote the text against Universalism, and though they represent the hell as a place of unceasing woe, orthodox commentators have pursued a different course, and confessed that hell here signifies simply the place where the damned are kept till judgment; and that after the judgment they go into another place (Gehenna). Such is the opinion of Dr. Campbell.
Here I might dismiss this part of the subject, but I wish to show that the apostle did not even teach a place of future punishment, when he said the wicked were cast down to hell. He uses a tradition to show what punishment God would inflict upon false teachers; but if by so doing he adopts the tradition, he must adopt it just as it was held; but to say this would make him teach doctrines entirely at variance with modern orthodoxy, and endorse the heathen notions of hell.
Among the ancients, Tartarus was supposed to be a place far under ground, where the wicked are bound in chains of darkness. The Greek poets make frequent allusion to it. Lucian thus speaks of it: “Where iron gates and bars of solid brass.”
Homer speaks of it as a gulf with iron gates and brazen ground. Now, if we say Peter employed it to denote future punishment, we must say that he used it in the sense of the Greek writers; and that Tartarus is far under ground, and has bars of brass, and gates of iron, and literal chains for the confinement of its victims. We must adopt all the fanciful notions of the Greeks respecting it. But here are numerous difficulties. None adopt the heathen idea that hell is in the bowels of the earth. Neither do any well-informed clergymen believe that it has iron gates, a “brazen ground,” or literal chains for the torture of the wicked.
It is evident, therefore, that Peter used this popular tradition to denote, not a punishment in the eternal world, but in this; for he certainly could not have believed in all the vagaries of the Greeks in regard to Tartarus.
And this idea is confirmed by the fact that he was laboring to show, from what it was generally believed God had done, the certainty of the punishment of false teachers.
Let us now see how this agrees to Korah and his company, as the angels who sinned and were cast down to Tartarus. In Numbers 16: 31—33, it is said, “The ground clave asunder that was under them; and the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them; and they perished from among the congregation.” See, on this text, under Sheol above. “They went down alive into the pit (Sheol).” Is not Sheol often represented as a region of gloom? Yea, does not the very word Sheol, as Dr. Campbell has told us, mean “obscure, hidden, invisible? The state is always represented under those figures which suggest something dark, dreadful and silent.”
To the views of this passage which have now been stated, it may be objected, Does not Jude say, the angels that sinned are “reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day”? I answer, yes; but it has been shown that the judgment of the great day does not refer to a general judgment at the end of this world, but to the judgment of God on the Jews at the close of their dispensation. Now, though Korah and his company were punished on the spot for their rebellion, yet, we are told, all the sins of the Jews as a nation, which had been committed during past ages, were at that time visited on the nation. On that generation came all the righteous blood which had been shed on the earth. Of course, the rebellion of Korah and his company is included. They were delivered into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto this judgment, when God’s signal vengeance was poured out on the whole nation for all their rebellion and wickedness. Chains of darkness is a figure for the power of darkness; for who can burst the bands of death, who can return from Sheol to the land of the living? The word everlasting connected with chains of darkness, in Jude, can occasion no difficulty. Those who have attended to the scripture usage of this word must see that it is often used for a limited time, and sometimes even for a short period of time. From the time of Korah’s rebellion to the destruction of Jerusalem was a much longer everlasting than some other everlastings mentioned in Scripture.
Though enough has been said to show that punishment in Hades is a heathen notion, it may be of some use to see what were the views entertained by the ancient heathen about Hades and Tartarus. M. Le Clerc, in his Religion of the Ancient Greeks, pages 147-154, thus writes: “In general, the doctrine of a future life has been adopted by all nations, at least by all those that deserve to be cited as examples. Legislators have considered it as the most effectual curb for restraining the passions of men, and they have employed every argument to establish this salutary doctrine, as we may be convinced by attending to the descriptions which the ancients have left us of hell.
“This word signified among them the residence of souls. Thither, after death, they repaired in crowds to receive remuneration for their deeds. Minos sat as judge, and, as the names were drawn out of the fatal urn, he distributed to each his merited punishment or reward. Pluto, seated on a throne of ebony, presided over the infernal regions; because, as we have already observed, in the symbolical religion of the ancients, part of which was dedicated to the worship of the stars, winter was the night of nature, and because the sun at that time took the name of king of the Shades. For this reason Pluto, who represented the sun, makes so important a figure in mysteries destined to describe the empire of the dead. That gloomy region was situated at an immense distance, far beyond the limits of this universe. According to the author of the Theogony, ‘as far as the heaven is distant from the earth, so far is the earth removed from the dark abyss. A mass of iron falling from the top of the starry heavens, would take nine days and nine nights before it reached the surface of the earth; and it would require the same time in falling from thence to Tartarus,’ the place destined for the punishment of the wicked.
“This frightful abode was said to be twice as deep as it is distant from the brilliant summit of Olympus. It was surrounded by a triple wall; it was bathed by the flaming waters of Cocytus and of Phlegethon, and towers of iron guarded the entrance. The cruel Tisiphone watched night and day at the gate, armed with serpents, which she shook over the heads of the guilty.
Their groans, their doleful cries, mixed with the sound of their stripes, caused the wide abyss to resound. There are forever shut up the impious Titans, and those no less audacious mortals who dared to resist the divinity; Tityus, Ixion, Pirithous, and the impious Salmoneus. Perjury, adultery, incest and parricide, are likewise punished; and those whose life has been sullied with odious crimes—those who have not respected the ties of blood, who have waged unjust wars, who h ave sold their country—those who have dared to commit enormous wickedness, and enjoyed the fruit of their crimes, are all consigned to the most cruel torments.
“We may conceive what impression these images would make on the mind, when unceasingly presented to the eyes from earliest infancy. It is not to be doubted, that if the hope of felicity unbounded leads to virtue, the idea of endless punishment must have a still stronger influence on the conduct. The religion of the ancients, which to us app ears of so light a nature that we are apt to believe its only end was to flatter the senses, yet employed the most proper means for restraining the outrageous multitude.* It alarmed them on all sides with the most frightful representations. A poet of antiquity paints in the strongest colours that continual terror which takes possession of the human heart, which disturbs and poisons the pleasures of life, and which in every part of the earth has erected temples for the purpose of conciliating the gods. Plato, in the beginning of the first book of his Republic, represents an old man seized with fear at the approach of death, and full of inquietude with regard to objects that never occupy the season of health. Then it is, says he, that we reflect on our crimes, on the injustice we have committed, and that often, in our agitation, we start in our sleep, and are frightened like children.
†As soon as some were found among the ancients who had overcome these fears, it was pretended that such had never existed among them: we might as reasonably judge of the public belief at this day by the opinions in which some modern writers have been pleased to indulge themselves. The testimony of those of antiquity who opposed the prejudices of their times, their very attempt to dissipate those fears, and to turn them into ridicule, rather proves how deeply they were rooted. Observe with what solicitude Lucretius everywhere endeavours to burst the bonds of religion, and to fortify his readers against the threatening of eternal punishment.
* The doctrine of endless punishment, among the heathen, did not make them moral men, as facts show. Nor has it done this among Christians, as all must admit. The apostles preached the love of God in the gift of his Son. This produced holiness, and it will do so again.
†Preaching endless hell torments, in the present day, produces not only fear, but many cases of insanity and suicide. Can God be the author of such a doctrine?
The observation of Juvenal, so often cited, that nobody in his day believed in the fables of hell, is that of an enlightened mind which takes no part in the opinions of the vulgar. The same thing is to be said of what we read in Cicero, and in some other writers on the same subject; and when Virgil exclaims, ‘Happy the man that can tread under foot inexorable Destiny, and the noise of devouring Acheron,’ he indicates, in a manner sufficiently precise, that it was the province of philosophy alone, to shake off the yoke of custom, riveted by education.
“Those who were unable to conquer these vain terrors, found consolations of a different kind. Religion stretched forth her kind hand to encourage their hopes, and to relieve their despondency. When remorse had brought back, within her pale, an unfortunate wanderer from the paths of justice, she informed him that by a true confession of his guilt, and sincere repentance, forgiveness was to be obtained. With this view expiatory sacrifices were instituted, by means of which the guilty expected to participate in the happiness of the just.” Such were the views of the ancient Greeks about Hades or Tartarus, and its punishment. There is considerable similarity in the above quotation to some descriptions given of hell torments by modern preachers. I shall leave all to their own reflection on it. One or two things I shall merely notice.
1st. The doctrine of punishment in Tartarus seems to have originated with legislators, for the purpose of restraining the passions of the multitude, and to alarm “them on all sides with the most frightful representations.” The Persians, Chaldeans, Egyptians and Greeks, all introduced punishment after death. The Jewish nation is an exception. Some deistical writers have blamed Moses, as a legislator, for not introducing eternal punishment into his code of laws, as a curb on men against licentiousness. It is generally allowed that the punishments threatened in the Old Testament are of a temporal nature.
2d. From the above quotation it appears that though punishment after death in Tartarus was believed by the heathen generally, yet the better informed among them did not believe “in the fables of hell,” but turned them into ridicule. Juvenal took no part in those opinions of the vulgar; and Virgil says, “It was the province of philosophy alone, to shake off the yoke of custom riveted by education.” Is it not then strange, that a doctrine which was invented by heathens, and treated with contempt by their own wisest men, should be a fundamental article in the faith of Christians?
3d. I may just add, that, when the heathens were made converts to the Christian faith, all allow that many of their previous notions were soon incorporated with it. This, together with the erroneous views held by the Jewish converts, laid a foundation for such a corruption of Christianity, which, if it were not attested by evidence indisputable, could not be believed. That punishment in Tartarus is not a part of this corruption of Christianity derived from the heathen, deserves to be seriously considered. The evidence we have adduced, proving that it is, we submit to the reader’s judgment.
We have shown that neither Sheol, Hades, nor Tartarus, is ever used by the sacred writers to signify a place of endless misery for the wicked. This was all we were bound to do, in opposing the common opinion on this subject. But we have also shown that this opinion originated with the heathen, and that the Jews learned it from them. To invalidate the evidence which has been produced, the very reverse must be proved.
CHAPTER 2
GEHENNA, UNIFORMLY TRANSLATED HELL IN THE NEWTESTAMENT,
CONSIDERED AS A PLACE OF ENDLESS PUNISHMENT.
WE have now arrived at a part of this inquiry which requires the utmost attention. It is generally believed that the New Testament teaches the doctrine of endless misery, and that Gehenna is the place in which it is suffered. The truth or falsehood of this doctrine, then, depends upon the answer given to the following question: What is the scripture meaning and usage of the word Gehenna?
SECTION 4
DR. CAMPBELL’S VIEWS OF GEHENNA.
WE have seen, from a consideration of the texts in which Sheol, Hades, and Tartarus occur, that these words never ought to have been translated hell, at least in the sense used by most Christians. Dr. Campbell and others, who believed in endless misery, fully confirm this.
The word, and I believe the only word, supposed to express the place of this misery, is Gehenna. As Dr. Campbell conclusively proves that Sheol, Hades, and Tartarus; do not mean this place, he as positively asserts that this is always the sense of Gehenna in the New Testament. He thus writes in his sixth preliminary dissertation, Part ii. Sect. 1. “That Gehenna is employed in the New Testament to denote the place of future punishment, prepared for the devil and his angels, is indisputable. In the Old Testament we do not find this place in the same manner mentioned. Accordingly, the word Gehenna does not occur in the Septuagint. It is not a Greek word, and, consequently, not to be found in the Grecian classics. It was originally a compound of the two Hebrew words, ge hinnom, the valley of Hinnom, a place near Jerusalem, of which we hear first in the book of Joshua, 15: 8. It was there that the cruel sacrifices of children were made by fire to Moloch, the Ammonitish idol, 2 Chronicles 33: 6. The place was also called Tophet, 2 Kings 23: 10; and that, as is supposed, from the noise of drums, toph signifying a drum, a noise raised on purpose to drown the cries of the helpless infants.
As this place was, in process of time, considered as an emblem of hell, or the place of torment reserved for the punishment of the wicked in a future state, the name Tophet came gradually to be used in this sense, and at length to be confined to it. This is the sense, if I mistake not, in which Gehenna, a synonymous term, is always to be understood in the New Testament, where it occurs just twelve times. In ten of these there can be no doubt; in the other two the expression is figurative; but it scarcely will admit a question that the figure is taken from that state of misery which awaits the impenitent.” With great reluctance I dissent from such a learned and sensible writer as Dr. Campbell. But he has taught me to call no m an master. He encourages free inquiry, and teaches his readers that no doctrine ought to be believed merely because asserted by the learned and professed by the multitude. The quotation I have made contains essentially the views of all who believe Gehenna to signify the place of endless punishment. With all due respect for the learning of its author, I solicit attention to the following remarks upon it.
1st. Let it be observed how differently he speaks in the first and last part of it. In the first he says, “That Gehenna is employed in the New Testament to denote the place of future punishment prepared for the devil and his angels, is indisputable.” But in the last he says, “This is the sense, if I mistake not, in which Gehenna, a synonymous term, is always to be understood in the New Testament.” Whether what he had written between the first and last sentences led him to hesitate about the word, I cannot say; but sure I am that he was too shrewd a man not to perceive, and too candid not to own, the insufficiency of the evidence adduced to convince his readers. He does not usually depend upon assertions. He generally states evidence, and seldom fails to convince. But here his course is different. In attempting to make out the proof of what he asserts, I have been led to alter my opinion about the meaning of Gehenna.
2d. Though Dr. Campbell says that this is always the sense of Gehenna in the New Testament, he denies that it is supported by the Old Testament. H e says, “In the Old Testament we do not find this place in the same manner mentioned. Accordingly, the word Gehenna does not occur in the Septuagint. It is not a Greek word, and, consequently, not to be found in the Grecian classics.” To me this is very strange. What! are we to believe without evidence that the word Gehenna is taken from the Old Testament, and the sense of endless misery affixed to it by the New Testament writers, yet no intimation given of such a change? This we think ought to be indisputably proved before believed. Unless they explain the word in this new sense, their hearers could not have understood them.
3d. Dr. Campbell attempts to account for this change in the meaning of Gehenna in the following manner: “As this place was, in process of time, considered as an emblem of hell, or the place of torment reserved for the punishment of the wicked in a future state, the name Tophet came gradually to be used in this sense, and at length to be confined to it.” I am surprised that such an author should make this statement. He does not pretend that the New Testament writers explained the change made in the word, nor does he pretend that in any text Tophet was used as an emblem of a future hell. But how could it become an emblem of that not known at the time the Old Testament was written? Can one place be an emblem of another when the other is not known to exist?* Dr. C. says, that “neither Sheol, Hades, nor Tartarus, means a place of endless torment; also, that Gehenna has not that sense in the Old Testament; that it is not a Greek word, and is not found in the Grecian classics or the Septuagint.”
* It will doubtless be said by the objector that Tophet might be used as an emblem of hell, though it had not that signification in the Old Testament; for a writer may properly borrow imagery from any source he pleases. Mr. Balfour did not deny this. We understand his argument to be, that in the emblem there is nothing to authorize the idea of endless misery; and that if used for that purpose in the New Testament, it must be because a new signification was given to the word. O. A. S.
Here, then, we have a place of endless punishment for which the Bible, in the original languages, has no name; for which even the copious Grecian classics afford no name; for which our Lord and his apostles could find no name in the Old Testament. Hence they affixed a new sense to a word applied to the valley of Hinnom, and that, too, without giving even an intimation of the change; and this they did when addressing Jews who were familiar with the Old Testament, opposed to Christ and his apostles, and jealous of innovation. Moreover, the change made is to teach, on divine authority, the awful doctrine of endless woe! Judging from what Dr. C. says, it was not from the Old Testament. The change must have taken place between the completion of the Old Testament and the commencement of the gospel dispensation. If it began to assume this new sense before the Old Testament was completed, it had no authority from it; for he declares that Gehenna does not occur in this sense in the Old Testament. This new sense, then, affixed to the word, is not of divine but of human origin; it rests on the authority of man, and not on the authority of God. I think this cannot be denied, unless it is proved that our Lord informed those to whom he spake that this was the sense in which it was now to be understood. But is anything like this to be found in the New Testament? Hence the very thing which ought to be proved is assumed.
But further; there is something extremely suspicious in the way in which the change is said to have taken place. Had it been divinely authorized, it would not have been effected gradually, but the sense would have bee n settled at once. “It came,” he says, “gradually to be used as an emblem of hell, and at last to be confined to it.” At what time it began to be so used, who had the honour of first introducing it, and how long before it came to be confined to it, we are not informed. The thing is barely asserted by Dr. Campbell; no evidence of it is given. We have been at some pains to find evidence, but our labours have been entirely fruitless. But it may be said, Is it not evident that our Lord used Gehenna always and indisputably in this new sense? It is certain, it is indisputable, that Dr. Campbell has asserted this, without so much as attempting to prove it. But surely this ought not to be received on the assertions of any man. Only let it be proved that our Lord used Gehenna in this new sense, and I am forever silent on the subject.
In his Dissertation, already quoted, Dr. Campbell thus writes, in regard to the state of the dead: “It is plain that in the Old Testament the most profound silence is observed in regard to the state of the deceased, their joys or sorrows, happiness or misery. It is represented to us rather by negative qualities than by positive; by its silence, its darkness, its being inaccessible, unless by preternatural means, to the living, and their ignorance about it. Thus much, in general, seems always to have been presumed concerning it; that it is not a state of activity adapted for exertion, or indeed for the accomplishment of any important purpose, good or bad. In most respects, however, there was a resemblance in their notions on this subject to those of the most ancient heathen.” Thus he did not believe that such a torment, or the name for such a place, was known to the writers of the Old Testament. Besides, he held that the Jews, from their intercourse with the heathen, learned the notion of punishment in hell.
Therefore, either he must greatly err in his statements, or endless punishment in hell is a heathen notion, and ought to be rejected by all Christians. Surely our Lord did not speak to the Jews about Gehenna in a sense it had not in their sacred books, but in that given it by mere human authority. Did he use a scripture word in a sense which man’s wisdom teaches Are we to believe that he who said to the Jews, “Full well ye reject the commandment of the Lord that ye may keep your own traditions,” thus gave them countenance by his example? Admitting, for argument’s sake, that Gehenna was made the emblem of a place of endless torment, I ask, by what name was it called before this new sense was affixed to the word? Dr. Campbell says it came gradually to mean this place, and at last to be confined to it.
Before it was thus used, was such a place known, and by what word or phrase was it designated? Or was it a nameless place? If so, how could they speak about it? But it seems men came gradually to use Gehenna as an emblem of future torment, before they had any revelation about it. We thought places and things were first known, and then names for them followed; but here the case is very different. In fact, there is something here which will not bear examination. I ask again, why were not men content to speak of hell as God directed, if indeed he had given any direction? Or did men first invent this place of torment, and then make Gehenna a n emblem of it? Unless it is proved that our Lord used Gehenna in this new sense, will it not follow that such a place of torment is not mentioned in the Bible by the name Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, or Gehenna? If it is proved that he used Gehenna in this sense, does it not follow that he adopted a heathen notion, and has made it a principal article of belief to all his followers? Further, Dr. Campbell says that at length the sense of the word was confined to a place of endless woe. But he cannot mean that it was confined to it by the Jews in reading the Old Testament Scriptures. Let any one consult the places where it occurs, and see if it could be so understood by them. If they did, it was a great misunderstanding of the passages; for Dr. C. himself declares that in this sense it does not occur in the Old Testament.
4th. Dr. Campbell says that “Gehenna is originally a compound of the two Hebrew words, ge hinnom, the valley of Hinnom, a place near Jerusalem, of which we hear first in the book of Joshua, 15: 8. It was there that the cruel sacrifices of children were made by fire to Moloch, the Ammonitish idol, 2 Chronicles 23: 10, and that, as it is supposed, from the noise of drums, toph signifying a drum; a noise raised on purpose to drown the cries of the helpless infants.” Here, then, is the origin of Gehenna; and though it does not signify future torment, it occurs in the Old Testament in some sense. What that sense is ought to be carefully considered, and not departed from unless substantial reasons are assigned. According to Dr. Campbell, our Lord would not use Gehenna in a different sense from that of the Old Testament; for in his fifth Dissertation, Part 2, Sect. 13, he says, “Our Lord, we find from the evangelists, spoke to his countrymen in the dialect of their own Scriptures, and used those names to which the reading of the law and the prophets, either in the original or in the versions then used, had familiarized them. Our translators, and indeed most European translators, represent him as using words which, even in their own translations of the Old Testament, never occur, and to which, in fact, there is nothing there that corresponds in meaning.”
In his first Preliminary Dissertation, Part 1, Sect. 1 and 2, he further says, “If the words and phrases employed by the apostles and evangelists, in delivering the revelation committed to them by the Holy Spirit, had not been agreeable to the received usage of the people to whom they spoke, their discourse being unintelligible, could have conveyed no information, and consequently would have been no revelation to the hearers. Our Lord and his apostles, in publishing the gospel, first addressed themselves to their countrymen the Jews; a people who had, many ages before, at different periods, been favoured with other revelations. As the writings of the Old Testament are of a much earlier date, and contain an account of the rise and first establishment, together with a portion of the history, of the nation to whom the gospel was first promulgated, and of whom were all its first missionaries and teachers, it is thence unquestionably that we must learn both what the principal facts, customs, doctrines, and precepts are that are alluded to in the apostolic writings, and what is the proper signification and extent of the expressions used.”
Here, it is admitted that “Our Lord spoke to his countrymen in the dialect of their own Scriptures, and used those names to which the reading of the law and the prophets, either in the original or in the versions then used, had familiarized them.” Taking as true the admission of Dr. C. in regard to the sense of Gehenna in the Old Testament, we cannot suppose that our Lord used it in a different sense, unless he was willing to mislead his hearers. To say that he used Gehenna in a new sense, is to “represent him as using words in a sense which does not occur in the Old Testament, and to which, in fact, there is nothing there that corresponds in meaning.” This, Dr. Campbell condemns, and declares that to the writings of the Old Testament we must go, to learn “the proper signification and extent of the expressions used in the new.” Let us, then, turn to the Old Testament, and learn the “signification and extent” of Gehenna in the New.
What, then, is the meaning of Gehenna in the Old Testament? In what sense or senses is it used there? I answer in the two following.
1st. Literally. Dr. Campbell allows that “it is originally a compound of the two Hebrew words, ge hinnom, the valley of Hinnom, a place near Jerusalem, of which we hear first in the book of Joshua, 15: 8.” The word ge, or gia, signifies a valley, and enm, or Hinnom, the name of its owner. The following are the places where it thus occurs. Joshua 15: 8; 18: 16; Nehemiah 11:30; 2 Chronicles 28: 3, and 23: 6; Jeremiah 32: 35. From these texts we learn that kings and princes, priests and people, burnt their children to Moloch, and practised the most horrid abominations in the valley of Hinnom. The following texts refer to the same scenes of wickedness, 1 Kings 2: 4—8; Ezekiel 16: 20, 21; 23: 37—39; 20: 26—31; Amos 5: 26; Acts 7:43. It was death, by the law of Moses, for any man to sacrifice his children to Moloch, Leviticus 18: 21. Compare 20: 16.
In this valley of Hinnom was Tophet, concerning which Calmet thus writes. “It is thought Tophet was the butchery, or place of slaughter at Jerusalem, lying south of the city, in the valley of the children of Hinnom. It is also said that a constant fire was kept here, for burning the carcasses, and other filth, brought hither from the city. Into the same place they cast the ashes and remains of the images of false gods, when they demolished their altars and statues.
Isaiah 30: 33 seems to allude to this custom of burning dead carcasses in Tophet. Speaking of the defeat of the army of Sennacherib, he says; “For Tophet is ordained of old; yea, for the king it is prepared; he hath made it deep and large; the pile thereof is fire, and much wood; the breath of the Lord, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it.* Others think the name of Tophet is given to the valley of Hinnom because of the sacrifices offered there to the god Moloch, by beat of drum, to drown the cries of the consuming children.”
The idol god Moloch was worshipped in the valley of Hinnom. On the word Moloch, Calmet says: “The rabbin assure us that the idol Moloch was of brass, sitting on a throne of the same metal, adorned with a royal crown, having the head of a calf, and his arms extended as if to embrace any one. When they would offer any children to him, they heated the statue within by a great fire; and when it was burning hot, they put the miserable victim within his arms, where it was soon consumed by the violence of the heat; and, that the cries of the children might not be heard, they made a great noise with drums, and other instruments, about the idol. Others say that his arms were extended, and reaching toward the ground; so that when they put a child within his arms, it immediately fell into a great fire which was burning at the foot of the statue. Others relate that it was hollow, and had internally seven partitions, the first of which was appointed for meal or flour; in the second there were turtles, in the third an ewe, in the fourth a ram, in the fifth a calf, in the sixth an ox, and in the seventh a child. All these were burned together, by heating the statue on the inside.”
In 2 Kings 23: 10, we are told that at the time of Josiah’s reformation, “he defiled Tophet which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Moloch.” Concerning this, Prof. Stuart says, page 141, “After these sacrifices had ceased, the place was desecrated, and made one of loathing and horror. The pious king Josiah caused it to be polluted, 2 Kings 23: 10, that is, he caused to be carried there the filth of the city of Jerusalem. It would seem that the custom of desecrating this place, thus happily begun, was continued in after ages down to the period when our Saviour was on earth. Perpetual fires were kept up, in order to consume the offal which was deposited there; and as the same offal would breed worms (for so all putrefying meat of course does), hence came the expression, ‘Where the worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched.’” Such is the origin of the phraseology in Mark 9: 42—47, by Mr. Stuart’s own showing. “The worm that dies not, and the fire that is not quenched,” was not in a future state, but in the valley of Hinnom. But I find gia enm, or the valley of Hinnom, used in the Old Testament.
* Parkhurst renders this text, “For the furnace is already set in order: for the king (of Assyria namely), it is prepared,” etc. But was hell prepared for this king? And if it refers to hell in another world, “the pile thereof is fire and much wood.” We have heard this text quoted to prove a hell in another world.
2d. Symbolically. By comparing the texts referred to above with their contexts, it will be seen that, on account of the crimes committed in the valley of Hinnom, God threatened to bring on the Jewish nation severe punishment, and as the valley of Hinnom, or Tophet, was the place where their horrid abominations had been committed, so it is used as a symbol or figure to describe their punishment. This is done by Jeremiah, chapter 19, and chapter 7.
“Thus saith the Lord, Go and get a potter’s earthen bottle, and take of the ancients of the people, and of the ancients of the priests; and go forth unto the valley of the son of Hinnom, which is by the entry of the east gate, and proclaim there the words that I shall tell thee; and say, Hear ye the word of the Lord, O kings of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, the which, whosoever hears, his ears shall tingle.
“Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents; they have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt-offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind; therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter. And I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place; and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hands of them that seek their lives; and their carcasses will I give to be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth. And I will make this city desolate, and an hissing; every one that passes thereby shall be astonished, and hiss because of all the plagues thereof. And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in the siege and straightness, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their lives, shall straiten them. Then shalt thou break the bottle in the sight of the men that go with thee, and shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord of hosts:
“Even so will I break this people and this city, as one breaks a potter’s vessel, that cannot be made whole again; and they shall bury them in Tophet, till there be no place to bury. Thus will I do unto this place, saith the Lord, and to the inhabitants thereof, and even make this city as Tophet; and the houses of Jerusalem, and the houses of the kings of Judah, shall be defiled as the place of Tophet, because of all the houses upon whose roofs they have burned incense unto all the host of heaven, and have poured out drink-offerings unto other gods. Then came Jeremiah from Tophet, whither the Lord had sent him to prophesy; and he stood in the court of the Lord’s house, and said to all the people, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I will bring upon this city and upon all her towns all the evil that I have pronounced against it, because they have hardened their necks, that they might not hear my words.” Chapter 7: ver. 29—34.
“Cut off thine hair, O Jerusalem, and cast it away, and take up a lamentation on high places; for the Lord hath rejected and forsaken the generation of his wrath. For the children of Judah have done evil in my sight, saith the Lord; they have set their abominations in the house which is called by my name, to pollute it. And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart. Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall no more be called Tophet, nor the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter; for they shall bury in Tophet till there be no place. And the carcasses of this people shall be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth; and none shall fray them away. Then w ill I cause to cease from the cities of Judah, and from the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride; for the land shall be desolate.”
No one can doubt, after reading these two quotations, that the Old Testament writers made the valley of Hinnom or Tophet an emblem of punishment, and of future punishment, but not of future eternal punishment. It is equally evident that they made it an emblem of future temporal punishment to the Jews as a nation. Not a word is dropped that this punishment was to be in a future state of existence. No; it is a prediction of miseries to be endured by the Jews for their sins. It is not mentioned as a punishment for wicked men generally, or for Jews and Gentiles indiscriminately. No; the Jews, as a nation, were to suffer this punishment. In this prediction they are reminded of the crimes they had committed against the Lord in the valley of Hinnom, and it is used as an emblem of the punishment he was to inflict upon them. This is very apparent from the following verses in the above quoted passages, Jeremiah chapter 7: 20, 21, and 19: 4, 5.
No man, we think, can read these predictions of the prophet, without recognizing that our Lord, in the following texts, referred to the same punishment. “That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except these days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.” Matthew 23: 35, and 24: 21, 22; Luke 21: 22. Yes, the days referred to were indeed the days of vengeance, and the things which God had long predicted were fulfilled, and the above quoted predictions of Jeremiah were surely of the number. But, that we may see more particularly what Jeremiah made Gehenna or Tophet an emblem of, it is necessary to point this out by going over the above predictions.
1st. The prophet predicts that the valley of Hinnom should be to the Jews the valley of slaughter, and that they should bury in Tophet till there should be no place to bury. In proof of its exact fulfilment, I quote the following from Macknight, on Matthew chapter 24. He says: “Besides, in the progress of the siege, the number of the dead, and the stench arising from their unburied carcasses, must have infected the air and occasioned pestilence. For Josephus tells us that the re were no less than six hundred thousand dead bodies carried out of the city, and suffered to lie unburied.” It should be recollected that the valley of Hinnom was in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. We see, then, this part of Jeremiah’s prediction literally and minutely fulfilled.
2d. Jeremiah further predicts “that their carcasses also should be meat for the fowls of heaven and for the beasts of the earth.” If the fowls of the air and beasts of the field did not feed on their carcasses, it was not for want of opportunity, for six hundred thousand of their carcasses lay unburied. This part of the prediction was also literally fulfilled.
3d. Jeremiah also predicts that “in the straightness of the siege they should eat the flesh of their children.” This was also fulfilled in the siege of Jerusalem, as Josephus, their historian, testifies.
4th. He further predicts that “their land should be desolate.” This it soon became after the destruction of the city and temple, and in this state, in a great measure, it remains until this day.
5th. Again, the prophet predicts “that their city should be as Tophet.” We have seen that he said before, “the valley of Hinnom should be to them the valley of slaughter, and that they should bury in Tophet till there should be no place to bury.” It is evident, from the prophet’s prediction, that the city of Jerusalem should be as Tophet, or like unto Tophet. Tophet is used as an emblem, to describe the misery in which it was to be involved by the judgments of God. And why, it may be asked, was Tophet made an emblem of those temporal miseries, rather than anything else? To this I answer, that no temporal miseries, past or future, could equal them in severity, and no place known to a Jew could be more fitly chosen by the prophet as an emblem to represent them.
6th. The prophet adds, that “all the evil which the Lord had spoken he would bring upon them.” The following words of the apostle, 1 Thessalonians 2: 16, sufficiently explain this, “for the wrath is come, or coming upon them to the utmost.” And the words of our Lord, quoted above, “for these be the days of vengeance, that all things that are written may be fulfilled.”
Luke 21: 22. This part of the prediction, compared with these passages, shows that the prophet did refer to the dreadful punishment which God brought upon the Jewish nation at the end of the world, or age, and described Matthew 24. For “all the evil which the Lord had spoken,” he did not bring upon them, until the destruction of their city and temple by the Roman army.
Such are the principal things contained in this prophecy of Jeremiah. It is then put beyond all fair debate, that Gehenna was made an emblem of punishment to the Jews; and nothing but ignorance of their own Scriptures could prevent their fully knowing this. It was made an emblem of temporal punishment, and a very striking emblem indeed. But that it was made an emblem of eternal punishment to the Jews, or any of the human race, does not appear from this prophecy of Jeremiah or any other part of the Bible. We hope these things will be kept in view, as they have a very important bearing on the passages about Gehenna in the New Testament. Gehenna, the valley of Hinnom, or Tophet, is made by Jeremiah an emblem of the temporal calamities coming on the Jewish nation. That in this very way it is used in the New Testament, we shall show when we come to consider the passages where it occurs. Dr. Campbell is so far correct, then, in saying that Gehenna was made an emblem of punishment; but he is certainly wrong in saying that it was made an emblem of future eternal punishment for the devil and his angels, or any other beings in the universe. Supposing Gehenna to have been made an emblem of the place of eternal torment to the wicked, it is certain that it was not done by the Old Testament writers. Dr. Campbell assures us that in this manner it does not occur in the Old Testament. That he is correct in this, is plain from the places in which it occurs. Is it not, then, deserving particular notice, that the Old Testament writers should use the term Gehenna as an emblem of temporal and not of eternal punishment; and yet we are told that in process of time it came to be used as an emblem of eternal punishment; but no man can tell us on whose authority this was done?
SECTION 5
FACTS STATED RESPECTING GEHENNA,
SHOWING THAT IT DOES NOT EXPRESS A PLACE OF ENDLESS PUNISHMENT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
BEFORE we consider the texts, where Gehenna occurs in the New Testament, it is of importance to notice the following facts. They have been altogether overlooked, or but little attended to in discussions on this subject.
1st. The term Gehenna is not used in the Old Testament to designate a place of endless punishment. Dr. Campbell declares positively that it has no such meaning there. All agree with him; and this should lead to careful inquiry whether in the New Testament it can mean a place of endless misery. This has been too long believed without examination. The admitted fact that it has no such sense in the Old Testament ought to create the suspicion that its sense is misunderstood in the New.
2d. Those who believe Gehenna designates a place of endless punishment in the New Testament, entirely overlook its meaning in the Old. All admit its literal original signification to be the valley of Hinnom. But not one of them takes the least notice that Gehenna was used also by Jeremiah, as a source of imagery or emblem, to describe the punishment God threatened to the Jewish nation. But why overlook this sense of it in the Old Testament? Is it not possible, yea, is it not probable, that this may be its sense in the New? All critics admit the language of the New Testament is derived from the Old, and ought to be interpreted by it.
3d. Those who believe Gehenna in the New Testament designates a place of endless punishment give it this sense on mere human authority. Dr. Campbell, above, says, Gehenna came gradually to assume this sense, and at last came to be confined to it. But no divine authority is referred to for the change. Professor Stuart refers to the later Jews, the Rabbinical writers, as authority: and finally tells us, “Gehenna came to be used as a designation of the infernal regions, because the Hebrews supposed that demons dwelt in this valley.” But who can believe the term Gehenna in the New Testament is used in a sense which originated in a silly, superstitious notion?
4th. The word Gehenna only occurs twelve times in the New Testament. The following are all the texts. Matthew 5: 22, 29, 30, and 18: 9; Mark 9: 43—47; Luke 12: 5; Matthew 10: 28, and 23: 15; 33; James 3: 6. The rendering of Gehenna in these texts is uniformly hell in the common version. The fact that Gehenna is only used twelve times in the New Testament deserves notice; for Dr. Campbell and others say, this is the only word in the Bible which designates a place of endless punishment. If this is true, the place of endless punishment is only mentioned twelve times. But, really, Gehenna was not used even twelve times. It occurs eleven times in the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, which all know are only three histories of the same discourses in which Gehenna was used by our Lord. Viewing the subject in this light, few words of such importance occur so seldom in the New Testament as the word Gehenna. I notice this, to show the difference between our Lord and modern preachers as to the frequency of their use of the word hell. Allowing it used twelve times in the New Testament, this is not so often as many preachers use it in a single sermon.
5th. The word Gehenna is used by our Lord, and by James, but by no other person in the New Testament. Any person who can read English may satisfy himself of this fact, by reading the texts referred to above. John wrote the history of our Lord, as well as Matthew, Mark and Luke; but he does not use Gehenna either in his gospel or epistles. What is more remarkable, Luke, though he uses Gehenna once in his gospel, does not use it in Acts, which contains the history of the apostles’ preaching for thirty years. Paul, Peter and Jude are entirely silent about Gehenna, which is very strange, if it designated a place of endless punishment. The writings of those persons who do not use it form two thirds of the New Testament. But, surely, it is a very natural expectation, warranted by the frequent mention of other important subjects, that all the writers in the New Testament should often speak of Gehenna, if it means a place of endless misery. And if they believed this, yet were silent about it, they were not so faithful as most modern preachers. But can any man believe that our Lord’s disciples understood him to mean by Gehenna a place of endless misery, yet most of them never said a word about it in their preaching, or in their letters to the churches? Is it at all probable that they would lay aside the term used by our Lord to designate such a place, and adopt some other language to express it? We strongly doubt this.
6th. All that is said about Gehenna in the New Testament was spoken to Jews, and to Jews only. No Gentile is ever threatened with Gehenna punishment. Any person can satisfy himself of this by simply reading the texts where Gehenna is used, with their respective contexts. It is of no consequence to decide to whom the gospels were originally addressed, for, in the eleven places where our Lord used the term Gehenna, it is certain he was speaking to Jews. An d in the only place where it occurs, it is certain James wrote to the twelve tribes which were scattered abroad. James 1: 1, comp. chapter 3: 6. It forms no objection to this fact, “that our Lord’s ministry was among the Jews, and not among the Gentiles, hence he could not say to the Gentiles as to the Jews, ‘How can ye escape the damnation of hell (Gehenna)?”
The apostles’ ministry was among the Gentiles; but they never say anything to them about Gehenna in any shape whatever, which shows that the “damnation of Gehenna” only concerned the Jews. This fact is of great importance in the present investigation. Let us, then, attach what sense we please to the term, it is certain that Jews are the only persons concerned in its punishment. As proof of this it may be observed, that Matthew, Mark and Luke, are thought to have written their gospels for the use of the Jews, and in them Gehenna is used. It seems certain that John wrote his gospel for the use of the Gentiles, for he explains Jewish places, names, and customs, altogether unnecessary in writing to Jews. But it deserves especial notice that John does not mention Gehenna, and omits all the discourses of our Lord in which he spoke of it. If the damnation of Gehenna or hell only concerned the Jews, we see a good reason for such an omission; but if it equally concerned the Gentiles, how shall any man account for the omission on rational and scriptural principles? If Jews and Gentiles were alike concerned in the punishment of Gehenna, why were not both alike admonished concerning it? How, I ask, could the Gentiles avoid the punishment of Gehenna, seeing no sacred writer said anything to them about it? Does not this very omission prove that the New Testament writers did not mean by Gehenna a place of endless misery, but that it designated the temporal punishment which Jeremiah predicted to the Jewish nation?
To the above it may possibly be objected, “Were not all the Scriptures written for the benefit of mankind? Why, then, make this distinction between Jews and Gentiles?” Answer: “Whatsoever was written afore time was written for our instruction.” But notwithstanding this, who does not make this very distinction? As Gentiles, we m ay derive much instruction from Matthew, chaps. 23d and 24th; but all allow that these two chapters had a particular reference to the Jews. In the first, some of the most important things occur which our Lord ever delivered respecting Gehenna. Who denies that the words, “Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers,” had a special reference to the Jews as a nation? By why not also the very next words, “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” And as this is the only instance where our Lord ever threatened the unbelieving Jews with the “damnation of Gehenna,” and no sacred writer ever threatened the Gentiles with it, who can doubt this punishment only respected Jews? This fact ought to lead all to suspect that our Lord, by Gehenna, meant the temporal punishment coming on the Jewish nation, and not a place of endless punishment. The man who can avoid such a suspicion must have some way of accounting for this and other facts of which I am ignorant.
7th. Nearly all that our Lord said about Gehenna was spoken to his own disciples. In the twelve places where it occurs, only in two instances is there an allusion to the unbelieving part of the Jewish nation. In nine of the other instances our Lord was addressing his own disciples. They are the persons principally warned against Gehenna. In the only other instance James was addressing believing Jews of the twelve tribes scattered abroad. A reference to the texts will satisfy the reader as to the correctness of these statements. I then ask, if our Lord by Gehenna meant a place of endless misery, why was he so solicitous that his few disciples should escape this punishment, yet say so little concerning it to the unbelieving multitude? How is this to be rationally and scripturally accounted for? Besides, he always spoke about Gehenna to his disciples as a thing they might escape; but to the unbelieving Jews he said, “How can ye escape the damnation of hell?” Why warn those so often, who were in the least danger of Gehenna, yet only threaten once those in the greatest danger of it, if the common opinions on the subject are correct? Our Lord’s conduct differs very much from that of preachers in the present day. What preacher now shows more solicitude that the few in his church should be saved from Gehenna or hell, than the multitude he considers living in disobedience? Why they act so differently from our Lord, I must leave for others to explain. I am satisfied that this can never be rationally accounted for on the common opinions respecting Gehenna. I may add, either our Lord said a great deal too little about Gehenna, or hell, to the wicked, or modern preachers say a great deal too much. Which of these is the truth must be left for themselves to determine. This, with the other facts above, must create more than a doubt that Gehenna in the New Testament does not mean a place of endless punishment.
8th. Wherever Gehenna is mentioned in the New Testament, the persons addressed are supposed to be perfectly acquainted with its meaning. No explanation is asked by the hearer, none is given by the speaker, nor is it supposed by either to be necessary. The Jews were always the persons addressed about Gehenna. The first time our Lord addressed his disciples about it, Matthew 5: 22, they had no more occasion to ask him what he meant by Gehenna, than what he meant by the judgment and council. And when he said to the unbelieving Jews, “How can ye escape the damnation of Gehenna?” they understood as well what punishment he meant, as if he had spoken of stoning to death. If all this be true, and we think it indisputable, the question arises, Did the Jews our Lord addressed understand Gehenna to mean a place of endless misery? As this is generally asserted, I have a right to ask, from what source of information did they learn this sense of the word? I can think of no other sources from which they could possibly derive it, except the following:—
1st. From immediate inspiration. But no evidence of this can be produced; nor is it even alleged by those who contend that Gehenna in the New Testament means a place of end less punishment. No man will assert this, who has considered the subject.
2d. The preaching of John the Baptist. But this cannot be alleged, for John never said a word about Gehenna in his preaching, if a correct account is given of it in the New Testament.
3d. The instructions or explanations of the Saviour. This, no man will aver who has read the four gospels; for our Lord never explained Gehenna to mean the place of endless punishment.
4th. The Old Testament. All admit that Gehenna is not used in the Old Testament to designate a place of endless misery. Dr. Campbell declared that in this sense it is not found there.
5th. The assertions of uninspired men. This is the source whence originated the sense now given to Gehenna. Indeed, no higher authority is quoted than this; no one contends that God first gave it such a sense. Dr. Campbell said, “Gehenna in process of time came to be used in this sense, and at length came to be confined to it.” And Professor Stuart refers us to Rabbinical writers as his authority that Gehenna in the New Testament means a place of endless punishment. In fact, he traces the origin of this sense given to Gehenna, to the silly superstition among the Jews, who thought demons dwelt in the valley of Hinnom. Such is the way, the believers in endless hell torments say, Gehenna came to have such a sense attached to it. We presume no man can devise a better.
But let us suppose the Jews understood our Lord, by Gehenna, to mean a place of endless punishment. How were they likely to relish such a threatening? Not very well, for we shall see afterwards, from Dr. Whitby, that the Jews believed no Jew, however wicked, would go to hell. I ask, then, how was it possible for our Lord to say to the unbelieving Jews, “How can ye escape the damnation of hell?” without exciting their wrath and indignation against him? But nothing is said in the four gospels that this threatening excited their indignation, or that it was ever brought up as an accusation against him.
There is no evidence that the unbelieving Jews understood our Lord in one sense, and the disciples in another. No; nor have we ever seen or heard that this has been alleged by any one. How, then, did both understand him? I answer this question by asking, how ought they to have understood him according to the meaning of Gehenna in their own Scriptures?
Certainly either as meaning the literal valley of Hinnom, or symbol of the punishment God had threatened their nation, as seen from Jeremiah. In no other sense was Gehenna used in their Scriptures. In the last of these senses they must have understood him; for when our Lord spoke to them of Gehenna, it was the punishment of Gehenna; and that such a punishment had been threatened by Jeremiah, no Jew could be ignorant who was acquainted with the Scriptures. If the Scriptures were the common source of information, both to believing and unbelieving Jews, none of them could understand our Lord, by Gehenna punishment, to mean endless punishment in a future state; for they contained no such information. Those who contend that the Jews so understood our Lord, are bound to inform us how they came by this information, seeing it was not found in their Scriptures. Who taught them this doctrine? Was it from heaven or of men? These are the questions at issue. To assume that Gehenna means a place of endless punishment, will not satisfy candid inquirers after truth. And to refer them to Rabbinical authority for this sense of Gehenna, is plainly admitting that it cannot be supported by a fair appeal to the Bible.
We have some additional facts to produce, to show that Gehenna, in the New Testament, does not designate a place of endless misery to the wicked. But these will be more appropriately introduced, after we have considered all the texts in the New Testament where the word occurs.
SECTION 6
ALL THE TEXTS IN WHICH GEHENNA OCCURS,
CONSIDERED.
THAT the term Gehenna, in the New Testament, designates punishment, all admit, but the question is, What is that punishment? Is it endless punishment, as Dr. Campbell and others assert; or is it God’s judgments on the Jewish nation, in the destruction of their city and temple?
Some have alleged that Gehenna in the New Testament might refer to “that dreadful doom of being burned alive in the valley of Hinnom.” But this is far from being probable, for burning alive in the valley of Hinnom was not a Roman punishment; and in our Lord’s day the Jews had not power to put any man legally to death, by any mode of punishment whatever. Burning alive in the valley of Hinnom was, in our Lord’s day, unknown among the Jews. To this horrid practice, then, I think he could not allude when he threatened them with the damnation of Gehenna.
Schleusner observes, that among the Jews “any severe punishment, especially a shameful kind of death, was denominated Gehenna.” If this remark is correct, it well agrees with the prediction of Jeremiah. He had used Gehenna as imagery to describe the punishment to be inflicted on the Jewish nation, when on them came all the righteous blood shed on the earth.
That this punishment was severe is certain. Our Lord declared, “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved.” Matthew 24:21, 22. Josephus said, six hundred thousand dead bodies were carried out of Jerusalem and suffered to lie unburied. Their punishment, then, was both severe and shameful, and might well be denominated Gehenna, for no place was more horrible to Jews than the valley of Hinnom. It was a fit emblem to describe their punishment.
It cannot be consistently objected by believers in endless misery, that the inspired writers made Gehenna an emblem of the temporal punishment which came on the Jewish nation, seeing they make it an emblem of endless punishment in a future state. To adopt the words of Mr. Stuart, “What could be a more appropriate term than this, when we consider the horrid cruelties and diabolical rites which had been there performed,” to describe the carnage of the Jews in the destruction of their city and temple? But, let us attend to the passages, and see how they agree to this view of the subject.
Matthew 5: 22. “But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell (Gehenna) fire.” This is the first time Gehenna is mentioned in the New Testament and was addressed by our Lord to his own disciples. If it means hell, the world of woe, I ask, were they in so much more danger of going there than the unbelieving Jews, that he first warned them about it? Yea, was their condition so perilous that the chief thing said about Gehenna was addressed to them? But the passage or its context affords no proof that our Lord, by Gehenna, referred to a place of punishment in a future state. This sense of Gehenna is assumed, and in face of evidence to the contrary, as I shall now show.
1st. In the passage there are three crimes and three punishments mentioned. No one supposes the two first refer to a future state. Why, then, should the third? Is the crime of calling a brother a fool so much worse than the other two that it puts the person “in danger of hell,” or endless punishment?
2d. The question then is, what did our Lord mean by Gehenna fire, or, as Mr. Stuart renders it, “the fire of the valley of Hinnom”? He says, “It is employed as a source of imagery, to describe the punishment of a future world, which the Judge of all hearts and intentions will inflict.” But this is assuming the question in discussion, and deserves no regard. Schleusner says, “Any severe punishment, especially a shameful kind of death, was denominated Gehenna.” Jeremiah, we have seen, describes the punishment of the Jews, as a nation, under the emblem of Gehenna. This punishment was at hand, when our Lord addressed his disciples in this passage. What, then, did he mean by “Gehenna fire”? I answer, nothing can be more obvious from the Bible, than that fire is a common figure to express God’s judgments on men for their sins. No man can doubt this who consults the following among other passages: Deuteronomy 32: 22—25; Isaiah 66: 15, 16; 5: 24, 25; 30: 27—33; 9: 18,19;10: 16—18; Ezekiel 22: 18—22, 41. See, also, the two first chapters of Amos. I shall only quote one or two examples in proof, respecting the Jews. Jeremiah, Lam. 2: 3, says, “God burned against Jacob like a flaming fire, which devours round about.” And David says, Psalm 89: 46, “Shall thy wrath burn like fire?”
It is contended, by believers in endless misery, that what is expressed by the word punishment, Matthew 25: 46, is described figuratively by the word fire, verse 41. Thus, according to the figurative use of the term fire, and according to Schleusner, “Gehenna fire” means “any severe punishment, especially a shameful kind of death.” And we can be at no loss in determining to what punishment our Lord referred, as Jeremiah, under the emblem of Gehenna, predicted a most severe punishment to the Jewish nation. Where could he have found a more appropriate emblem than Gehenna? It was certainly a more appropriate term to describe God’s temporal punishment of the Jews, than to describe an eternal punishment in a future state of which we know nothing, for no description of it is given in the Bible. 3d. Let us inquire what Gehenna fire our Lord’s disciples were in danger of. That they were in danger of the punishment God was about to inflict on their nation, no one will dispute. See how careful our Lord was, Matthew 24, in pointing out to them how they might escape this punishment. He tells them, verse 13, “He that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.” Saved from what? The context clearly shows; they would be saved from this punishment coming on their nation. But the utmost watchfulness on their part was necessary, for this day of vengeance would come upon the nation unawares, Matthew 24:42—51. Compare 1 Thessalonians 5:1—10.
But where does our Lord show like earnestness in warning his disciples that they might escape Gehenna fire, or endless misery in a future state? The following objection may perhaps be urged against the above view of this passage.
“Allowing Gehenna to refer to the temporal punishment coming on the Jewish nation, why did calling a brother a fool subject to this punishment, rather than the other crimes mentioned?” Answer: As Gehenna fire, or God’shttp://www.ThreeAngels.com.au temporal judgments on the Jews, is the greatest punishment mentioned in the passage, we may expect that the crime of which it is the punishment was also the greatest. The word moreh, rendered fool, Dr. Campbell renders miscreant; and in his preface to Matthew’s Gospel, says, “The word moreh, here used by the evangelist, differs only in number from morim, the compellation with which Moses and Aaron addressed the people of Israel when they said, Numbers 20: 10, with manifest and indecent passion, as rendered in the English Bible, ‘Hear now, ye rebels!’ and were, for their punishment, not permitted to enter the land of Canaan. The word, however, as it is oftener used to imply rebellion against God than against any earthly sovereign, and as it includes disbelief of his word as well as disobedience to his command, I think might be better rendered in this place miscreant, which is also, like the original term, expressive of the greatest abhorrence and detestation. In this way translated, the gradation of crimes as well as of punishments is preserved, and the impropriety avoided of delivering a moral precept, of consequence to men of all denominations, in words intelligible only to the learned.” *
* We have here a reference to two courts among the Jews; one called the Judgment, and the other the Council. The Judgment was a court composed of seven persons, and tried cases of murder. Hence the expression: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.” Appeals could be taken from this court to the Council or Sanhedrim, a court composed of seventy-two persons, selected from among the principal men of the commonwealth.
Not only are these two courts referred to, but the different modes of inflicting death among the Jews. The Judgment had its modes; so also had the Council. The former inflicted the punishment of death by strangling, and the latter by stoning, and other ways. Its authority was very extensive. It decided cases brought before it by appeal from the inferior courts; and even the king, the high priests and the prophets, were under its jurisdiction. Before it were brought the general affairs of the nation. The worst of all punishments known in history were inflicted by it. One of its extreme forms of punishment is mentioned in the text, and called hell fire. This consisted of being burned alive in the valley of Hinnom.
Here, then, we have the three modes of punishment to which the Saviour referred: strangulation, stoning, burning alive. But it may be said, this rather increases than settles the difficulties in the text; for surely it cannot mean that those guilty of the offences named were to be subjected to these punishments. I grant this. I grant it because the courts named could not take cognizance of the sins here mentioned; they could not, for they had no rights of this kind vested in them; and they could not, for it was not possible to know when anger had possession of the heart. It does not always find vent; it may be smothered, and burn within like a smouldering fire. This renders it certain that Christ did not mean that one who was angry without a cause should be strangled to death; that one who should say Raca, should be stoned to death; or that one who should say, Thou fool, should be burnt to death in the valley of Hinnom. I want this point remembered, for it is one of great importance, and has a direct bearing on the question at issue between us and the advocate of endless misery. He contends that when Christ says, “Shall be in danger of hell fire,” he means shall be in danger of being doomed to a place of ceaseless woe in the eternal world, called Gehenna.
Now, if we say Christ used the Judgment, the Council, and hell fire, merely to represent the punishment to which the sin of anger would expose, and not to teach that those guilty of it in the several forms named should be dealt with by the courts mentioned, we admit that he uses Gehenna here to represent punishment, and that it stands in the place of something else.
And here I would call attention to an important fact. If the Judgment is used to represent a punishment, the Council and hell fire are used in the same sense; on the other hand, if hell fire is used to denote a place of endless woe, then the Judgment and the Council are used to denote that those guilty of anger should be strangled and stoned to death. But this interpretation is against fact; for these courts never took any cognizance of the mere sin of anger, or the expression Raca; and, therefore, if the Saviour taught that these sins would be punished by strangulation and stoning, he taught that which never occurred. In each case, then, he used the punishment referred to as a representative of that to which the sinner would be doomed.
Let it be observed that there is a regular gradation to the punishments. Strangulation was regarded by the Jews as the easiest way a man could be put to death; being stoned was much more dreadful; but being burnt alive in Gehenna was a death of horror and terrible disgrace. The idea, then, of the Master is this: The Jews say, that those who kill shall be put to death by the Judgment; but I say, if you are angry without a cause, you shall suffer a punishment as severe as the death inflicted by the Judgment; if you say Raca, you shall suffer a punishment as severe as being stoned; but if you say Thou fool, you shall suffer a punishment as severe as being burned alive in the valley of Hinnom. Thus in each case the temporal punishment spoken of was used to represent the severity of the punishment which God would inflict.
If I am right here, Gehenna does not mean, in this text, a place of torture in the next world, but simply the valley of Hinnom, where some of the worst criminals were burnt alive. Dr. Clarke says, “Our Lord here alludes to the valley of the Son of Hinnom.” He also says, “It is very probable that our Lord here means no more than this: If a man charge another with apostasy from the Jewish religion or rebellion against God, and cannot prove his charge, then he is exposed to their punishment (burning alive), which the other must have suffered if the charge had been substantiated.” The Doctor adds: “There are three kinds of offences here, which exceed each other in their degrees of guilt. 1. Anger against a man, accompanied with some injurious act. 2. Contempt, expressed by the opprobrious epithet, raca, or shallow-brains. 3. Hatred and mortal enmity, expressed by the term moreh, or apostate, where such apostasy could not be proved. Now, proportioned to these three offences were three different degrees of punishment, each exceeding the other in its severity, as the offences exceeded each other in their different degrees of guilt. 1. The Judgment, which could inflict the punishment of strangling. 2. The Sanhedrim or Great Council, which could inflict the punishment of stoning. And, 3. The being burnt alive in the valley of the Son of Hinnom. This appears to be the meaning of our Lord.”
Matthew 5: 28, 29. “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell (Gehenna). And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell (Gehenna).” Here again our Lord was addressing his own disciples; and whatever was meant by Gehenna in verse 22, the same must be meant here, as all will allow. Let us then inquire, 1st. What our Lord meant by Gehenna. On this text, Mr. Stuart says, “Most certainly this cannot be understood of a literal casting into Gehenna; for who was to execute such a punishment? Not the Jewish courts; for they had no cognizance of the offence which a man’s right hand or right eye moved him to commit; that is, they could not call in question and punish a member of the human body, because it tempted its owner to sin. It must, then, be a punishment which God would inflict. But was this a literal casting into the valley of Hinnom? It may, however, be said that the caution of the Saviour runs thus, ‘Avoid all temptation to sin, lest you bring on yourself the terrible punishment of being burned in the valley of Hinnom, in case you give way to any temptation.’
This would be a possible interpretation, provided the crimes in question could be shown to be of such a nature as w ere punishable in this manner by the Jewish courts. But as this cannot be done, this exegesis seems to be fairly incapable of admission.” On this quotation I remark, 1st. We perfectly agree with Mr. Stuart that this cannot be understood of “the terrible punishment of being burned in the valley of Hinnom.” And we also agree with him that “it must then be a punishment which God would inflict.” But, we ask, does God inflict no punishment but that of casting the whole body into hell, the world of woe? But, 2d. What does Gehenna in this passage mean? It is here used twice, but without the word fire being added. It is no doubt understood, however, from verse 22, noticed above, to which I here refer. Our Lord’s warning here is more alarming, for he says twice, “And not that thy whole body should be cast into hell (Gehenna).” But to understand him as meaning that their whole body should be cast into a place of endless misery, is inadmissible. This sense of the term is entirely assumed, for nothing in the text or context authorizes such a construction.
But it does not accord with the facts of the case; for an instance was never known of an individual having his whole body, or soul and body, cast into a place of endless misery. This is not done surely at any man’s death, as every sexton in the world can testify. And to say it shall be done at the resurrection of the dead, is not only an unsupported assertion, but is contrary to all the texts which speak of the resurrection. It does not even accord with modern preaching. Who tells his audience that their whole bodies are to be cast into hell, the world of woe? If it is to be done at the resurrection, then immortal, incorruptible bodies are to be cast into this place of endless misery. Besides, Christians are in great danger of this; for, be it remembered, Christ was not speaking here to wicked people, but to his own disciples. But are modern Christians much afraid that their whole body is to be cast into endless misery?
But understand our Lord here to use Gehenna, as Jeremiah did, as a source of imagery to describe the punishment God was about to inflict on the Jewish nation, and all is plain and consistent. When it came upon them, there was even a literal casting into the valley of Hinnom. Did not Jeremiah say the valley of Hinnom was to be to the Jews the valley of slaughter; and that they should bury in Tophet till there was no place? And does not Josephus declare that six hundred thousand of the carcasses of the Jews were cast out of Jerusalem and lay unburied? And who will deny that God inflicted this punishment, although he used human agents to accomplish it? Viewing the subject thus, we see good reason for what our Lord here said to his disciples about Gehenna, If anything dear to them as a right eye or right hand proved a temptation to sin or apostasy, they must part with it. This was profitable to them, for only he who endured to the end should be saved. If they continued faithful and http://www.ThreeAngels.com.auobeyed his instructions, they should escape the damnation of Gehenna; that punishment which the unbelieving part of the nation could not escape. *
* Dr. Ballou, in volume i. of the Universalist Quarterly, has the following criticism upon this text. He says: “We take it for granted, that this passage is metaphorical. For nobody, so far as we have learned, supposes the real meaning to be what the words literally express, namely, that we should extract, or amputate, one of our members, in certain cases, lest it should be the means of destroying our whole body. True, it may sometimes be advisable to submit to such a mutilation, in order to preserve our lives; but still, this is not the duty which our Saviour here aims to enforce, nor is it, properly speaking, the subject he is treating of, notwithstanding it is the import of his language when taken literally. He uses this well-known example of a most painful sacrifice for the preservation of corporeal life, only that he may the more strongly enforce a corresponding solicitude to preserve the moral life of the soul. This, we suppose, all will admit to have been his object.
“And if so, it naturally follows that those prominent particulars in the passage, which literally relate to the body, are to be understood as figures, and interpreted accordingly; the right eye or hand, the plucking of it out or cutting it off, the perishing of one member of the body, and the casting of the whole body into Gehenna, or the valley of Hinnom (translated in our common version, hell), all are metaphorical, meaning something else, of a moral or spiritual nature. That is, the right eye or hand becoming an offence, means something else than is literally expressed; so does the plucking of it out, or cutting it off; also, the perishing of one member of the body, and the casting of the whole body into Gehenna, likewise mean something else than is literally expressed. These are but the figures which are employed to denote other ideas. This consideration, which grows directly out of the obvious character of the passage, has not been sufficiently attended to, by interpreters; and, of course, their expositions have been proportionably confused.
“It may help us to the natural and consistent view of the text, if we take the precaution, in the first place, to distinguish between the outward frame-work of metaphors, of which it is composed, and the meaning which the whole was designed to convey: just as we would distinguish between the literal story in a parable, and its signification or moral. Now, the imagery, or figurative representation in the text, when taken literally, is this: that if one’s eye or hand become to him an offence, or cause of danger, it is better for him to part with it, even though it be a right eye, or right hand, than to let it remain to corrupt and finally mortify the whole body, making it a loathsome carcass, fit only to be thrown into that abominable receptacle of filth, the valley of Hinnom, or Gehenna. To the feelings of a Jew, it was the most horrible ignominy to have his corpse unburied, cast into that desecrated place, where the worms were perpetually swarming over the mass of offal, garbage and dead bodies, while a fire was always kept burning to consume the remains. Such, then, is the form of the metaphor here employed. But the meaning which the figure was designed to convey, appears to be, that it is better to deny ourselves everything, howsoever innocent and even valuable in itself, if it become to us an occasion of sin, lest it should be the means of depraving the whole heart and life, and thus of bringing upon us the most dreadful consequences,—consequences that are aptly represented in the figure, by having one’s dishonoured and putrid corpse thrown into the accursed valley of Hinnom. It will be perceived, at once, that this exposition follows the figure out consistently to the end, by a perfectly easy and natural application of it.”
We regard the above comment to be of great value, and as proving beyond all question that Gehenna was not used in this text, as the name of a place of future misery. There is a difference, we are aware, between Dr. Ballou’s opinion and Mr. Balfour’s. While both deny that there is any reference to an endless hell, Mr. Ballou thinks that Gehenna is used as a figure of punishment, and Mr. Balfour to denote the national judgment by which the Jews should be destroyed.
Matthew 10: 28. “Fear not them who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (Gehenna).” The following are all the remarks Mr. Stuart makes on this passage: “The body might, indeed, be literally burned in the valley of Hinnom; but the immaterial, immortal soul—is that to be literally burned there? “We answer, no; for no Universalist holds any such opinion, as Mr. Stuart knows. But we ask him, in turn, How is he to punish the whole body or soul and body in his hell, without fire or some other means of torment? If soul and body are to be tormented there, why not employ fire just as well as anything else to do it? Was not his hell long considered a place of literal fire and brimstone? Do not some still speak of it as such? Is his immaterial, immortal soul to be burned there? But let the punishment of his hell be what he pleases, if it is taught in this text, soul and body, according to his views, are to be destroyed there.
But we ask Mr. Stuart, where the Scriptures speak of an “immaterial, immortal soul”? Has he forgotten that he told us psuhe, Acts 2: 29, which is the same word for soul in this text, means me? See its corresponding word, nephish, Psalm 16: 10. Until he proves man has an immaterial, immortal soul, it is premature to speak of it as being burned in any place.
But let us attend to the passage, and see what our Lord taught by it. Here, as in the preceding texts, he addressed his disciples, and taught them how to conduct themselves in preaching the gospel. The text and the context show that he was not speaking of a future state, but fortifying their minds in view of the difficulties they were about to encounter. The passage says, 1st. “Fear not them which kill the body but are not able to kill the soul (psuhe).”
By the body (soma), all allow is meant the fleshly part of man, which is here and in other places distinguished from his psuhe, soul or life. The persons who might kill the body were many, and are designated by the plural word, them. The term here rendered kill, means to slay, to put to death, as its scripture usage shows. It is here said men can kill the body, “but are not able to kill the soul.” What, then, is meant by the soul?
Mr. Stuart and others say the immaterial, immortal soul which, after death, is susceptible of happiness or misery in a disembodied state. But this must not be assumed. No proof is offered. That psuhe, here rendered soul, often means the life, is evident. It is rendered life in verse 39 of the context.
But it may be objected, if soul only means here the life, is not it killed, when men kill the body? We answer no, for this is most expressly denied in the passage. They “are not able to kill the soul.” In one sense they do kill it, namely, the soul or life is no longer in the body. But it is not killed, for at death the soul or spirit returns to God who gave it. Ecclesiastes 3: 19—22. It returns to the fountain of life, and is to be restored to man, an immortal life, in the resurrection. After this, man shall not die any more, but shall be equal unto the angels which are in heaven. Until this period, man’s life is hid with Christ in God. It is laid up for him, and will then be restored to him. So far as I can find from Scripture, man is now mortal, but is to be constituted immortal in the resurrection. Indeed, if he was now immortal, neither God nor man could kill him; for can that which is immortal die? But we are told in the next part of the verse that God is “able to destroy both soul and body.” This God can do, for if it pleased him he could blot man forever out of existence.
2d. “But rather fear him, who can destroy both soul and body in hell (Gehenna).” The word him, in this part of the passage, refers to some one who is placed in contrast to them in the first part of the verse. This is obvious. The question is, to what one did our Lord refer? If it is said, it refers to man, the question returns—what man? I also ask, how could this one man do what more than one are said, in the former part of the verse, not to be able to do? If it is said, the civil magistrate is the man referred to, I then ask, could he kill the soul or life, which others could not do? Could he “destroy both soul and body”? If so, then God himself could do no more than this. But unless it can be shown that destroying “both soul and body in Gehenna” was a punishment inflicted by the civil magistrate in our Lord’s day, it is not at all probable that our Lord referred to him. Besides, why should his disciples fear the civil magistrate in this case, yet be commanded not to fear them who kill the body? Were his disciples to have no fear of others who killed them, yet to fear the civil magistrate, whose power could not go much beyond this? Perhaps it may be said, according to Schleusner, “Any severe punishment, especially a shameful kind of death, was denominated Gehenna. This the civil magistrate could inflict on Christ’s disciples, and hence they are here exhorted to fear him.” But if this was our Lord’s meaning, his disciples paid little regard to his words, as their future history shows. In the execution of their mission, they do not seem to have feared even the civil authority, so as to be deterred from their duty.
Who, then, is referred to by the word him, whom the disciples were commanded to fear? God, we think, is the being spoken of. He “is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (Gehenna).” It will not, I presume, be questioned that the terms rendered kill and destroy are, in this verse, used as in the other part of the text. As the word kill cannot mean merely to hurt or punish the body in the first clause of the first part of the verse, so neither can it mean to hurt or punish the soul in the second clause. And, in the second part of the verse, the word destroy is used as an equivalent to the word kill in the first; and what man in the first part is not able to do, God, in the second, is able to do. God “is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (Gehenna).” That the terms rendered kill and destroy, are used to express the same thing will appear from the following:—
1st. Let us notice the word apokteino, here rendered kill. Its general usage is to slay, kill, or put to death. Mark 3: 4, is the only text where it is used to express the killing of the soul or life. “Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath days, or to do evil? To save life (psuhen), or to kill (apokteino)? “But in the parallel text, Luke 6: 9, the word rendered destroy is used to express the same idea. “Is it lawful on the Sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? To save life (psuhen), or to destroy (apolesai) it?” Let the reader notice the same term, psuhe, soul, in the text in question, is in these texts rendered life, and it is said can be killed or destroyed. But can this psuhe, soul, mean an immortal soul?
And can it be killed or destroyed? We should think not. No sacred writer mentions an immortal soul. Why, then, should it be contended that this is the sense of the passage before us? See Romans 7: 11; Ephesians 2: 16; 2 Corinthians 3: 6, where apokteino is used, but without any relation to our present subject.
Let us now notice, 2d. The word apollumi, here rendered destroy. This term, we have just seen, is used by Luke, in chapter 6: 9, as equivalent to apokteino, kill, in Mark 3: 4; and both words are in these texts applied to killing or destroying the psuhe, soul, or life. The term apollumi is also used in the following texts to express destroying the psuhe, soul or life. Matthew 10: 39, “He that finds his life (psuhen), shall lose (apolesei) it; and he that loses (apolesas) his life (psuhen), shall find it.” But must a man lose his immortal soul before he can find it? Again, Luke 17: 38, “Whosoever shall seek to save his life (psuhen), shall lose (apolesei) it; and whosoever shall lose (apolesei) his life, shall preserve it.” Is it then true that the man who seeks to save his immortal soul is sure to lose it; and he who shall lose it is certain to save it? This is reversing what is said about immortal souls and their salvation in the present day.
But again, John 12:25: “He that loves his life (psuhen), shall lose (apolesei) it; and he that hates his life (psuhen) in this world, shall keep it unto life eternal.” If psuhe, soul, means an immortal soul, then the true way to secure its salvation is not to love it, but to hate it in this world. Again, Matthew 16: 24, 26, “For whosoever will save his life (psuhen), shall lose (apolesei) it; and whosoever will lose (apolesei) his life (psuhen), for my sake, shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul (psuhen)?” See the same thing stated, Mark 8: 35—37, also in Luke 9: 24, 25, with this variation, “and lose (apolesas) himself, or be cast away.” How cast away? it may be asked. I answer, just as the unbelieving Jews were, Romans 11: 15. Compare 1 Corinthians 9: 27; Luke 9: 56. “For the Son of man is not come to destroy (apolesai) men’s lives (psuhas), but to save them.”
It is now obvious that, in a considerable number of texts, the soul or life is said to be destroyed. But who supposes (unless grossly ignorant of the terms psuhe and apollumi, and, still worse, shutting his eyes to the context) that soul means anything more than life or person in the texts which have just been quoted? Let life or person be read instead of soul in them all, let their contexts be attended to, and no man can think an immortal soul is meant in any one of them. Or, let immortal soul be read instead of life, where the word is so rendered, and the absurdity of the supposition that this was the writers’ meaning, is at once manifest.
But the question will probably be asked, Why does Matthew in this text make a distinction between soul and body, if soul does not mean an immaterial, immortal soul? Attention to the following remarks will place this subject in its true light. It is admitted by all that in scripture style a part is sometimes put for the whole, and sometimes the whole is put for a part, of the thing spoken about. Man, considered as a whole, is one individual person. But this person is in Scripture divided into three parts, soma, body; psuhe soul or life; and pneuma, spirit. It is with the two first of these distinctions we are principally concerned in the passage before us. Notice, then, that the psuhe, or life, is often put for the whole man, or person. So is its corresponding word, nephish, in the Old Testament. Take the following texts as examples, where nephish is rendered soul, and is used to express the whole man, or the person himself. Genesis 12: 13; 19: 20; Exod. 12: 16; Leviticus 5: 2; 20: 11; Numbers 11:6; 31:28.
Take the following texts as a specimen, where psuhe is rendered soul, and is used to express the whole ma n, or the person himself. Acts 27: 37; 1 Peter 3: 20; Romans 13: 1; Acts 3: 23. Psuhe is also rendered life, and used to express the whole man, or person, in Matthew 2:20; John 10: 15, and other texts. Take, now, the following texts, as a specimen, where the soma, body, and the psuhe, soul or life, are both mentioned together, and distinguished from each other, Luke 12: 22; Matthew 7: 25, and the passage now before us. Such being the modes of speaking used in the Scriptures, it is plain, if a writer only mentions the psuhe, soul or life, he designates the whole man or person, by putting a part for the whole. The same is the case if he only mentions the soma, body, or pneuma, spirit. But sometimes the sacred writers designate the whole man or person by enumerating all the three parts into which man is divided, body, soul, and spirit. See 1 Thessalonians 5: 23. But to come more particularly to the passage in question. Sometimes the sacred writers designate the whole man or person by only enumerating two of the three parts into which he is divided. This is evidently the case with Matthew, in the passage we are now considering. He says, God “is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (Gehenna).” Or, he can destroy the whole man or person. That this is his meaning, is obvious from chapter 5: 29, 30, considered above, where he twice uses the expression, “thy whole body,” to express precisely the same thing. No man we think will dispute this.
It is obvious, from this examination, that soul, when used alone, designates the whole man, or the person himself. The body, also, when used alone, likewise designates the person or whole man. And when soul and body are both mentioned, as in the passage in question, it designates no more than the man or person himself. Now, men who were able to kill the body, could not kill the w hole man or person, for this would be to blot the man forever out of existence. God only was able to do this. He gave man life; it returns to him at death; and he has promised to restore it again when this corruptible puts on in-corruption. But, on this view of the subject, there is no immaterial, immortal soul which lives in a conspicuous state of happiness or misery, in a disembodied condition. This doctrine has been the fertile source of much error and human misery. It also makes void the doctrine of the resurrection. In confirmation of these remarks, it may be observed that though the words of the New Testament are Greek, the idiom is Hebrew. Besides, it is thought Matthew wrote his gospel originally in Hebrew, which accounts for his using more of the Hebrew idiom, as noticed above, than Luke does, chapter 12: 4, 5, where the same discourse of our Lord is recorded. What did our Lord mean by Gehenna? Whatever may be meant by “soul and body,” or destroying them, it is very plain this destruction of them is said to be “in hell,” or Gehenna. This hell, or Gehenna, Dr. Campbell, Mr. Stuart, and others, take for granted is a place of endless punishment in a future state. We shall here give a condensed view of our reasons why we think this a mistake.
1st. Such a view of the term Gehenna is contrary to its admitted original signification. It is a compound, gia a valley, and onm the name of its owner, Hinnom. The valley of Hinnom. All admit this.
2d. This sense given to Gehenna is contrary to its usage in the Old Testament. Dr. Campbell frankly declares it does not mean there a place of endless punishment. No man will allege it has such a sense in the Old Testament.
3d. Such a sense attached to the term Ge henna is at variance with all the facts stated in the preceding section. If Gehenna means a place of endless misery, they ought all to agree with this meaning.
4th. This sense attached to the term Gehenna is also at variance with a large number of facts to be stated in the next section. If this was its true sense in the New Testament, it ought to harmonize with them.
5th. In no instance, where Gehenna is used in the New Testament, is the writer speaking on the subject of a future state. The connection of the texts where it occurs gives no countenance to such a sense attached to it. But if this was its true sense, the context of some of them would point it out.
6th. In the contexts of some of the passages where Gehenna occurs, the writers show clearly that by Gehenna punishment they referred to the punishment of God about to be inflicted on the Jewish nation. See particularly Matthew 23: 33.
7th. Those who say Gehenna in the New Testament means a place of endless punishment, entirely assume this to be its meaning, without any authority from the Old. The Rabbinical writers are their authority, which on other subjects they reject as of no value. Mr. Stuart traces the origin of this sense of Gehenna to a superstitious notion among the Jews that demons dwelt in the valley of Hinnom. He would smile, at least, if I traced my sense of Gehenna to such an origin. He does not pretend that the meaning he attaches to it was of divine origin.
8th. Giving to Gehenna the sense of a place of endless punishment in the New Testament does not harmonize with the phraseology used in the places where it occurs. Take, for example, the passage before us. Who believes the whole body, or soul and body, are cast into, or are to be destroyed in, a place of endless punishment? This is not done at death, as facts show. And to say it shall be done at the resurrection is a gratuitous assertion, never made in the Scriptures.
Such are some of my reasons for thinking Gehenna does not signify a place of end less punishment. They apply to all the texts where it is used in the New Testament. We have introduced them here , because this is considered the strongest text to designate this place of misery. In view of these reasons, let us look for a moment at this passage: “But rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.” To say our Lord meant by Gehenna here a place of endless punishment, and call on others to believe it, is,
1st. Calling on them to believe not only without evidence, but contrary to evidence. To believe this, is not only implicit faith, but a man must shut his eyes to evidence before he can say he believes it.
2d. Those who believe our Lord here taught that Gehenna means a place of endless punishment seem to suppose God cannot “destroy both soul and body,” or a person, except in hell. But is not this a very silly supposition? Pray, what can prevent God from doing this anywhere? He certainly could do this in Gehenna, the literal valleyhttp://www.ThreeAngels.com.au of Hinnom. And could he not do it also by the punishment which he brought on the Jewish nation, described by Jeremiah under the symbol of Gehenna? But I ask,
3d. How were our Lord’s disciples likely to understand these words? If God had previously spoken of a place of endless punishment by the name Gehenna, we allow in this sense our Lord’s disciples might understand them. But even this would not be certain; for, as the prophet Jeremiah had also spoken of a temporal punishment coming on the Jewish nation under the symbol of Gehenna, it might be doubtful if the words did not refer to it. But, as God had never before spoken of Gehenna as a place of endless punishment, or our Lord explained it in this sense to his disciples, how could they possibly understand him to use it in a new sense? They could be at no loss to understand his meaning, if it signified the punishment of God on the nation of the Jews. This sense of the term they had learned from their own Scriptures. No other Gehenna punishment was taught there. And no other sense can be rationally and scripturally given to our Lord’s words.
4th. The phraseology of the passage, when correctly understood, accords with this view. The phrase, “both soul and body,” is a mere Hebrew idiom, to express the whole man or person. Our Lord, then, warns his disciples of their danger, in being killed or destroyed by the punishment to be inflicted on the Jewish nation; a punishment which Jeremiah predicted under the imagery of Gehenna. He does not say, “they could not escape this damnation of Gehenna,” like the unbelieving Jews, Matthew 23: 33. No; here, and in other places, he showed his solicitude that they might escape it. To rouse them to watchfulness and obedience, he exhorts them to fear him, who is able, or has power, to bring such a punishment on them, as well as the whole nation of the Jews. To affirm, because it is said, God “is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna,” that he actually did it, is surely incorrect. It is contrary to the fact, whatever sense we give to Gehenna. If it means a place of endless misery, I ask, did God destroy both the souls and bodies of Christ’s disciples there? Surely not. If it means the terrible punishment God brought on the Jewish nation, I ask, did God destroy them with it? No; for we shall see that they escaped this punishment. It is a very false conclusion to say, because God is able to do a thing, that it is actually done. It is said, Matthew 3: 9, “God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” But according to this reasoning he has actually done this. No one, however, believes this true. It was sufficient to alarm the fears of the disciples to say, God was able to inflict on them the same punishment as on the unbelieving Jews.
5th. If our Lord’s words, “is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna,” designated their punishment in a future world, his threatening to his own disciples were far worse than his threatening to the unbelieving Jews. In Matthew 23: 33, the only place where he threatened them with Gehenna punishment, he only says to them, “How can ye escape the damnation of Gehenna?” There, we shall show from the context, he meant, by Gehenna, the punishment coming on the Jewish nation. But can any man think our Lord only threatened the unbelieving Jews with a severe temporal punishment, and threatened his own disciples with endless torments in a future state? Who can believe the disciples were nine times solemnly warned about hell, Gehenna, in the world to come, and the wicked Jews only once about hell, Gehenna, or temporal punishment in this world? If Gehenna had the same sense when our Lord spoke about it to both, it is beyond all reasonable question that it merely refers to the punishment of God on the Jewish nation.
6th. If Gehenna refers to punishment in a future state, the passage in question rather teaches the doctrine of annihilation than endless misery. If to kill the body is to put it out of all pain and even conscious existence, to destroy soul and body, or the whole man, must be to put them out of all pain and conscious existence. But did Christ threaten his own disciples with annihilation? And was God to cast them into Gehenna in another world to accomplish this? Excuse me from believing that he threatened them either with annihilation or endless misery, until the evidence I have produced is destroyed, and good evidence adduced to prove that this is true.
We have said enough, and perhaps more than was necessary, on this passage. We have discussed it repeatedly. See my Answer to Mr. Sabine, Letters to Mr. Hudson, and Reply to Professor Stuart. See, also, on Luke 12: 4, 5.
Matthew 18: 9. “And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell (Gehenna) fire.” Mr. Stuart considers this text “an instance of the same nature as Matthew 5: 29, 30, excepting that the phrase here is Gehenna tou puros, a fiery Gehenna, which one cannot doubt has the same meaning as unquenchable fire, Mark 9: 43, 45, inasmuch as this very phrase is there used to explain Gehenna; the same meaning also as the lake of fire, Revelation 20:14, 15; 21: 8, which is ‘the second death,’ Revelation 21: 9.” To say the lake of fire, which is the second death, means Mr. Stuart’s hell, we think a great mistake. But it would be too great a digression from our present subject to examine this here. As the phrase Gehenna tou puros, a fiery Gehenna, is considered the same as unquenchable fire, Mark 9: 43—45, we refer the reader to our remarks on that passage. See Matthew 5: 22, 29, http://www.ThreeAngels.com.au30, for an explanation of some things in this verse. There we have shown what is meant by a hand or foot offending. Also, the figurative use of the term fire has been noticed; and on the texts already considered, we have seen that Gehenna and casting into Gehenna do not refer to punishment in a future state, but to the infliction of punishment on the Jewish nation. On this text, however, with its context, we observe,
1st. Here, as in all the preceding texts, our Lord addressed his own disciples. It is also obvious from the context that he was not speaking to them on the subject of a future state. In no text where he speaks of Gehenna was this the subject of his discourse; which circumstance, together with the fact that his disciples were chiefly addressed about Gehenna, shows it did not refer to punishment in a future world.
2d. The Greek phrase “Gehenna tou puros,” which Mr. Stuart renders “a fiery Gehenna,” instead of meaning “the lake of fire,” or hell, in another world, he has explained correctly in his Essays, p. 141. He says, in Gehenna, or the valley of Hinnom, “perpetual fires were kept up, in order to consume the offal which was deposited there. And as the same offal would breed worms, hence came the expression, ‘Where the worm dies not and the fire is not quenched.’” The allusion is to the fire in the valley of Hinnom; and this only increases the strength of the figurative use of the term fire in describing the terrible judgments of God on the nation of the Jews.
3d. In verse 8 it is said, “Wherefore, if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.” It will be said, Is not everlasting fire, in verse 8, the same as the fiery Gehenna, verse 9? and to be cast into everlasting fire the same as to be cast into this fiery Gehenna? And is this not a strong objection to your views of Gehenna? We admit all this, and to strengthen the objection will add the following. The Greek phrase, pur to aionion, here rendered “everlasting fire,” is the same in Matthew 25: 41, and rendered by the same words. I also admit that both passages refer to the same punishment, and that what in these texts is called everlasting fire, is called everlasting punishment verse 46. I have no occasion to dispute this. I admit, also, that the same punishment is called the damnation of hell, or Gehenna, Matthew 23: 33; eternal damnation, Mark 3: 29; and is also designated by other terrific expressions too numerous to detail. See my Second Inquiry, on these and all the texts in the Bible where eternal, everlasting, etc., occur. But so far from these admissions being against my views of Gehenna, they strongly confirm them, as I shall now attempt to show. I observe, then,
1st. That the phrases Gehenna fire, everlasting fire, damnation of hell, or Gehenna, and eternal damnation, were used by Jews, and addressed to Jews who were familiar with the language of the Old Testament. Certainly our Lord was a Jew, and his disciples were Jews, whom, in the passage before us, he addressed about everlasting fire, and hell, or Gehenna fire; or, in plain words, everlasting punishment. No persons except Jews were ever threatened with Gehenna fire, either by Christ or his apostles. Nothing is ever said to Gentiles about Gehenna, as shown in another place. As it is, then, contended that Gehenna fire, in verse 9, and everlasting fire, in verse 8, express the same punishment, let us consider,
2d. If an everlasting fire or punishment was threatened the Jews in their Scriptures, and what that fire or punishment was. Was it in another world? When and how did this punishment come upon them? These questions will be noticed in what follows. Our fear is we cannot spare room to say all we wish on this subject, for it has an important bearing on the question before us about Gehenna. The first passage I produce in proof that an everlasting fire or punishment was threatened the Jews in their own Scriptures, and was not in a future state, is Isaiah 33: 14. “The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with devouring fire? Who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?” This passage has been often quoted to prove the endless duration of future punishment. A great mistake; for, 1st. It is manifest the hypocritical Jews are the persons designated in the passage. They are termed sinners, sinners in Zion, and hypocrites, which agrees with our Lord’s words, Matthew 23, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites.”
Notice those called “sinners in Zion,” in the first part of the verse, answer, according to the Jewish parallelism, to “hypocrites” in the second; and their being “afraid” in the first, answers to “fearfulness” seizing them in the second. A doubt cannot be entertained that the prophet speaks particularly of Jew s, and of them only. The question is, did the prophet refer to the Jews in our Lord’s day? The very language of the passage seems to determine that he did. This is confirmed by the context, for the days of the gospel dispensation seem to be alluded to. For example, verse 18 seems to be quoted by the apostle, 1 Corinthians 1: 20. The Roman people are spoken of, verse 19, who were to come against the Jews, and destroy their city and temple. And their condition at that period is described, verses 11, 12. The Messiah and his times are alluded to, verses 5, 6. The condition of our Lord’s disciples is referred to verses 15—17; and from verse 20 to the end of the chapter, the peace and prosperity of the Christian church are described.
2d. Let us now notice the punishment of the Jews described in this passage. It is not doubted it speaks of punishment; for it is alleged it teaches endless punishment. This is drawn, we presume, 1st. From the words fire and burnings. But it has been shown in a preceding passage, that fire or burning is a common figure to describe temporal punishment. Nor are we aware that fire is ever used as a figure to designate punishment in another world. The expression here is, “devouring fire,” and the parallelism to it is “everlasting burning.”
After examining the usage of the phrase, “devouring fire,” I cannot find it is ever employed to designate punishment in hell. But it is used to express temporal calamities. See Isaiah 19:6; 30:30.
2d. The word everlasting is here joined with burnings. But who does not know that the word everlasting often expresses a limited period of time? Yea, who does not know that it is even applied to punishment when it does not express the endless duration of it?
That it is so applied to the temporal punishment of the Jews in this very passage the above observations show. But if there should be any doubt in the reader’s mind about this passage, we introduce another, about which there can be no dispute. It is Jeremiah 23: 39, 40. “Therefore, behold, I, even I, will utterly forget you, and I will forsake you, and the city that I gave you and your fathers, and cast you out of my presence. And I will bring an everlasting reproach upon you, and a perpetual shame, which shall not be forgotten.” On this passage let it be noticed, 1st. The same Hebrew word, olim, is here rendered “everlasting” and “perpetual.” The passage says, “I will bring an everlasting reproach upon you, and an everlasting shame, which shall not be forgotten.” It is well known that olim is rendered perpetual, everlasting, eternal, forever, and is often used to express a limited duration.
2d. Let it be noticed, the Jews are the persons of whom the prophet here speaks. He is speaking of them as a nation, and what the Lord would do towards them at some future period. It is not a narrative of what was already past, but a prediction of events.
3d. Notice, further, the passage predicts a punishment to the Jewish nation. God was utterly to forget and forsake them, and the city he gave to them and their fathers. He was also to cast them out of his presence, or out of Jud ea, where the Jews believed God’s presence was. Moreover, he was to bring on them an everlasting reproach, and an everlasting shame, which should not be forgotten. This punishment of the Jews could not be their seventy years’ captivity in Babylon. This does not answer to the strong language of the passage. Besides, the Babylonian captivity was just at hand, or had already commenced, as the chronology shows. The prediction is concerning a punishment which was future and of long duration. The language only answers in its full force to God’s punishment on the Jews at the destruction of their city and temple, and their dispersion among all nations over since. God seems utterly to have forsaken them and the city he gave them. He has cast them out of his presence and brought upon them an everlasting reproach, and an everlasting shame, which have lasted eighteen hundred years, and are not yet forgotten.
4th. But does any man think, do the Jews think, that the punishment here mentioned is in another world, or is of endless duration? No; not an individual will assert either of these things. The context, all the circumstances of the case, show the punishment is a national one, and is of a temporal nature. And if any one should ask, why this punishment of the Jews is called perpetual, everlasting, the answer is easy. All know olim, in the Hebrew, and aion and aionion in Greek, are used to express a limited duration, and express a longer or shorter duration as the subjects to which they are applied require. See my Second Inquiry and Reply to Professor Stuart’s Essays, where this subject is discussed. The present punishment of the Jewish nation may well be called everlasting. It is the longest punishment they ever endured as a people. It has lasted already eighteen hundred years, and is a much longer everlasting than some mentioned in the Bible, as could easily be shown. Neither their seventy years’ captivity in Babylon, nor any other punishment that I have observed, is ever called everlasting, like the one they are now suffering. But even their present punishment is to end, for the Lord is yet to have mercy on Israel. They, as a people, are beloved for the fathers’ sake. It is then put out of all question that the term everlasting is applied to temporal punishment, punishment which all admit is to end.
But let us suppose the term everlasting was applied to punishment in a future state, this would not conclusively prove it to be endless. Why? Because we find it applied to punishment in this world. It might, also, be limited if applied to punishment in another world, for anything I can find in the Bible to the contrary. But after very mature examination, I must say I cannot find a single instance where everlasting is applied to punishment in another world. It is chiefly from overlooking the scripture usage of the words, rendered everlasting, etc., that http://www.ThreeAngels.com.aupeople are led to conclude that in the Bible punishment is taught in a future world, and that it is endless in its duration. So far, then, from the phrase “everlasting fire,” in verse 8, being any objection to my views of Gehenna, in verse 9, it strongly confirms them. Gehenna fire, and everlasting fire, in both verses, plainly refer to the punishment which came on the Jewish nation at the close of the Mosaic dispensation. I think prejudice itself will allow this.
Matthew 23: 15. “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, ye make him two-fold more the child of hell (Gehenna) than yourselves.” This is the first place in the New Testament where anything is said about Gehenna to wicked men. The scribes and Pharisees were the persons addressed, as the passage states. Dr. Campbell says, “This is one of the places where the term Gehenna is used figuratively.” And Parkhurst remarks that “Son of Gehenna or hell is one deserving of or liable to hell.” He considers, and justly, the expression an Hebraism. See Professor Stuart’s letters to Dr. Millar, where this is show n at length. The words plainly imply that our Lord considered the persons addressed children of hell or Gehenna. This, according to Parkhurst, means “deserving of or liable to hell or Gehenna.”
Their making their proselyte two-fold more the child of hell than them selves, of course, means they made him two-fold more deserving of or liable to hell than themselves. The question then is, what hell or Gehenna were both deserving of or liable to? If it is said, eternal misery, the sense evidently is the Pharisees made their proselyte two-fold more deserving of or liable to eternal misery than themselves. But to assume this as the sense of Gehenna is taking for granted the question in discussion. No proof of this is offered, no evidence of it can be given. Mr. Stuart, after quoting this passage, simply adds the following assertion, “that is, he is doubly deserving of the punishment of hell. Surely the Saviour does not mean to say that he will suffer double the punishment literally to be inflicted on them, in the literal valley of Hinnom.” But this assertion determines nothing. I might return it thus, surely the Saviour does not mean to say that he will suffer double endless torments in Mr. Stuart’s hell.
The simple question to be decided is, what was the sense our Lord attached to the word Gehenna? Was it a place of endless punishment in a future state? Not a word in the context favours such an opinion, for our Lord was not discoursing on the subject of a future state, but on the judgments of God coming on the nation of the Jews, as we shall see from verse 33, to be considered immediately. If our Lord, in verse 33, by Gehenna, meant the temporal punishment of the Jewish nation, no one will allege that in verse 15, he meant by Gehenna endless punishment in the world to come. Indeed, this sense would be contrary to its meaning in all the other passages, and no ingenuity could reconcile it with the facts we have adduced, and still have to produce in the next section.
Matthew 23: 33. “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell (Gehenna)?” This is the only other text in the New Testament where anything is said about Gehenna to wicked men; and the solitary text where the phrase, “damnation of hell,” occurs;—a very singular fact, if it means endless misery in a future state. The only remark which Mr. Stuart makes on this text, is, “Does the Saviour mean here to ask, How can ye escape being burned alive in the valley of Hinnom? Were they in danger of this? “We answer his question very promptly and pleasantly,—no. They were in no danger of this, for Mr. Stuart has shown that burning alive in the valley of Hinnom was not a punishment inflicted in the days of our Lord, either by Jews or Romans. To balance this account with Mr. Stuart, I ask, and in his own words, “Does the Saviour mean here to ask, How can ye escape being burned in hell, the world of woe? Were they in any danger of this?” Having balanced this short account, we may now inquire, what our Lord meant to teach in this passage? Let us,
1st. Examine the import of the word kriseos, here rendered damnation. This word means judgment or punishment. Dr. Campbell and others render it punishment. See his note on Matthew 12: 40. It is so rendered in some places in our common version. But, as I have examined its scripture usage in my Second Inquiry, to it I refer the reader for what I have there advanced. It would be useless to discuss it here, as there is no dispute respecting the sense of the word in the passage in question. The sense, all admit, is, “How can you escape the punishment of hell, or Gehenna?” I may just notice, what must be obvious to every one, that the word damnation, or punishment, determines nothing about the place, the nature, or duration of the punishment alluded to. It expresses punishment to the persons addressed; but all these things must be determined from other sources of evidence than the word rendered damnation. But the word in most people’s ears has a much more terrific sound than either the word judgment or punishment. It carries their minds into a future state for that damnation or punishment. Let us inquire,
2d. What sense did our Lord attach to the term Gehenna? The correct understanding of the passage depends on ascertaining this. If it means, as Mr. Stuart and others assert, the place of eternal misery to all the wicked, then, beyond all question, our Lord’s meaning is, How can ye escape the punishment of endless misery? But this sense of the term must not be assumed; it must be established on scripture authority. How, then, it will be asked, shall we determine in what sense our Lord used the word Gehenna in this passage? I answer, there are three ways at least in which this may be determined; for no scripture question can be determined without them. These are, the original meaning of the term Gehenna; its scripture usage; and the context of the passages in question. Let us notice,
1st. The original meaning of the term Gehenna. Did it originally mean hell, world of woe, the place of torment reserved for the punishment of the wicked in a future state, as Mr. Stuart and Dr. Campbell both assert? No; far from it, as their own testimony already cited shows. I need only very briefly advert to it here. What do they say was the original meaning of the term Gehenna? Dr. Campbell says, “It is originally a compound of the two Hebrew words, ge Hinnom, the valley of Hinnom, a place near Jerusalem, of which we hear first in the book of Joshua, 15: 8,” etc. Mr. Stuart makes the same confession in his Essays, p. 140. To this all agree, except Dr. Allen. Speaking of Gehenna and its punishment, he says in his lecture on my First Inquiry, “Indeed the word seems to have been formed, and is used in Scripture, for the express and sole purpose of denoting future punishment.” Reader, cast the mantle of your charity over this statement, made no doubt without consideration.
2d. The scriptural usage of the term Gehenna. Does Gehenna occur in the Old Testament, where it designates a place of future punishment for the wicked? Hear Dr. Campbell: “In the Old Testament we do not find this place in the same manner mentioned. Accordingly, the word Gehenna does not occur in the Septuagint. It is not a Greek word, and consequently not found in the Grecian classics.” This statement we have examined, Section 1. We have also laid before the reader all the texts in the Old Testament where the word Gehenna is found. Not in a single instance has it the least allusion to a place of future punishment. We have seen it is only used there in two senses. First, for the literal valley of Hinnom. Second, as a symbol or source of imagery to describe the temporal punishment God was to bring on the Jewish nation. In this last sense we have shown it is used in the New Testament in all the passages already considered. And those yet to be noticed we think strongly confirm all we have advanced respecting the sense given to this term. The passage before us deserves particular attention. It is considered one of the strongest texts in proof that Gehenna means a place of future punishment for the wicked; and yet, the context of this very passage shows that the sense I have attached to it, taken from Jeremiah, is the true one,
3d. The context of the passage in question. Does the context teach that our Lord used the word Gehenna to designate a place of endless torment, reserved for the punishment of the wicked in a future state? Let us examine and see. That our Lord speaks on the subject of the destruction of Jerusalem, in this and the two following chapters, none will question. But let us examine the more immediate context of the passage. It is manifest, from verse 1 of the chapter, that what is said in it was addressed to the multitude and to the disciples. From verse 3 to 13, our Lord spoke to his disciples concerning the scribes and Pharisees, and warned them against certain evils in those wicked men. At verse 13 he begins a direct address to the scribes and Pharisees, and continues it to the end of the chapter. Some of them were present, for the discourse seems a very pointed address to them. No man can read from verse 13 to 32, without noticing in what a plain and pointed manner our Lord exposed their wickedness and hypocrisy, and how often he said to them, “Woe, or alas! unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites.” But at verse 32 he says to them, “Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.”
The words in question immediately follow: “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell (Gehenna)?” Two questions here are presented for consideration. How were these men to fill up the measure of their fathers? And, what is the damnation of hell, which they could not escape?
1st. Let us consider how these men were to fill up the measure of their fathers. If we consult the context, it gives us the following answer to this question. Verse 34, “Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes; and some of them ye shall kill and crucify, and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city.” That in this way the scribes and Pharisees were to fill up the measure of their fathers, no man will question. Their fathers had killed the prophets sent to them, verses 30, 31. And they were a generation of vipers, proving themselves to be the children of such fathers. The measure of their fathers they did fill up by crucifying the Lord of glory, and persecuting his apostles and followers. See Acts 2d, where Peter charges them with this crime. Compare John 16: 1—3, 1 Thessalonians 2: 16.
2d. Let us now examine what the damnation of Gehenna was, which those men could not escape. If verse 34 answered the first question, verse 35 as certainly answers the second. It runs thus: “That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel, unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.” When it is said here, “That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth,” all allow that punishment is meant. This punishment coming on them was near, for our Lord added in the next words, “Verily I say unto you, all these things shall come upon this http://www.ThreeAngels.com.augeneration.” The context, then, clearly decides, that our Lord, by the damnation of hell, referred to the punishment God was to bring on the Jewish nation during that generation. Indeed, if ever the context of a passage can decide in what sense the writer uses a word or phrase, it is decided in the case before us. But is there a vestige of evidence in the context, which shows that our Lord, by the damnation of hell, meant a place of punishment reserved for the wicked in a future state? No, nothing which bears the most distant resemblance to this. Let any one attempt to make out proof of this from the context, and nothing is so likely to convince him that the interpretation I have given is correct. It was in making such an attempt I was led to this very view of the words “damnation of hell.” The only thing which leads people to conclude that these words refer to punishment after death, is the false and entirely gratuitous sense affixed to the word hell or Gehenna. But all candid men will allow, that if we affix what sense we please to the words of the Holy Spirit, an end is put to all correct interpretation of the Scriptures. To recur to the context in ascertaining the sense of any word or phrase used by a writer, is allowed by all a first rule in explaining his meaning.
But some things in the context strongly confirm the sense given to the words, damnation of hell. 1st. The expression, damnation of hell, or Gehenna, occurs in this discourse of our Lord’s about the destruction of Jerusalem, but in no other discourse he ever delivered. Had he used it when preaching the gospel, when enforcing repentance on his hearers, or in speaking on the subject of a future state, one might be led to suppose he did mean a place of punishment there. But being used in such a discourse as this, and in no other, seems to put it out of all question that I have rightly interpreted the words, damnation of hell, or Gehenna. 2d. The persons to whom the words, damnation of hell, were addressed, confirm my views of this passage. They were Jews. To no other person except them is a word said about Gehenna in the who le Bible. Jews, and they only, were concerned in the damnation of hell, for not a word is said about Gehenna or its punishment to any Gentile, whether a believer in Christ or an unbeliever.
3d. No man will dispute that verse 35 refers to the punishment inflicted on the Jews at the destruction of their city and temple. See chapter 24th. Well, when our Lord said, verse 36, “All these things shall come upon this generation,” was not the damnation of hell, verse 33, and explained verse 35, the very thing referred to? And as the case of the Jews was past all remedy, and could not escape the impending judgments of Go d, our Lord laments over their condition, verses 37—39. To this view of the damnation of hell, I am aware, it is objected,
1st. Prophecies have a double meaning; and though our Lord referred to the temporal punishment coming on the Jewish nation, in the same expression he might include the endless punishment of the wicked in another world; and in Matthew chapter 24, he blends, in one description, the end of the Jewish state and the end of this material world.” To this objection several answers might be given. 1st. If prophecies have a double meaning, why not twenty or a hundred meanings? And if it is said, our Lord might include both the above meanings in the phrase, damnation of hell, let us see the proof of this supposition from the context or some other quarter. What is it which we may not suppose and say is taught in the Bible, if never called on to establish our suppositions? But,
2d. Giving prophecies a double meaning exposes the Scriptures to ridicule, and is abandoned by all rational commentators. Mr. Stuart, in his letters to Dr. Channing, p. 126, gives up a double sense to Matthew 24th. Commenting on verse 36, he says, “‘Of that day and hour knows no man; no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.’ The day and hour, according to some, is the day of judgment; but as I apprehend (from comparing the context), the day of vengeance to the Jews is meant.” But if he, by comparing the context, sets aside a double view of this text, comparing the context sets aside a double view of the words, damnation of hell. It does more, it sets aside the common idea that these words mean a place of endless misery to the wicked.
3d. Let it be noticed, the words, damnation of hell, are not a prophecy. No; they are a very plain declaration put in the form of a question, “How can ye escape the damnation of hell?” But had they occurred in Matthew 24th, and were they a prophecy, we see, from the quotation just made from Mr. Stuart, that only one sense could be attached to them, and the context must decide, yea, has decided, their true sense. Their sense is, How can ye escape the impending vengeance coming on your nation? So long as an examination of the context and scripture usage of words are deemed safe rules in determining the sense of any scripture writer, so long shall we feel confident that our Lord, by the damnation of hell, did mean this, and had no reference to endless misery in another world.
4th. But this double view of the words, damnation of hell, does not deserve notice, for it is only a mere assumption made in face of evidence to the contrary. This evidence has been stated. Here, I add, since people take the liberty to give a double sense to the words, damnation of hell, why not use the same liberty and give a double meaning to every phrase our Lord ever used? For example, with the same breath he said, “How can ye http://www.ThreeAngels.com.auescape the damnation of hell,” and “All these things shall come upon this generation.” But why not give a double meaning to the last words, and say he meant also, All these things shall come upon this generation in a future world—and all these things shall come on the generation in which we live in the present day? Why not this, as well as that the damnation of Gehenna shall come upon us?
It was shown at some length, Sect. 1, that Jeremiah made Gehenna, or the valley of Hinnom, a source of imagery to describe the punishment God would bring on the Jews for their sins. Let the reader now take into view what was there said in connection with the passage before us, and notice the following things. Jeremiah and our Lord evidently addressed the same people, the Jews. Both speak of a punishment, a dreadful punishment, to this people, and they use the term Gehenna to describe it. Both speak of it as punishment in this world, without giving the least hint that it extended to a future state of existence. Both confine this Gehenna punishment to the Jews, without intimating that it belonged to the Gentile nations, or must be suffered by other wicked men. Jeremiah foretold, some hundred years before, a punishment to the Jews, to the fathers of the very men our Lord addressed.
Our Lord points them to that prediction, and solemnly warns them, “All these things shall come upon this generation.” But there are two things which the reader ought distinctly to notice, in which Jeremiah’s prophecy agrees with what our Lord says respecting Gehenna. 1st. The prediction of a punishment to the Jews, under the emblem of Gehenna, was a national one; one in which all classes of the nation were to be involved. Such is exactly the punishment of which our Lord speaks in the passage in question, as we have seen from the context. This rationally accounts for the fact, why our Lord said so much to his own disciples about the punishment of Gehenna, and mentioned it only once to the unbelieving Jews. They could not escape the damnation of Gehenna, but his own disciples might; hence he shows his solicitude in warning them respecting it, and in instructing them how to escape the severity of the vengeance which came on the unbelieving part of the nation. On no other view of the term Gehenna can it ever be rationally and scripturally accounted for, why our Lord should say so much to the disciples and so little to the unbelieving Jews respecting the punishment of Gehenna.
2d. The time referred to by Jeremiah when his prediction should be fulfilled, and the time referred to by our Lord, exactly agree. No year or date is mentioned by either of them, but there is a fact or circumstance which answers the same purpose. Jeremiah, in his prophecy, said, chapter 19: 15, “Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Behold, I will bring upon this city, and upon all her towns, all the evil that I have pronounced against it.” Notice now what our Lord says, Luke 21: 22. “For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.” Jeremiah could refer to no other period of time, nor to any other punishment of the Jews, except the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. All the evil the Lord had pronounced against it did not come upon it until this event took place.
I may add, if by Gehenna punishment our Lord did not refer to the punishment predicted by Jeremiah, in no other way did he remind the Jews that such a punishment was threatened them. All allow that our Lord, in Matthew, chapters 23 and 24, and in other places, spoke of punishment coming on the Jewish nation. Is it then in the least probable that he should entirely overlook so plain and pointed a prediction as that in Jeremiah? And if it is denied that, by the damnation of Gehenna, he did refer to the punishment predicted by Jeremiah,— that he meant endless misery in a future world,—how happened he to tell the Jews about this in a discourse where he is certainly speaking of temporal punishment, yet not say a word about endless punishment in Gehenna on any other occasion? If, really, the damnation of Gehenna means hell, the world of woe, why should he introduce it in such a discourse to the unbelieving Jews? Why speak of it only once to them; and why speak of it as a thing they could not escape? The great object of modern preachers, in warning people about hell, is to tell them they can easily escape it by obeying their directions. But our Lord had no directions to give the unbelieving Jews how they might escape the damnation of Gehenna. The cup of their iniquity was nearly filled up, and the wrath of God was coming upon them to the uttermost. Before I dismiss this passage, permit me to bring the prophecy of Jeremiah a little more into view in connection with it. See this prophecy considered, Chapter 2, Sect. 1, which ought to be consulted and compared with the passage under consideration. On both, taken together, I submit the following remarks:—
1st. Who does not see that the prediction of Jeremiah and the discourse of our Lord, Matthew chapters 23 and 24, speak of the same events? Comparing both with that part of Josephus’ history of the siege of Jerusalem, we see both minutely and affectingly fulfilled. 2d. It could not appear strange to the Jews that our Lord should speak to them of the damnation or punishment of Gehenna, for under this very emblem the prophet Jeremiah had foretold great and dreadful calamities to this people. With the prophet’s language the Jews were familiar, so that they had no occasion to ask what he meant by the damnation of hell.
Nor could they find fault with him in calling to their remembrance a punishment to which they were exposed, so long ago foretold, but which was now near, even unto the doors. Indeed, nothing but blindness of mind could have prevented them from fearful anticipations of such dreadful calamities. Accordingly, they asked no explanation, and seemed not to be surprised at our Lord’s saying, “How can ye escape the damnation of hell?” Is this likely to have been the case, if by this expression the Jews understood him to threaten them with eternal misery in the world to come? No sentiment our Lord ever uttered was more calculated to shock their feelings and rouse their indignation against him. To understand him in this sense, was entirely at variance with their pride, prejudices and religious opinions; for the Jews had no idea that any of their nation should ever suffer eternal misery. See Whitby’s note on Romans 2.
3d. Let us for a moment suppose that any of the declarations concerning Gehenna in the New Testament had occurred in the above prediction of Jeremiah. For example, let us take the words of our Lord before us, “How can ye escape the damnation of hell?” I ask any candid man, how the Jews would have understood these words, had they been uttered by the prophet, or how we would understand them? It will, I presume, be readily answered, that the prophet would be understood as threatening the temporal punishment which he had been predicting. Must the words, damnation of hell, then, only mean temporal punishment, in the mouth of Jeremiah, but, in our Lord’s, eternal misery? If these words would have conveyed no such idea in the days of Jeremiah, why should they in the days of our Lord, and, especially, as he not only seems to allude to Jeremiah’s prophecy, but introduces them in a discourse to the same people, and in treating of the same temporal punishment? It will not be said that our Lord was discoursing about a future state of existence, or even a different subject from that of the prophet, when he used this expression. No; the subjects are precisely the same, and the same people were addressed.
4th. I ask, was the expression, “damnation of hell,” understood when our Lord used it, or was it without any meaning? If the latter, then the idea of eternal misery is given up, at least from this expression. Besides, it is not very honourable to the Lord, to say he used this expression without any meaning. If the former is contended for, in what way was our Lord understood by his hearers? Nothing is said in the Old Testament intimating that Gehenna was to have a different meaning under the gospel dispensation. Nor, in the New Testament, is anything said showing that Gehenna was used there in a different sense from that which it had in the Old. By whose authority, and upon what rational and scriptural ground, do we, then, interpret Gehenna, in the passage before us, so differently from its allowed sense in the Old Testament? Our Lord was a Jew, and he spoke to Jews, who had the Old Testament in their hands. Until it is proved to the contrary, we conclude that the Jews must have understood Gehenna as their Scriptures taught them. We think all will allow that this is at least a rational conclusion. That it is a correct one, ought not to be denied, unless it is shown our Lord laid aside the sense in which Jeremiah had used the word Gehenna, and adopted a new sense on mere human authority. If our Lord did this as to the word Gehenna, we doubt if another instance of the kind can be produced from the New Testament. If it were proved that he did so, it follows that, instead of calling the attention of the Jews to the true sense of Scripture, he rather encouraged them in a sense put on scripture words of men’s own invention. We have seen that Dr. Campbell avers that our Lord spoke to the Jews in the dialect of their own Scriptures, and used words to which their reading of the law and the prophets had accustomed them; and yet he contends for a sense given to Gehenna in the New Testament which it never had either in the law or the prophets.
* See the argument, drawn from the Jewish Targums, in favour of Gehenna being the place of endless punishment, considered, Sect. 5.
5th. If we are to learn from the Targums * how to understand the word Gehenna or hell, but few people could ever understand the New Testament on this subject. Is there one in a thousand who ever saw the Targums? and is there one in ten thousand who ever read them? But until we have learned from such writings the sense of the word Gehenna, we must either remain ignorant, or take this sense at second hand from others. But put the Bible into a man’s hands, let him search it on this subject, and compare the New with the Old Testament, and would he ever conclude that the New Testament sense of Gehenna was so different from that of the Old? No; he would soon perceive that there is an agreement, and a very striking agreement, between both Testaments in the sense and application of the word Gehenna.
Scripture usage and the context, safe rules in all other cases, would soon lead such a person to the same conclusion to which I have come, that our Lord, by “the damnation of hell,” did not mean punishment in a place of endless misery. But it seems these safe rules of interpretation must all be laid aside, and that we must sit at the feet of the writers of the Targums, to learn the meaning of Gehenna. But it is well known how little confidence most people place in those writings in other cases, though their authority is considered good by many in the one before us.
6th. That Gehenna was made an emblem of temporal punishment to the Jews, rests on divine authority. But that it was made an emblem of eternal misery, rests merely on human authority. Let us state a case where, system and preconceived opinion being out of sight, we would give a just decision which of these authorities ought to be preferred. Suppose this case, then, reversed. In the Old Testament, let us suppose the word Gehenna to mean the place of eternal punishment for all the wicked; that this was its allowed sense, by critics and commentators, and that it never, in a single instance, meant temporal punishment. Suppose, further, that the term Gehenna occurred twelve times in the New Testament; that, upon examining one of the texts in which it occurred, say the passage before us, it evidently had the same sense as in the Old Testament; that the text and context clearly decided this to be its meaning; but a Universalist informs us from the Targums that Gehenna, in the Old Testament, in process of time, came to be used as an emblem of temporal punishment, and at last came to be confined to it.
And that this was always and indisputably its meaning in the New Testament, which he roundly asserts, without any attempt at proof on the subject. I ask what decision we should form in this case? Let candour decide if we would not say that the doctrine of eternal punishment was put beyond all debate. And would not every man agree to condemn the Universalist? Happy, then, is the man who condemns not himself in the thing which he allows. But what would be the decision in favour of eternal punishment and against the Universalist, if, upon examining all the other eleven places in the New Testament, it was found that Gehenna had the same or a similar sense as it had in the Old Testament, and in the one in the New Testament where the context so clearly decided? The triumph of the doctrine of eternal misery would be complete. We shall leave it for every man of candour what to say, if it is proved that all the remaining passages which speak of Gehenna corroborate the views I have advanced on the passage we have been considering. But all this is strongly confirmed by a number of facts, showing that no other sense could be rationally attached to the term Gehenna. We have adduced a few facts already, and have yet some more to produce, proving that Gehenna cannot mean a place of endless misery for the wicked, but that it referred to the temporal vengeance coming on the Jewish nation. We should like to see an equal number of such facts produced, showing that Gehenna does not mean this temporal vengeance, but eternal misery, before we are condemned for refusing to believe that this is its meaning.
7th. Supposing that the term Gehenna, in this passage, was equivocal, though it certainly is not, still, according to Dr. Campbell, my interpretation of the passage is correct. In his third Dissertation, Sect. 11, he says: “Nothing can be more pertinent, or better founded, than the remark of M. Le Clerc, that ‘a word which is equivocal by itself, is often so clearly limited to a particular signification by the strain of the discourse, as to leave no room for doubt.’” The strain of our Lord’s discourse in this chapter fixes the sense of Gehenna to be what I have stated so clearly and decisively that no room is left for doubt. But let us hear Dr. Campbell further. In his ninth Dissertation, Part 1, Sect. 13, he says: “When a word in a sentence of Holy Writ is susceptible of two interpretations, so that the sentence, whichsoever of the two ways the word be interpreted, conveys a distinct meaning suitable to the scope of the place; and when one of these interpretations expresses the common import of the word in Holy Writ, and the other assigns it a meaning which it plainly has not in any other passage of Scripture, the rules of criticism manifestly require that we recur to the common acceptation of the term.” This is just what I have done with the term Gehenna, in the passage before us.
I have given it a meaning, “suitable to the scope of the place.” The sense I have given it also “expresses the common import of the word in Holy Writ,” where it is used as an emblem of punishment in the Old Testament. We shall see that it agrees, also, with all the places where it occurs in the New. The interpretation commonly given to Gehenna, “assigns it a meaning which it plainly has not in any other passage of Scripture.” “The rules of criticism manifestly require,” then, the interpretation which I have given this passage. The commonly received sense of this word is, therefore, contrary to the rules of criticism, as declared by Dr. Campbell himself.
I am aware that I have dwelt longer on this passage than was absolutely necessary. This I have done for several reasons. It is one of the principal texts supposed to teach the doctrine of hell torments. It is also the only text where a punishment of Gehenna or hell is threatened wicked men in the New Testament, whether Jew or Gentile. It is also a text, the context of which decides clearly what our Lord meant by the punishment of Gehenna. It serves as a key to unlock the meaning of other places, where the circumstances in the context may not so clearly determine the sense of Gehenna. If our Lord, in this passage, did not mean by Gehenna a place of endless misery, there is no probability that in any other this was his meaning; for here he spoke to men who, Josephus says, were the most wicked race that ever lived on the earth. Since, by the damnation of hell, he did not threaten them with eternal punishment, it is not to be supposed that in any of the other texts he did this; for what is said in them is addressed to his disciples. It is not likely he used Gehenna to express both a place of temporal and eternal punishment; and it is less likely that he should threaten the unbelieving Jews with the former, and his own disciples with the latter.
Mark 9: 43— 49. “And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell (Gehenna), into the fire that never shall be quenched; where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell (Gehenna), into the fire that never shall be quenched; where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out; it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell (Gehenna) fire; where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched.” Concerning these verses, Professor Stuart simply says, “The like cases with Matthew 5: 29; 18: 9, and w here, in both instances, pur to asbeston, unquenchable fire, is added, in order to explain the tremendous nature of the Gehenna in question.” What, then, is the Gehenna in question?
This being the most terrific and full description of Gehenna fire, given in the New Testament, we shall give it a careful consideration. It ought to settle the question that Gehenna does not refer to a place of endless punishment in a future state. Let it then be observed, several things are mentioned in this passage which have been noticed already. For example, we have seen what is meant by cutting off a right hand, or plucking out a right eye; that the term fire is a common figure in Scripture to express punishment, and punishment in this world. The question in dispute is, does Gehenna fire, in this and other texts, express punishment in a future state? We have also noticed the expression “to be cast into hell fire.”
In this passage, we have the expression “to go into hell” once, and “to be cast into hell” twice, which express the same thing. Let us first notice the things contrasted in this passage. 1st. To “enter into life,” or “into the kingdom of God,” is contrasted with “going into or being cast into hell or Gehenna.” If it can be shown, then, that to enter into life, or into the kingdom of God, does not mean to enter into heaven above, it will follow that to be cast into Gehenna, or go into it, does not mean to go into or be cast into hell beneath. If kingdom of God, or life, refers to the heavenly world, I am willing to admit Gehenna refers to a world of woe. Congruity in the contrast demands this. But we are confident this never can be proved.
2d. Entering into life, or into the kingdom of God, with the loss of a hand, a foot, or an eye, is contrasted with going into, or being cast into Gehenna, without the loss of any of these. But who ever speaks of entering into the heavenly state with the loss of their bodily members; or of sending sinners to hell with their members mutilated? Let it be admitted our Lord only meant that his disciples, in order to enter into life, or the kingdom of God, must part with things as dear to them as a right hand or eye. What then? This may suit the one side of the contrast, but it does not suit the other; for, I ask, do those who go to hell carry with them there things the other parted with in order to get to heaven? As this will not be pretended, something else than heaven and hell must be meant by kingdom of God and Gehenna in this passage. What, then, is the true meaning of this language?
1st. We have the phrase, “to enter into life,” twice; and “to enter into the kingdom of God,” once. Dr. Campbell, in his fifth Dissertation, conclusively shows that these two phrases are used by the writers of the New Testament to express the same thing. This must be obvious enough to any person who reads the four gospels with attention. But to enter into the kingdom of heaven, or kingdom of God, does not mean entering into heaven in a future state, as many suppose, but entering into the reign or kingdom of the Messiah in this world. See Dr. C.’s Dissertation. John, Jesus, and his disciples, preached this kingdom as coming, as at hand. Christ’s reign or kingdom did not, properly speaking, commence until after his resurrection from the dead, when God exalted him to his right hand, saying, “Sit thou on my right hand until I make thy foes thy footstool.” Indeed, in one sense, his kingdom did not come until the destruction of Jerusalem. Respecting this, Dr. Campbell, in his note on Matthew 19: 28, says,
“We are accustom ed to apply the term regeneration solely to the conversion of individuals; whereas its relation here is to the general state of things. As they were wont to denominate the creation genesis, a remarkable restoration or renovation of the face of things was very suitably termed palingenesia. The return of the Israelites to their own land, after the Babylonian captivity, is so named by Josephus, the Jewish historian. What was said in verse 23, holds equally in regard to the promise we have here. The principal completion will be at the general resurrection, when there will be, in the most important sense, a renovation or regeneration of heaven and earth, when all things shall become new; yet, in a subordinate sense, it may be said to have been accomplished when God came to visit in judgment that guilty land; when the old dispensation was utterly abolished and succeeded by the Christian dispensation, into which the Gentiles from every quarter, as well as Jews, were called and admitted.”
It is very evident our Lord did not think his kingdom had come during his lifetime. He said to his disciples, Matthew 18: 3, “Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” It may be said, were not the disciples already in this kingdom? No; for our Lord’s words plainly imply that they were not; nor could they afterwards enter it except they were converted. On this text Dr. Campbell says, “They must lay aside their ambition and worldly pursuits before they be honoured to be members, much more the ministers, of that new establishment or kingdom he was about to erect.” See, also, Dr. Macknight, who gives a similar view of it. It is evident, from Luke 22:18, and other texts, that our Lord’s kingdom was not come just before his death. But the very passage in question fairly implies, that, in some sense, our Lord’s disciples were not in his kingdom. If they were, why is it said to them, “It is better for thee to enter halt into life,” and “It is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye,” etc.? Those who wish to see further proof that the kingdom of heaven, or kingdom of God, was not come when our Lord spoke the passage in question, may consult Luke 21: 31, 32; Mark 9: 1. Compare Matthew 16:28.
2d. We shall now examine what our Lord meant by Gehenna fire, the contrast to life, and the kingdom of God, in this passage. Gehenna fire is here mentioned three times. What, then, did our Lord mean by it? He explains what he meant thus, “Into the fire that never shall be quenched; where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched.” As Gehenna fire is three times mentioned, so the explanation is three times repeated. Mr. Stuart, p. 144, admits that this is our Lord’s explanation of Gehenna fire. All, then, we have to do is to ascertain correctly the true sense of this explanation. It divides itself into two parts, which I shall now examine. Our Lord says,
1st. “Into the fire that never shall be quenched.” Do the Scriptures then speak of “a fire that never shall be quenched,” in a future state of existence? No. I find an “unquenchable fire,” or “a fire that never shall be quenched,” often mentioned there. It is said, in Matthew 3:12, “Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge the floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn the chaff with unquenchable fire.” The same is repeated Luke 3: 17. Fire, we have seen on a former passage, is a figure for punishment. Jesus was to separate the good from the bad of the Jewish nation; the former he should gather into his garner, the church; but the latter he should punish, or burn with unquenchable fire. This he did at the end of the age. Their fire or punishment is not yet ended.
But, let us now see whence the language used is borrowed, “a fire that never shall be quenched,” or an unquenchable fire.” It is from the Old Testament. The reader may consult the following places where a fire that shall not be quenched is mentioned. Amos 5: 6; Isaiah 34: 10, and 1: 31; Ezekiel 20: 47, 48. But I quote the following passages which are directly to our purpose. 2 Kings 22: 16, 17. “Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah hath read, because they have forsaken me, and have burnt incense unto other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands; therefore my wrath shall be kindled against this place and shall not be quenched.”
The same is repeated, 2 Chronicles 34: 24, 25. Again, it is said, Jeremiah 4: 4, “Circumcise yourself to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings.” Again, Jeremiah 7: 20, “Therefore, thus saith the Lord God, Behold, mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground; and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched.” Again, Jeremiah 17:27, “But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the Sabbath day, and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day; then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched.”
Once mo re, it is said, Jeremiah 21: 12, “O house of David, thus saith the Lord, Execute judgment in the morning, and deliver him that is spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor, lest my fury go out like fire, and burn that none can quench it.” Such are the texts which speak of an “unquenchable fire,” or “a fire that never shall be quenched;” and upon them I submit the following remarks in connection with the passage before us.
1st. God’s wrath is said to be kindled, and shall not be quenched. So is his fury. It is said to “burn, and shall not be quenched.” God’s wrath and fury are compared to fire, for it is said, “Lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it.” But God has no such evil passions as anger and fury, nor do these burn like literal fire. No; the above passages sufficiently explain what is meant by his anger and fury, namely, his judgments or the punishments he inflicts on men “because of the evil of their doings.” Perhaps no figure could be more appropriate than fire to describe this. And a Gehenna fire is peculiarly appropriate to describe God’s judgments on the Jewish nation; for no fire was so terrible to Jews as the fires which had existed in the valley of Hinnom, whether we view them as used to consume the human sacrifices made there, to burn persons alive, or to http://www.ThreeAngels.com.auconsume the offal of the city of Jerusalem. As the punishment God inflicted on the Jewish nation exceeded all the punishments which had ever been or will be inflicted on men, so no figurative use of the termfire could so well apply to it as the fire of Gehenna.
2d. Let it be specially noticed, that all said in the above passages about an unquenchable fire, or a fire that never shall be quenched, was spoken concerning the Jews as a nation. The punishment thus described under the figure of fire was to come on them for sins. Some of these sins are particularly specified, one of which is, they had “burnt incense unto other gods.” It is called an unquenchable fire, not on account of its endless duration, but its long continuance. No such unquenchable fire was threatened to the Gentiles. Jews, and the Jews as a nation, are the persons threatened with this punishment, which exactly agrees to what is said about Gehenna. Jews, and Jews only, are threatened with Gehenna punishment in the New Testament.
3d. The anger, and wrath, and fury of the Lord, described in the above passages under the figure of a fire that should not be quenched, do not extend to another world. On the contrary, it is particularly specified in what God’s anger, wrath, and fury consisted, and where the Jews were to suffer them. His anger and fury were not to be poured out in hell, but “upon this place and upon the inhabitants thereof,” which was the land of Judea and Jerusalem. His anger was to “be poured out upon man and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground.” It was to be “kindled in the gates of Jerusalem,” and was to “devour the palaces of Jerusalem,” etc. If a single drop of God’s wrath was to be poured out upon the Jews in a future state, it is very strange the above passages are silent about it. And that the expression, “an unquenchable fire,” does not mean endless in duration, is manifest, for this is spoken concerning the trees of the field, fruits of the ground, the gates and palaces of Jerusalem, as well as the Jews themselves. The dispersed condition of the Jews, and the waste condition of Judea and Jerusalem, afford a plain comment on the above passages.
4th. Our Lord still further explains what he meant by Gehenna fire, thus, “where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched.” But where is the fire not quenched? Answer, “where their worm dieth not.” But where is this? In Gehenna, as the connection shows. But is this Gehenna in a future state? Mr. Parkhurst says, “Our Lord seems to allude to the worms which continually preyed on the dead carcasses that were cast out into the valley of Hinnom, Gehenna, and to the perpetual fire kept up to consume them. Compare Ecclesiastes 7: 17, Judith 16:17; and see the learned Joseph Mede’s Works, fol. p. 31.” Mr. Stuart says, in the valley of Hinnom, Gehenna, “perpetual fires were kept up, in order to consume the offal which was deposited there; and, as the same offal would breed worms, hence came the expression, ‘where the worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched.’” Here, then, is the place “where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched,” stated by Drs. Parkhurst and Stuart, both believers in endless misery. It is not in hell, the world of woe, but in the valley of Hinnom.
Here there were worms; here there was a fire not quenched, by their own showing. But are these things in hell, their world of woe? It was long believed hell was a place of literal fire, but now this is discarded by most intelligent men. The idea of literal worms being in hell no one ever believed; hence the worm that never dies is interpreted to mean conscience, which is to torment the damned forever. But this is a private interpretation, for conscience is not spoken of under the figure of a worm by any sacred writer. There is nothing in this passage or its context which intimates that our Lord was speaking on the subject of a future state, or that by Gehenna he referred to a place of endless punishment.
How, then, shall we decide with certainty what our Lord meant by the words, “where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched”? As this is his own explanation of what he meant by Gehenna, it must be decided by the passage our Lord here quoted from the Old Testament. It is the following, Isaiah 66: 24: “And they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.” Mr. Stuart, in his letters to Dr. Channing, p. 69, makes the following remark, which well applies here. “It will be remembered that the passage in question is a quotation from the Old Testament; and that to quote the language of the Old Testament, therefore, in order to explain it, is peculiarly appropriate and necessary.” Let us see how peculiarly appropriate this passage from the Old Testament is in explaining the words of our Lord before us.
1st. When Isaiah said, “for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched,” did he mean to describe hell, the world of woe? No man, we think, will affirm this. But this must be affirmed unless it is alleged our Lord altered the sense of this passage in quoting it.
Jesus gives no intimation that these words spoken by Isaiah had one sense, and when quoted by him another; that Isaiah only referred to temporal punishment, but he to endless torments.
2d. When the Jews read the words in the prophet, “for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched,” if they did not understand them as describing hell, the world of woe, how could our Lord’s disciples understand them so when he quoted them? To say these words, when quoted by him, had such a sense affixed to them, and were so understood by the disciples, implicates both in perverting the Old Testament Scriptures.
3d. What, then, is the meaning of the words in Isaiah, “for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched”? Let it be noticed, generally, the chapter in which this passage stand s relates to events under the gospel dispensation. The new heavens and new earth, mentioned in verse 22, all allow, refer to this period; and the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles is repeatedly adverted to in the course of the chapter. With this in view, let us now notice what is said in the passage. 1st. “And they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me.” What men are referred to, who transgressed against the Lord? The context shows they were the unbelieving Jews. The next question is, what men are referred to who should go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men who had transgressed against the Lord? The preceding verses show that he refers to the persons who worship and obey the Lord. The third question is, to what place shall the men who worship and obey the Lord go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men who transgressed against the Lord? The passage itself answers, to the place “where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched.” But are the carcasses of men who have transgressed against the Lord, in hell, the world of woe? And who goes forth there to look on such carcasses? Who ever heard of carcasses in hell? And does any rational man think persons go forth, either from heaven or this world, to look on them there? The idea is as absurd as it is contrary to common opinion on the subject.
What, then, is meant? I answer, let the reader recollect what was shown from the prophet Jeremiah. The Lord was to make the city of Jerusalem as Tophet, and he was to make the carcasses of the wicked Jews meat for the beasts of the earth, and they should bury in Tophet until there should be no place to bury. Josephus, the Jewish historian, relates that six hundred thousand of their carcasses were carried out of the city and left unburied. The disciples of our Lord, or those who worshipped and obeyed him, could not go forth into the very streets of Jerusalem without looking upon the carcasses of those men, for the streets were filled with their carcasses. And when the disciples left the city, according to our Lord’s directions, Matthew 24, they must have looked on the carcasses of the men who had transgressed against the Lord, if six hundred thousand of them lay unburied. They could not help looking at them, unless they were blindfolded.
But the passage adds, “and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.” This is said of the men who had transgressed against the Lord, mentioned in the former part of the passage. The Jews had greatly transgressed against the Lord, and filled up the cup of their iniquity in crucifying the Lord of glory, and persecuting his disciples. They pleased not God, and were contrary to all men. The former part of the passage fully applies to them. Let us see how this last part applies, “and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.” Whoever will take the trouble to examine the phrase, “all flesh,” easily found by a concordance, will see it is used to designate the Gentile nations. In the unbelieving Jewish nation who survived the destruction of their city and temple by Titus, and in their posterity, this part of the passage has been literally fulfilled. From that day to this, the Jews have been an abhorring to all the Gentile nation s. They have been a by-word and a reproach among all the nations of the earth. The Roman empire, at the time Jerusalem was destroyed, was considered the whole world, and is so denominated in Scripture. The army of Titus which besieged it was made up of men from the various nations which composed this empire. The carcasses of the Jews who had transgressed against the Lord were an abhorring sight to the army, as Josephus testifies. On this view of the words, they were literally and awfully fulfilled.
Let us now return to the passage in question. It is evident our Lord quoted from Isaiah the words, and three times repeats them, “where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched.” If we ask, whose worm shall not die? whose fire is not quenched? the answer to these questions must be drawn from verse 42. The persons who offended those who believed in Jesus, is the antecedent to the word their. Now, all allow the unbelieving Jews were not only the greatest opposers of Jesus, but hated and persecuted such as believed on him. This exactly answers to the persons Isaiah referred to in the words which our Lord quotes, and three times repeats. They were the men who transgressed against the Lord, or the unbelieving, wicked Jews. Is it objected, Have you not said our Lord in this passage was addressing his own disciples? We answer, yes; but it is obvious enough he does not refer to his own disciples by the word their, when he says, “where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched.” On the contrary, he is warning them against a punishment others were to suffer, which he describes by Gehenna fire, the fire that never shall be quenched; where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched. Our Lord told his disciples it was better, or profitable for them, to enter into life, into the kingdom of God, maimed in their bodily members, than, having all these, to go or be cast into Gehenna or hell fire. And what he meant by this we have seen from the above examination of the language of the passage. *
* In a note on p. 141 we have given, from an article by Dr. Ballou, an exposition of Matthew 5: 29, 30. In the same article he has the following on Matthew 17: 8, 9; Mark 9: 43—48. “It is evident, by comparing the parallel expressions in these two passages, that ‘to be cast into the fire that is everlasting,’ is the same as to be cast into the Gehenna of fire, or into Gehenna, or ‘into the fire that is unquenchable, where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched.’ And we scarcely need to say that all these are phrases which, in their literal sense, designate or aptly describe the valley of Hinnom, with its perpetual fire, and its ever-swarming, ever-devouring host of worms. It has already been seen that the Gehenna of fire is the appellation by which Christ spoke of that place. Its fire is called the everlasting (aionios), or unquenchable (asbestos), because it never was extinguished; and the worm, it is said, ‘dies not,’ because it was always found there in such abundance. It should be observed, moreover, that this language had a proverbial reference to the valley of Hinnom; for our Saviour borrowed it from Isaiah 66: 24, where it had been used with reference to that place, and where it had presented the same imagery as here: ‘They shall go forth,’ said the prophet, ‘and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.’
“Accordingly, it is plain that all these phrases denote (we mean literally) the valley of Hinnom. The general development of the metaphor, therefore, if we fill out the break in it, is obviously the same here as in the text at the head of this article. And the moral, or signification of it, is the same, namely, Give up everything that becomes to thee an occasion to sin; for it is better to enter into the kingdom of God, into the spiritual life and blessedness of the gospel, even at the sacrifice of outward privileges and comforts, than, by retaining them, to have thy whole soul corrupted till thou art involved in a state of utter abomination and wretchedness, like a dishonoured corpse that is cast into Gehenna to be preyed upon by the worms, and abandoned to the fire. Such is the interpretation which appears to us the most natural and simple. Certain it is that the common explanation is beset with several difficulties. If carried out strictly, it presupposes, 1st.
That Gehenna, and the fire that is everlasting, and the parallel phrases, do not designate, in any way, the valley of Hinnom, but are the direct names or descriptions of a future state of torment in the spiritual world; of course, that the metaphor with which the passages begin is wholly abandoned in the latter part. 2d. That to enter into the kingdom of God, is not to enter into the gospel in this life, as the expression usually means, but into the state of glory hereafter, as if the person had never been in the kingdom before. 3d. That if we sacrifice any outward privileges and comforts here on earth, in order to avoid occasions to sin, we shall hereafter be deprived of corresponding conveniences, shall enter into heaven maimed, and halt, and half-blind, as it were. 4. That when speaking directly and exclusively of a future state of torment, our Saviour mentioned only the body as being cast into it.”
Luke 12: 4, 5. “And I say unto you, my friends, be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: fear him, which, after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell (Gehenna).” Here our Lord was also addressing his own disciples. “It is,” says Mr. Stuart, “a passage parallel with Matthew 10:28, above, and of the same import.” To my remarks there I then refer the reader. Some light may be shed on both passages by comparing Matthew and Luke’s account of our Lord’s discourse. Matthew says, “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul.” Luke’s statement of the same thing is, “Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.” The words of Luke, “after that have no more that they can do,” express what Matthew me ant by the words, “but are not able to kill the soul.”
2d. Matthew says, “But rather fear him, which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (Gehenna).” To express the same thing, Luke says, “Fear him, which, after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell (Gehenna).” We notice the following agreement and difference between Matthew and Luke in expressing the same thing. 1st. Both mention Gehenna, and no one can doubt both mean the same thing by it. 2d. What Matthew expresses by the words, “destroy in Gehenna,” Luke expresses by the words, “cast into Gehenna.” But Matthew used the same language, “cast into Gehenna,” twice, chapter 5: 29, 30, and in chapter 18: 9, once. To be destroyed, or to be cast into Gehenna, then, means the same thing with the same writer and with both writers. But, 3d. Matthew says “both soul and body” God is able to destroy in Gehenna. But Luke mentions neither soul nor body. The words “after he hath killed,” used by Luke, or “after he hath killed, hath power to cast into Gehenna,” answer to the words of Matthew. They suggest the question, after he hath killed what? If we supply the answer to this question from Matthew’s account, it will be, after he hath killed or destroyed both soul and body, he hath power to cast into Gehenna. 4th.
Matthew says God is able to do all this. Luke says God has power to do it, which is the same. But it is rather a hasty conclusion to say because he is able, or hath power to do all this, it was done, as noticed on Matthew 10: 28. From this comparison of Matthew and Luke’s language, I would remark, 1st. Luke does not use the distinction made by Matthew between soul and body. He only mentions the body, in the first part of his statement, when he speaks of men killing it. In the last, when he speaks of God’s killing, he does not mention soul or body. If he thought man had an immortal soul, and if, by soul, Matthew meant this, it was a great omission in Luke not to mention it, if God was to destroy or kill the immortal soul as well as the body in Gehenna.
But, 2d. Luke’s not using the distinction between soul and body confirms what was noticed on Matthew 10: 28, that, this distinction between soul and body is a mere Hebrew idiom. It simply means, as noticed already, the whole body or the person. That soul is used for the person himself, we have seen above. But that it is ever used to designate an immortal soul, in distinction from the body, and which is to be happy or miserable in a disembodied state, I am unable to find in Scripture. This doctrine is assumed from this text, and Matthew 10: 28, which give no countenance to the opinion. Do these text s say the soul is immortal? No. Do they say the soul or body is alive in happiness or misery after being killed or destroyed in Gehenna? No. Not the slightest intimation of this.
3d. Both Matthew and Luke say our Lord enjoined on his disciples not to fear men. Why? Because they could only put them to death. This they did, and was all they could do. See Acts 12: 1— 3. The apostles were above the fear of man in fulfilling their mission, as the whole book of the Acts shows.
4th. Both Matthew and Luke say our Lord enjoined on his disciples to fear God. This is often enjoined on Christians in Scripture. Why, on this occasion, did Jesus enjoin the fear of God on his disciples? Because, though man could kill the body, none but God could bring upon them that tremendous punishment predicted by Jeremiah under the emblem of Gehenna. This was a much severer punishment than that inflicted upon the men who died without mercy under the law of Moses. The like had never been before, and would never be again. In this our Lord’s disciples might be involved, for nothing but fidelity to him, and obedience to his instructions, could save them from it.
5th. It is objected, “To destroy both soul and body in Gehenna seems to intimate something more than this.” But if it does, it intimates annihilation, or the total destruction of the whole man. But, surely, no one thinks that by destroying both soul and body in Gehenna, more can be meant than “the damnation of hell, Gehenna,” Matthew 23: 33, which was threatened the unbelieving Jews. Did this mean annihilation? No. Did it mean endless punishment in a future state? No; for we have shown from the context it evidently meant the temporal punishment coming on the Jewish nation. Who c an suppose that our Lord threatened his own disciples with a worse punishment than the unbelieving Jews?
James 3: 6. “And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity; so is the tongue among our members, that it defiles the whole body, and sets on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell (Gehenna).” Dr. Campbell thinks the term Gehenna is here used figuratively. He observes, “It is the intention of the writer to draw an illustration of the subject from that state of perfect wretchedness.” But why forget, that before any illustration could be drawn from Gehenna, as a place of endless misery, by a Jew or any one else, it must first be known as a place of perfect misery? But, by Dr. Campbell’s own showing, no Jew could learn this from the Old Testament. The term Gehenna is not used in the Old Testament to designate a place of endless punishment. Nor are the words Sheol or Hades used in this sense.
James could not draw an illustration of any subject, then, from such a place of future punishment, nor ought this to be asserted until it is proved he knew of such a place as a place of wretchedness.
James was a Jew and wrote to believing Jews. Now, no place, to a Jew, conveyed an idea of more perfect wretchedness than the valley of Hinnom. Professor Stuart says, “We cannot wonder, then, at the severe terms in which the worship of Moloch is everywhere denounced in the Scriptures. Nor can we wonder that the place itself should have been called Tophet, that is, abomination, detestation (from tup, to vomit with loathing).” Such a place of perfect wretchedness was Gehenna, that he and others allege, it was made a source of imagery to designate hell or the world of woe. Hence he says, “What could be a more appropriate term than this, when we consider the horrid cruelties and diabolical rites which had been there performed?” Which, then, is most likely the truth, that James drew an illustration from hell in another world, a place unknown, or from the valley of Hinnom, a place well known as a place of perfect wretchedness? He is here speaking of the evils arising from an improper use of the tongue; and to draw an illustration from the valley of Hinnom was both natural and proper, http://www.ThreeAngels.com.auas it was the most abominable place known to Jews. Surely, it is as difficult to conceive how the tongue could be set on fire from hell in another world, as from the valley of Hinnom in the present world.
We have now considered all the texts in the New Testament which speak of Gehenna punishment. We have two or three additional remarks to make on the whole of them. 1st. If these texts do not refer to the same punishment predicted by Jeremiah to the Jewish nation, then our Lord never reminded the Jews that such a punishment had been threatened them. If he spoke of this punishment at all to them, it must have been under the imagery of Gehenna, for under this imagery it was described by the prophet. It will not be pretended that this punishment had been inflicted on the Jewish nation previous to the days of our Lord. Fidelity to the unbelieving Jews, and love to his own disciples, required he should frequently speak of it, for this punishment was nigh even at the door. The texts which speak of Gehenna punishment agree to this view of the subject. Their contexts, the persons addressed about Gehenna, and the phraseology used, are all in unison with it.
2d. It is asserted, Gehenna was such an abominable place that in process of time it was made an emblem of the endless punishment of the wicked in a future state. But if it was so abominable as to be made an emblem of this, it ought to have been made so in the days of the Old Testament writers; for it was then the most cruel sacrifices were made in the valley of Hinnom, and the most horrid abominations were committed. After the Babylonian captivity the Jews were cured of idolatry. But during the days of the prophets, no one ever thought of making Gehenna, the valley of Hinnom, an emblem of hell, the world of woe. And yet, during this period, the prophet Jeremiah did make Gehenna an emblem of temporal punishment to the Jewish nation. If Gehenna, in the days of its greatest abomination, was not made an emblem of the world of woe by inspired writers, but of temporal punishment to the Jews, why should it be made an emblem of this when it was far less abominable, and that too by uninspired writers? If God did not see fit to make it an emblem of hell, the world of woe, when at its height of abomination, who had a right, on their own authority, to make it so afterwards?
3d. But it must first be proved that God, in the Old Testament, had revealed such a hell, such a world of woe, before we ought to believe Gehenna was made an emblem of it. I demand, then, that the texts be produced, which teach such a world. Where is it described by the name Gehenna, or by any other name? Mr. Stuart tried to find it under the name Sheol; but his attempt was a total failure. I ask, then, how could any Old Testament writer make Gehenna an emblem of a world of woe, when no such world was known to him? 4th. The Jews, in after ages, derived their notions of punishment in a world of woe from the heathen, and to this the term Gehenna was applied. But both the place and the sense given to Gehenna are of human invention.
Such are all the texts in which the word Gehenna is used by the New Testament writers. According to every just rule of Scripture interpretation, I do not see how they can be interpreted differently. Indeed, to me it is surprising how the doctrine of eternal misery was ever founded on any of the texts which speak of Gehenna or hell. If I am correct, it also affords a striking example how far we may be misled, in a proper understanding of the Scriptures, by attaching to a single word a sense different from that given by the inspired writers. How far I am correct, my readers must judge. I hope they will, on the one hand, guard against receiving my error if it be one, and on the other, beware of rejecting my view, if true, from prejudices of education. Under the influence of these prejudices I began to examine this subject, and have been obliged to relinquish my former views of Gehenna, from the force of the evidence I have already stated, and which I have yet to state. If my views of Gehenna are found correct, it is also a striking proof how far we may be misled in a proper understanding of the New Testament, from our inattention to the Old. If the word Gehenna in the New is used in a similar sense as in the Old Testament, all the false views we have had of the texts in which it occurs in the former, have arisen from our inattention to its usage in the latter.
Before closing this section, it is proper to notice any objections which have occurred against the sense given to Gehenna in the passages we have been considering. 1st. One of the most popular objections likely to be urged, is that it is contrary to the long established ecclesiastical use of this word. T his is frankly admitted; but, certainly, this is no certain evidence that my views are incorrect. In the present case, I have done no more than what is done by Presbyterians, Hopkinsians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists, yea, by all sects in religion. That the ecclesiastical use of some words is very different from the scripture usage of them, few will deny. I have as much regard for the ecclesiastical use of words as Dr. Campbell. He says, p. 416, of his Dissertations, “Ecclesiastical use is no security that the word, though it be understood, conveys to us the same idea which the original term did to those to whom the gospels were first promulgated. In a former dissertation, the fullest evidence has been given that, in regard to several words, the meaning which has been long established by ecclesiastical use is very different from that which they have in the writings of the New Testament.”
It is easily seen from this quotation, and more fully from the other dissertation to which he refers, that he did not scruple to disclaim the ecclesiastical use of words if it did not agree with the New Testament. We have examined the scripture usage of Sheol, Hades, Tartarus and Gehenna, and if ecclesiastical usage makes them signify a place of endless misery, we must say that it is not supported by the Bible.
2d. Another objection closely connected with the former is that my views of Gehenna are contrary to the opinions of almost all the learned in the present day, in ages past of the Christian Church, and to its sense in the Apocrypha and Jewish Targums. This may be true, yet my view of Gehenna be the correct and scriptural one notwithstanding. Dr. Campbell says, p. 91 of his Dissertations, “The opinion of Grotius and some learned Rabbis, unsupported by either argument or example, nay, in manifest contradiction to both, is here of no weight. Scriptural usage alone must decide the question. These commentators (with all deference to their erudition and abilities be it spoken), being comparatively modern, cannot be considered as ultimate judges in a question depending entirely on an ancient use, whereof all the evidences that were remaining in their time remain still, and are as open to our examination as they were to theirs. In other points where there may happen to be in Scripture an allusion to customs or ceremonies retained by the Jews, but unknown to us, the case is different.
But nothing of this kind is pretended here.” We have attempted to decide the question, what is the meaning of the term Gehenna, by an appeal to the scripture usage of this word, and we must say it is our present opinion that it is not once used either in the Old or New Testament to express a place of endless misery for the wicked.
We conclude this section with two brief quotations from Mr. Stuart, in his letters to Mr. (now Dr.) Channing, which we wish were engraved on every man’s heart, never to be effaced. In page 14, he says, “The claims of the Bible to be authoritative being once admitted, the simple question, in respect to it, is, what does it teach in regard to any particular passage; what idea did the original writer mean to convey? When this is ascertained by the legitimate rules of interpretation, it is authoritative. This is orthodoxy in the highest and best sense of the word; and everything which is opposed to it, which modifies it, which fritters its meaning away, is heterodoxy, is heresy; to whatever name or party it is attached.” He adds, p. 109, “After all, it is a principle, by which, if I have any knowledge of my own heart, I desire forever to be guided, to ‘call no man master, on earth.’ I would place the decision of Scripture, fairly made out, IMMEASURABLY ABOVE all human opinions. I regard the one as the decision of an unerring God; the other as the opinions of fallible??
SECTION 7
ADDITIONAL FACTS STATED, PROVING THAT GEHENNA
WAS NOT USED BY THE SACRED WRITERS TO EXPRESS A PLACE OF ENDLESS MISERY.
THE facts which have been stated in Section 2d, are certainly very singular, if Gehenna in the New Testament signifies a place of endless misery for the wicked. Those I am now to adduce are to me also strange, upon such a view of this subject. Some of them have been slightly hinted at in the course of our remarks, but deserve, a more distinct statement.
1st. If Gehenna means a place of endless misery for the wicked, it is a fact that the apostles never preached it, either to Jews or Gentiles. The history of the Acts of the Apostles contains an account of their preaching for thirty years, but not once is the subject of Gehenna torments mentioned by them. They were commanded to preach the gospel to every creature, and they did so; but to no creature under heaven did they preach this doctrine, or threaten its punishment? They addressed the worst of characters, but to none of them did they say, “How can ye escape the damnation of Gehenna, hell?” They threatened men sometimes with punishment, but never with eternal punishment in hell. Paul said to Elymas, the sorcerer, “O! full of all subtlety and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?” But he does not threaten him with the damnation of hell. He says, “And now, behold the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season.” Acts 13: 10 , 11. In the same chapter, verses 40, 41, he says, “Beware, therefore, lest that come upon you which is spoken of in the prophets. Behold, ye despisers, and wonder and perish.” In this last text the word perish occurs, and perhaps some may think it means eternal punishment. But it should be observed that Paul was here addressing himself to Jews, concerning whom our Lord had said, “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish,” referring to the temp oral destruction of the Jewish nation. Now, how can we account for this silence, if the apostles believed hell to be a place of endless misery? Their ministry continued thirty years, and yet they do not once use Gehenna! What http://www.ThreeAngels.com.auwould we say of a man in these days who should preach thirty years, yet never say a word about hell to those whom he addressed? Should we not say he was a Universalist? He would be an outlaw from orthodoxy. If my veracity in this statement is doubted by any, let them read the book of Acts. It is silent on the subject of hell torments.
If preachers should take the apostles for their models, we should hear n o more about hell. We respectfully ask, then, from what source ministers learn that they should preach Gehenna or hell torments to us Gentiles? To what chapter or verse, in any book of the New Testament, can they refer us where an inspired apostle ever did so? Let every one, who preaches this doctrine, consider if he did not learn it from his catechism when a child, from books he has read, and from the preaching he has heard, since he became a man, and not from his Bible.
Let him also ask whether he has ever given this subject a thorough and impartial examination. We are all too prone to condemn opinions contrary to our own, before we have duly considered the evidence brought in support of them.
To the above it may be objected, “Gehenna was a Jewish figurative mode of speaking of future eternal punishment, and had it been used by the apostles in preaching to the Gentiles, they could not have been understood; for the Gentiles knew nothing about Gehenna as a place of future punishment.” To this I reply,
1st. This objection would have some force if it was found that the apostles ever said to the wicked Gentiles, “How can ye escape the damnation of Hades, or Tartarus?” Had they done thus, the objection would have force; but they did not, and it is fair, therefore, to infer their silence concerning Gehenna, in preaching to Gentiles, was not because it was a Jewish figure which they could not understand. But,
2d. Admitting the term Gehenna was one which the Gentiles did not understand, the apostles could have explained it to them, as they have done other things less important. Let any one read John’s gospel, and he will see that he explains Jewish names and customs; some examples of which we have given in another place. But,
3d. The above objection assumes that the Gentiles were unacquainted with the term Gehenna. But is there not as good reason to think that the heathen, in their intercourse with the Jews, should imbibe their notions of Gehenna, as that the Jews should imbibe the heathen notions concerning Hades or Tartarus? Their mutual intercourse would produce a mutual interchange of opinions. This being the case, if the Spirit of God recognized either the Jewish notions of Gehenna, or the Pagan notions of Hades, as truth, we might expect that the apostles would have preached the doctrine to both Jews and Gentiles. Had both been recognized, we might expect Hades and Gehenna to be used indiscriminately by the apostles in speaking of future eternal misery. But this was not done, if we may judge of their preaching from what is contained in the New Testament. If they believed both to be true, they would have spoken at least of Gehenna to Jews, and of Hades to Gentiles, as a place of eternal punishment in a future state.
4th. But this objection assumes that the Jews in our Lord’s day used Gehenna to signify a place of endless misery, and that this was its exclusive sense. That this could not be its exclusive sense we have proved; for in reading the Old Testament they could not understand it so; or, if they did, they must have perverted it to an extent I am unwilling to believe, even of the Jews. The objector must then prove that the Jews in our Lord’s day used the term Gehenna exclusively to express a place of endless misery. The apostles preached to the Jews as well as the Gentiles, but they did not even name it to them. Will any man affirm, then, that the apostles of our Lord understood him to mean by Gehenna a place of endless misery, and yet never preached it, to either Jews or Gentiles, in the whole course of their ministry? Whatever excuse we may make for them, in regard to the Gentiles not understanding the term, none can be made for them respecting the Jews.
2d. The salvation revealed by the gospel, is never spoken of as a salvation from hell or endless misery. No such was ever promised or predicted in the Old Testament, and no such salvation was ever preached by Christ or his apostles. Our Lord received the name Jesus, because he should save his people from their sins, not because he should save them from hell.
Our Lord and his apostles, in preaching, proposed by it to turn men from darkness to light; from the power of Satan unto God; from idols to serve the living God; from the course of this world, and from all sin, to holiness; but where do we ever read of their saving them from hell?
No such salvation was preached by our Lord. In all the texts where he speaks of hell, he was not preaching the gospel, but addressing the Jews about the temporal calamities coming on them as a people. In no instance did he http://www.ThreeAngels.com.auever exhort men to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, because they were exposed to hell torments in a future state. So far from this, in nine instances out of eleven, where Gehenna is used by him, he was addressing his disciples.
Nothing is said in our Lord’s commission to his apostles about hell, and as little by them in their execution of it. James is the only exception, though he uses it figuratively. To Jew and Gentile, bond and free, all the rest are silent about it. This silence of the apostles could not be because the people in those days were so good that they did not need pungent preaching.
No; the whole world lay in wickedness, yet they did not declaim upon the torments of hell to alarm their fears, and turn them from sin to God. No calculations were made, as in our day, of the number daily and hourly going to eternal misery. Nor were any schemes adopted by the apostles to raise funds to save men from such a fate. As they expressed no alarms about the vast crowds going to hell, so we do not find them expressing their joy because any were saved from it. They were deeply grieved to see men living in sin, and their spirit was stirred within them to see whole cities given to idolatry; but they never assert that all such were on the road to eternal woe. They had great joy to see men walking in the truth, and often congratulated them on account of their being saved from their former course of life, but not a syllable escapes them that such persons have been saved from ceaseless misery.
You search the Scriptures in vain to find a single instance where the apostles made any attempt to work on the fears and feelings of men by giving terrific descriptions of hell, or the horrors and howling of the damned. As they never held up the torments of hell to make men Christians, so we never find them using it as an argument to induce Christians to love and to good works.
The latter were often reminded that they formerly were idolaters, working all uncleanness with greediness, to induce them to holiness; but we do not find a word said about their being saved from hell, as any inducement to it. In view of these things, how are we to explain their conduct, if they believed as many do no w respecting the wicked? Is it possible they believed this, yet preserved such a dead silence on the subject?
But I may be told, that though none are said to be saved from hell, they are said to be delivered from the wrath to come, and to be saved from wrath through Jesus. True; but it is not said that this wrath was in a future state, or of eternal duration, which is the point to be proved. I can show that the expression “wrath to come” does not refer to a future state. To do it here would be too great a digression from our present subject.
3d. Supposing that Gehenna is a place of endless misery, who can vindicate the character of our Lord or his apostles for faithfulness, compassion or zeal? It is certain that our Lord was faithful to him who appointed him. The apostles were also faithful in declaring the whole counsel of God. But can all this be true, if they knew that hell was a place of eternal misery, and that all the world stood exposed to it, yet said nothing about it? It is true the Saviour mentions Gehenna nine times to his disciples, and twice to the unbelieving Jews. But neither he nor his apostles use the word in speaking to the Gentiles. Now, I ask, is this being faithful?
Is this being half so faithful as most preachers are in our day? Every candid man must say no; it is rather being very unfaithful, if they believed this doctrine as it is commonly received among us. How can preaching hell as a place of endless misery now be a duty, since it was not done by the apostles or our Lord? The fidelity of preachers in these days, both to God and the souls of men, in preaching the doctrine of endless misery, far exceeds that of the apostles or of Christ. But how is their compassion to the souls of men to be vindicated, if by hell is meant a place of such misery? The case stands thus. The Saviour knew about this place of endless torment. He had compassion on the multitude when they needed food, and wrought a miracle to supply their wants. His compassion made him weep over Jerusalem, in view of the temporal calamities coming upon its inhabitants, and faithfully warn them of their danger.
In reference to those calamities, he once said to the unbelieving Jews, “How can ye escape the damnation of hell?” In reference to the same calamities, he uses the word hell in addressing his disciples. But he sheds no tears, he gives no warnings, he works no miracles to save from endless misery. But can any man think this of the Son of God, the Saviour of the world? Can any man believe that he whose heart was wrung with anguish at foreseeing temporal evils, and who could shed tears at the grave of Lazarus, was so devoid of all compassion as never to warn men of endless misery? But suppose we admit that in all the places where our Lord mentions hell such a place of misery is meant. In that case he had a little compassion for the Jews. But neither he nor his apostles had any for the Gentiles.
The apostles did shed tears, but not a tear falls from their eyes on account of men’s being in danger of hell torments. On this subject, their bowels of compassion were entirely shut up, for they say not a word about hell to them. Either then we must allow these me n to be devoid of compassion, or admit that they did not know the torment that awaited the wicked. How different from modern preachers! Solemnly, and seriously, and frequently, do they warn men of hell torment. What deep compassion they pretend to feel for the multitudes of poor souls on the brink of hell, and going down to suffer its torments forever! In what loud and frightful tones do we hear them describe the horrors of this place! Their compassionate hearts they represent as bleeding, because men will thus rush down to ruin in crowds.
But where do we find such things in the preaching of our Lord and his apostles? Were they to return to the earth, every pulpit would be shut against them, and they represented as unfaithful and unfeeling men. But how is their zeal for the glory of God and the salvation of men to be vindicated? Our Lord said, “The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.” But surely his zeal was not spent in warning men against endless misery. The apostles had also great zeal, and zeal according to knowledge, but they never spent it in enforcing such a doctrine. The topic of hell torments, on which so much zeal is spent in the present day, is one which they never introduced.
I do not blame the zeal of any in the present day in urging this doctrine on mankind, if it be true; I contend that their zeal is not ardent enough. So far from condemning the greatest zeal which can be manifested, I have some doubts, from the indifference of many persons, whether they believe their own doctrine. If they do, how can they live in such wealth and splendour, yet do so little to save men from hell? I have serious doubts whether many of the preachers, most active and zealous in rousing the people to give money to save the heathen from hell, believe this doctrine. If they believed it, would they live at home in comparative ease and affluence, and send raw, inexperienced youths abroad, to encounter the difficulties and dangers of such a work? No; they would rush into the hottest place of the battle, and suffer every privation in such a conflict. One thing is certain, that, in saving others from hell, they seem determined to do it with as little self-denial and personal risk as possible.
How often does it happen that all the zeal for the doctrine in question evaporates in the pulpit, and nothing more is heard of it until the preacher returns to it again! In the common intercourse of life, he speaks and acts to the same people as if all his threatening of eternal torment were not true. Yea, some of the very persons whom he threatens with hell are his most intimate companions through the week. He visits in their families, he feasts at their table, and his salary is chiefly paid by them; but not a word escapes him, perhaps the whole week, in warning them of their danger. Can such a man be said truly to believe this doctrine? We must be allowed to doubt it, so long as such unfaithfulness is so apparent.
4th. The Old Testament is often quoted in the New, but it is an indisputable fact, that though quoted by our Lord, when speaking about hell or Gehenna, it is not quoted to show that hell was a place of eternal misery, but in reference to temporal punishment. Indeed, it was impossible for him or his apostles to quote the Old Testament for such a purpose; for we have seen, from Dr. Campbell and others, that it did not afford them anything to quote.
Well, permit me to ask why our Lord quoted the Old Testament, and in the very texts in which hell or Gehenna is spoken of? In Mark 9, our Lord expressly quotes a passage from Isaiah, when speaking concerning hell to his disciples. In other places he seems to allude to other prophets. Had our Lord then meant to use Gehenna in a different sense from that in the Old Testament, was it not calculated to mislead his hearers thus to quote it? Is it rational to suppose that he quoted texts which speak of a temporal punishment, when he intended that what he said about Gehenna, or hell, should be understood of eternal punishment? I think this would be imputing to our Lord a want of correctness of judgment, and even of common propriety, which we seldom have occasion to impute to our fellow-men. The man would be looked on as insane, or something worse, who, in the present day, if he intended to prove the doctrine of hell torments, should quote from the Old Testament the passage about the three persons thrown into the fiery furnace. But this is just what our Lord did, if Gehenna in the New Testament means a place of eternal misery. See on Matthew 23: 33, and Mark 9: 42, considered in the preceding section.
5th. If there is a place of endless misery for the wicked, it is a most remarkable fact that the Hebrew, Greek and English languages originally had no name for it. We have seen, from Dr. Campbell, that Gehenna does not occur in this sense in the Old Testament: Let us also see what he says about our English word hell. Speaking of Hades in his sixth Dissertation, he says, “To this the word hell in its primitive signification perfectly corresponded; for, at first, it denoted only what was secret or concealed. This word is found with little variation of form, and precisely in the same meaning, in all the Teutonic dialects.
But though our word hell in its original signification was more adapted to express the sense of Hades than of Gehenna, it is not so now. When we speak as Christians, we always express by it the place of the punishment of the wicked after the general judgment, as opposed to heaven, the place of the reward of the righteous.” It is very evident, from this, that the word hell did not originally signify a place of endless misery. In confirmation of what Dr. Campbell says, I shall quote the following from Parkhurst, on the word Hades. He says, “Our English or rather Saxon word hell, in its original signification (though it is now understood in a more limited sense), exactly answers to the word Hades, and denotes a concealed or unseen place; and this sense of the word is still retained in the eastern, and especially in the western counties of England; to hele over a thing, is to cover it.” These statements are above suspicion; for the fidelity of their authors has led them to say things at variance with their professed creed as Christians. It is very evident, then, that our English word hell did not originally signify a place of endless misery, but, like Hades or Sheol, signified the unseen or concealed place; and that it now has this meaning in some of the counties in England.
It is then evident, that for this place of endless misery, the Hebrew, Greek, and English languages originally furnished no name. We have then to ask, had the inspired writers any idea of such a place? If they had, it is evident they wanted a name to express it. If they have not expressed it by any word, how does any man know that they entertained such an idea? We have seen persons use words to which they attached no distinct ideas. And we have also seen persons having ideas which they could not very easily express in appropriate language. But it would be singular to suppose that the Bible reveals a place of endless misery for which its inspired writers had no name. It is surely, then, a very proper question to be asked, who changed the words Gehenna and hell from their original signification to their present one? We shall see, in the next section, that the writers of the Targums and the Apocrypha are adduced to show that this change was gradually produced, and that, finally, Gehenna was used exclusively to mean a place of endless suffering; but it will be found that these authorities do not establish the point for which they are brought forward.
After these statements from such eminent critics relative to Gehenna and our English word hell, it is very natural to put something like the following questions: 1st. Were these words changed from their original signification by divine authority, or was it on the authority of men? None of the above authors insinuate that such a change in the meaning of these words was made by divine authority. It has never been noticed in the course of our reading, that any one ventured to prove or even assert this. We have seen what Dr. Campbell says respecting this change in the use of Gehenna. 2d. By whom, and in what period of time, did this change in the sense of these two words take place? Here we are left to conjecture; for neither Dr. Campbell, nor any other writer of whom we have any knowledge, gives us any information. That a change in the sense of these two words has taken place is certain, but when or where, or by whom it was made, no information is afforded.
3d. By what name was this place of endless misery called before the Jews gave it the name of Gehenna? And what was its name in the English or rather Saxon language, before the word hell was changed from its original signification and applied to it? Or was it without a name before these words were altered? 4th. If it had a name before Gehenna and hell were changed and applied to it, why was it laid aside? And what were the reasons which induced men to make such an alteration on their own authority? Why were they not content to speak of this place as the Scriptures teach, if indeed they reveal such a place? 5th. If Gehenna and hell have undergone such a change of sense on mere human authority, ought we not to change them again to their original signification, on the same authority? Such are a few of the questions which may be put relative to the change in the sense of these two words. We leave our reader to determine how they a re to be answered. The last is easily answered, but all the others, we think, must remain unanswered.
6th. Another fact deserving our consideration is, that Christians, when they speak of hell, adopt the phraseology used about Sheol and Hades rather than Gehenna, though it is contended that Gehenna is the word which signifies the place of endless misery. I shall explain what I mean. For example, it is evident, from an inspection of the passages in which Sheol, Hades, and Gehenna occur, that Gehenna for depth is never contrasted with heaven for height, like Sheol and Hades. Nor do we read of persons going down to Gehenna; of the depths of Gehenna, or of the lowest Gehenna. Neither do we read of the gates of Gehenna, nor of the pains of Gehenna. All these things are said of Sheol and Hades, as we have seen in a former part of this Inquiry. Besides, no representations are given of Gehenna, as of Sheol and Hades, that all the dead, or even the wicked, are there. No persons are ever represented as alive in Gehenna, as speaking out of Gehenna, or as tormented in its flames. It is never, like Sheol and Hades, represented as a dark, concealed place, under the earth. No; it is represented as on a level with the persons addressed concerning it. These facts show a remarkable difference in the scripture representations of the two places. Such a marked difference must strike every man’s mind with great force, who takes the trouble to examine this subject.
An examination of the twelve places in which Gehenna occurs in the New Testament will show that what I have stated is strictly correct. In them we read of the damnation of Gehenna or hell; persons are there said to be in danger of it; they are threatened with going into it, or being cast into it; but we never read that any one was alive in it, and lifted up his eyes in its torments. Now, comparing all these different forms of speech, about Sheol and Hades, with those of Gehenna, the difference is not only manifest, but very significant.
Let us now compare these statements with the way in which Christians speak about hell, or the place of future punishment. They seldom use the language employed in the Bible about Gehenna, but, generally, that used in speaking of Sheol and Hades. Thus, for example, when a preacher describes hell to his hearers, and threatens the wicked with its punishment, he speaks of it as a deep place, as the lowest hell, and as a place to which they are going down; and of some already there, lifting up their eyes in torments. Permit me, then, to ask, why this is done? For what reason is the scripture language about Gehenna laid aside, and that of Sheol and Hades substituted in its place; when it is allowed on all sides that Sheol or Hades do not mean a place of endless misery? It must be confessed, that this is, at least, handling the word of God ignorantly, if not deceitfully; and, under the mask of scripture phraseology, imposing on the ignorance and credulity of mankind. If such persons will have Gehenna to be the place of endless misery, let them use the language of Scripture about it, and not the language allowed to have no reference to such a subject. We cannot help thinking that the reason of this change of phraseology is from necessity. It would be contrary to fact, and even common belief, to speak to people of hell in the language used about Gehenna.
To tell them that their whole body should be cast into hell would not do. A case of this kind was never known. The change of the language from Gehenna to that of Sheol and Hades is therefore necessary, to be in unison with the common belief on this subject. If men were obliged to confine themselves to the language of Scripture about Gehenna, when they speak of hell, it would probably lead them to see that all was not correctly understood respecting it. I may add, here, that this change is not altogether in agreement with the popular ideas entertained of hell. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is not in unison with the common belief. No man believes that the body is tormented, at least till after the resurrection of the dead; but how often do preachers represent the body after death as in hell, lifting up its eyes there, and as tormented in its flames! Fondness for a popular sentiment often blinds our eyes to the contradictions and absurdities of our language in speaking about it.
7th. Another fact deserving some notice, is, that the punishment of Gehenna is never once spoken of as a punishment for the spirit separate from the body in an intermediate state, nor as a punishment for both body and spirit after the resurrection of the dead. As to the first part of this statement, let the texts in which Gehenna occurs be ever so rigidly examined, and it will be found that they do not afford a particle of evidence that Gehenna is an intermediate place of punishment for the spirit after the death of the body. The text, and we believe the only text, quoted to prove this intermediate place of punishment, is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. But supposing this account to be literally understood, it should be remembered that the rich man was not in Gehenna, but in Hades.
Admitting, then, that Hades is an intermediate place of punishment for the separate spirit, Gehenna must be given up as such a place. But ask any common Christian, who believes the doctrine of eternal misery, if he thinks that we are punished before and after the resurrection, in two different places, and he would regard you as a heretic. He has always believed, as taught by his parents, his catechism, and his sect, that there is only one hell for all the wicked. It is high time that common Christians, in distinction from learned Christians, should be told that this is very far from being the true state of the case, as they would soon see, if the learned would only speak their minds freely on this subject. Dr. Campbell has dared to speak of Gehenna and Hades as two places of punishment for the wicked, and it is somewhat surprising that orthodox Christians have not before now denounced him as a heretic. *
* Professor Stuart admits that Sheol, or Hades, is not the place of endless punishment, but, like Dr. Campbell, contends that Gehenna is this place. He has two hells, like many others.
But the punishment of hell or Gehenna, say Dr. Campbell and others, comes after the judgment, for Hades is to be destroyed. But let the texts which speak of Gehenna be again examined, and it will be seen that as little is said about its being a place of punishment after the resurrection as before it. No; we never find it once mentioned in connection with the resurrection of the dead, but always in connection with the temporal miseries coming on the Jews.
Without making myself liable to the charge of arrogance, I think I may challenge the whole world to produce a single text which speaks of Gehenna, either as an intermediate place of punishment for the spirit, or for both body and spirit after the resurrection of the dead. We think that all the passages have been shown to have a totally different meaning, and therefore people must have been led into such mistaken ideas on this subject by confounding Sheol, Hades and Gehenna together, as one place, and supposing that the word hell, by which all these words are translated, means the place of endless punishment. The endless duration of this punishment has been believed from Mark 9: 43, 44, considered above, and from a few other passages, in which the word everlasting is used and applied to punishment.
It has been shown, from a consideration of the passages which speak of Gehenna, that it referred to the punishment of the Jews, and we think we have proved that this punishment was called an everlasting punishment. But where do we ever read of an everlasting punishment in hell, either in an intermediate state or after the resurrection? Let something like proof of this be produced. It is granted that we read in books, and hear in sermons, of an eternal hell, and of the howling of the damned, and of infants a span long in this place. But, in the name of common humanity, and in vindication of the character of God, we demand in what part of the Bible such statements are to be found. Do the Scriptures ever give such statements? Certainly not. Is it not, then, daring presumption in any man to speak thus? Shall we never be done with attempts to supply what we deem God’s deficiencies?
Dr. Campbell, and we presume all critics, object to the doctrine that Hades is to be a place of punishment after the resurrection. It is evident from Scripture that it is to be destroyed and be no more. But why should this be objected to, and why should it be contended for, that Gehenna is to be a place of punishment after this period, and of eternal duration? Certainly as little is said about Gehenna as about Hades being a place of punishment after the resurrection. From no text in which Gehenna is mentioned could this be inferred. Gehenna is never spoken of as a place of punishment after the resurrection of the dead; nor is it ever mentioned in connection with this subject.
8th. Closely connected with the last fact is another, that the learned seem to believe in two places of future punishment, and the common people only in one. We have seen what Dr. Campbell declares respecting Gehenna as the place of eternal punishment, and what he thinks about Hades as an intermediate place of punishment until the resurrection. If it be true, then, that Hades is one place of punishment and Gehenna another, it is beyond all doubt true that there are two places of future punishment, the one temporary and the other to be eternal in its duration; the one before and the other after the resurrection. The first, punishment for the soul, separate from the body, until the resurrection; and the other after, for both soul and body forever. This is indisputable, unless it can be proved that Hades and Gehenna are only two names for the same place, or, which is much the same, that Hades is a part of Gehenna, or Gehenna a part of Hades. But no man who has paid the slightest attention to the passages in which these two words occur can for a moment think so. So far from this, no two places could be more distinctly marked as separate places. The various modes of speaking about them which we have noticed clearly decide this. Which of these is the place of endless misery? Not Gehenna, for it cannot have such a sense; not Sheol or Hades, for, admitting it to be a place of punishment in the intermediate state, it is to be destroyed, therefore cannot be of endless duration. If such a place of misery is taught us under any other name in the Bible, I am willing to consider it. But this is not pretended, I believe, by the most zealous friends of the doctrine of endless misery.
The common opinion of the unlearned is, that there is but one place of future misery, and this place they call hell, whether this word be the translation of Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, or Gehenna. They always speak about it as one place of punishment, and consider this punishment as endless. The same hell to which the spirits of the wicked are sent at death is the hell to which they send all the wicked forever. If this be a mistaken notion of the vulgar, it is certain most orthodox preachers do not attempt to correct it, for what they say about hell tends to confirm them in this opinion. They always speak about one hell as certainly as about one God; nor do they take any notice of the distinction, so clearly marked in Scripture, between Hades and Gehenna.
9th. Another fact is, we read of the sea, death, and Hades, delivering up the dead which are in them, yet we never read of Gehenna delivering up anything dead or alive. Now, let us suppose that at death the body goes to Hades, the grave, or state of the dead, and the spirit goes to Gehenna or hell, to suffer punishment until the resurrection. If this commonly received doctrine be true, is it not as rational to think that we should read in Scripture of Gehenna or hell delivering up the spirits of the wicked at the resurrection, as that Hades or the grave should deliver up their bodies? In order to have a reunion at this period, it is just as necessary that the spirits should come forth from the one place as their bodies from the other. But nothing like this is to be found in the Bible.
If heaven be, as is generally believed, the place of happiness after death for the spirits of the righteous, and Gehenna or hell be the place of punishment for the spirits of the wicked, must not the spirits of the last, in order for a reunion with their bodies, come forth from hell as certainly as the first from heaven? But I do not find that at this period a word is said about hell, or any spirits coming forth from it. But how is this accounted for, if the generally received doctrine be correct? The only possible way to account for it is that suggested by Dr. Campbell, that Gehenna is not the place of punishment for the wicked until after the resurrection. But this, we think, will not bear examination. In all the texts where Gehenna occurs, nothing is said of the resurrection of the dead. It will not be disputed that when our Lord spoke to the unbelieving Jews, and to his disciples, of Gehenna, that he referred to the temporal punishment coming on the Jewish nation. Why introduce Gehenna on a subject like this, if it be true that the punishment of Gehenna is that suffered by the wicked after the resurrection? If it is, why is it never introduced by the inspired writers, when speaking of the resurrection? It is natural to think it would be always spoken of in connection with it. We find Hades follows death, and these two are spoken of as connected.
But do we ever find it said that Gehenna follows the resurrection of the dead; or that there is any connection between these two things? No; this is not hinted at in the most distant way. Let any one read all the passages where this subject is treated of, and he will find that not a word is said by the sacred writers concerning Gehenna or hell. In 1 Corinthians 15, the fullest account is given of the resurrection, of any place in the Bible; but neither the punishment of hell nor any other punishment is there spoken of. We think it incumbent on those who believe that the punishment of hell succeeds the resurrection of the dead, to show that the Spirit of God speaks of it in such a connection. If what is said about this be true, this ought to be its uniform connection. But no man will assert that this is the case, who has paid any attention to the subject.
10th. Another important fact deserving our notice is, that none of the original words translated in the common version eternal, everlasting and forever, are connected with Gehenna, or hell. No; though we often hear preachers, in our day, speak of an eternal hell, such language never was used by any inspired writer. The phrase “everlasting fire” occurs in the Bible, and this has been shown to be the same as “everlasting punishment,” and the “fire that shall never be quenched.” But we have seen that none of these expressions refer to a place in a future state, called Gehenna or hell; or that the punishment referred to is endless in its duration. But an eternal hell is often heard of from the pulpit, and perhaps many believe it to be a scripture expression. This, and many other terrific expressions, which are the chief ornaments of modern sermons, and often uttered without much feeling by the preacher, are not found in the Bible.
They are bugbears of his own creating, which no man, who regards the Scriptures and has considered this subject, will be frightened at. Children, ignorant, weak, nervous people, may be, and indeed often are, powerfully wrought upon by the terrific descriptions which are given of hell. And after this is effected to a great extent, it is called a revival of religion. But is this the work of the Spirit of God? If it be, I demand that some part of the New Testament be produced, showing that similar revivals were effected by terrific descriptions of hell under the ministry of Christ or his apostles. Did they paint, in glowing colours, the horrors of the damned in hell to make men Christians? No man will say so. All such language is coined at the mint of modern divinity, and may do well for increasing a sect, but riot for making Christians. When many of these people get over their fright, they return like the dog to his vomit and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
The reader may ask, are not everlasting life and ever-lasting punishment contrasted in Matthew 25: 46, and some other places? Yes, but this contrast is not between heaven as a place of eternal blessedness and Gehenna as a place of endless punishment, as is generally believed.*
* See this passage, and every other passage where everlasting, etc., occurs in the Bible, fully considered in my Second Inquiry.
11th. In the common language of Christians, you hear heaven as the place of blessedness for the righteous spoken of in contrast with hell for the wicked. I shall illustrate what I mean by an example or two. In the Bible we find persons expressing their hopes of going to heaven; but do we ever read of one expressing his fears of going to hell? We, indeed, find persons speaking familiarly of Sheol and Hades, and expressing both their fears and feelings in regard to this place; but we never read of one who expressed his fears or feelings about going to Gehenna. Again; we read of an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fades not away, reserved in heaven; but do we ever read of endless punishment reserved for any one in hell or Gehenna? Again; Paul, we are told, was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter; but do we read of any one that was sent to Gehenna and there heard or saw anything? No.
But why should not one be sent to hear the unutterable misery of the one place, as well as the unutterable blessedness of the other? But, again; we have some instances of persons mentioned in Scripture who were taken up into heaven. Such were Enoch and Elijah. But do you ever find one individual abandoned for wickedness, on whom God displayed his signal vengeance by sending him to hell or Gehenna? We indeed read of Korah and his company, who went down quick into the pit; but we have shown that this pit was not Gehenna or hell, but only the grave or state of the dead.
Again; Moses and Elias made their appearance on the mount at our Lord’s transfiguration; but do we find any of the wicked characters mentioned in the Scripture ever making their appearance from hell? We have heard idle stories of wicked persons coming from hell to warn others, and describing the awful misery of that place. But is anything like this stated in the Scriptures? All know that they are silent about such ridiculous fables.
12th. It is common with orthodox preachers to represent hell as the place of endless torment for the wicked, and speak of persons being there tormented by the devil and his angels. Indeed, it is common to speak of devils and wicked men as being in the same place of punishment. But how they came by their information I know not. It is indisputable, that whatever the Scriptures mean by the devil and his angels, they are not once represented as in Hades, or tormenting any persons there. Even Dr. Campbell, though he considers Hades as an intermediate place of punishment, says, “That Gehenna is employed in the New Testament to denote the place of future punishment, prepared for the Devil and his angels, is indisputable.” If the Devil and his angels are in this place, which Dr. Campbell says was prepared for them, they are not then in Hades, the intermediate place of punishment for the wicked.
We ask, then, how it can be said with truth that the Devil and his angels are the tormentors of the wicked in Hades? But some have thought, that though Gehenna is the place prepared for the Devil and his angels, they are not sent there until the day of judgment, when they and all the wicked are to go there together, to suffer its punishment forever. If the devil and his angels are not in Gehenna, and are never said to be in Hades, it seems they, for the present, are not in either place of punishment, whilst wicked men are all sent to Hades to be punished from death until the resurrection. Besides, it is certain that such p reachers, who represent the Devil and his angels as the tormentors of wicked men in Hades, greatly misrepresent them; a thing which ought not to be done in regard to real devils. But how often has it been heard from the pulpit, and published to the world, that wicked men at death go to hell, to be the companions of devils and damned spirits forever. And have not books been put into the hands of children describing in words, and representing in cuts, the Devil tossing about the wicked there with pitchforks? The truth is, whether my views of Gehenna be right or wrong, it is evident that the common opinions entertained on the subject cannot all be true.
The evidence which has already been stated, proving that Gehenna does not signify a place of endless misery, is sufficient. But there are yet some things which ought not to be passed over, of a circumstantial nature, which very much confirm this evidence.
1st. Why did not John in his gospel mention Gehenna, and why did he omit all the discourses recorded by the other evangelists, in which our Lord spoke of Gehenna? It has been noticed, already, that John wrote his gospel for the use of the Gentiles. This is generally admitted. Such being the case, it may be thought there was no occasion to say anything about Gehenna to the Gentiles. If our Lord, as I have stated, meant by Gehenna the temporal punishment coming on the Jews, this is readily admitted; but if the damnation of hell was an eternal punishment for all the wicked, whether Jews or Gentiles, how could John omit all mention of it? How can it ever be rationally accounted for, that he believed the damnation of hell was an eternal punishment, yet say nothing about it to them?
Was it a matter of more importance to tell them that Messiah being interpreted signifies the Christ, or that there was at Jerusalem a pool, in the Hebrew language called Bethesda, having five porches? Or that the water-pots, chapter 2, contained two or three firkins apiece? Can any man think that if John believed Gehenna a place of endless misery, he would be silent about it, yet mention to his Gentile readers these things, comparatively of small importance? But why did John omit all these discourses in which our Lord spoke of Gehenna? A very good reason can be assigned for this, and it shows in what light John viewed the discourses of our Lord, alluded to. It was after the destruction of Jerusalem he wrote his gospel. Whitby, in his preface to the gospel of John, thus writes: “The fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries do all agree, that he wrote it either in that isle (Patmos), or after his return from it; when he was ninety years old, says Epiphanius; when he was an hundred, says Chrysostom. So that, according to the account of all these ecclesiastical writers, John must have written this gospel a considerable time after the destruction of Jerusalem.” Here we see a very good reason why John says nothing about Gehenna, yea, omits all our Lord’s discourses in which it is mentioned. The event was past.
To have related those discourses would have been to deliver predictions after they were fulfilled, and warn men of evils to be endured after they had been suffered. John’s conduct is not only excusable, but highly proper. Does not this very omission strongly confirm the view which I have given of Gehenna? And, is not this omission irreconcilable with the common ideas entertained on this subject?
2d. Why does not Luke mention Gehenna in his history of the Acts of the Apostles? This is the more surprising, as he mentions it in his gospel. On my view of Gehenna, this can be rationally accounted for, but on the common view it cannot. In his gospel he relates our Lord’s discourses to the Jews, in which he spoke to them concerning Gehenna, in the punishment of which they were alone concerned. But in his history of the Acts of the Apostles, he gives us an account of the preaching of the gospel, and its success among the Gentiles, who were not concerned in the punishment of Gehenna, and therefore had no need to have it mentioned to them. But if it was a punishment in common to Jews and Gentiles, who died wicked, let it be satisfactorily accounted for why the apostles did not preach it to the Gentile nations. If they ever preached this doctrine, it is certain Luke does not give a faithful history. To say they did preach it is a gratuitous assertion, and impeaches the fidelity of Luke. What historian would omit mentioning the doctrine of universal salvation as preached by the Universalists, if he undertook to write an account of their preaching for thirty years?
But, if it was right in the apostles to say nothing of Gehenna or hell, it must be right in us, for they are models to copy after. Supposing, then, that all preachers among the Gentile nations should, in imitation of the apostles, say nothing of hell to their hearers, who could blame them? They could urge the example of the apostles in their defence. Here they might take their stand and bid defiance to the whole world.
3d. Why did the apostles never mention anything about hell in any of their epistles to the churches? Not one of them, James excepted, ever introduces it. The reason of this is equally obvious. The epistles, for the most part, were written to Gentile believers, who were not concerned in the national punishment of the Jews. James wrote to believing Jews, and hence used this word. Now, can any one suppose that if the Gentiles had been exposed to hell, the apostles never would, in any of their epistles, have reminded those to whom they wrote, that they had been saved from it? They are often reminded that they were idolaters, and wicked, before they believed the gospel, and had been saved from such things; but they are not reminded that any of them had ever been saved from Gehenna. From the consideration of their being saved they are often exhorted to love and good works; but never from the consideration of their being saved from endless misery.
As it is never said that they were once exposed to such a punishment, so they are never reminded that they were now delivered from it. No self-complaisant remarks are made that they were now safe from the torments of hell, nor any whining complaints that their friends and neighbours, yea, the whole unbelieving Gentile world, were every moment exposed to this punishment. We find the apostles and primitive Christians expressing the most heartfelt gratitude that they had been saved from this present evil world; that they were translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of God’s dear Son; and using all proper means that their fellow-men might believe the gospel and enjoy like blessings. The New Testament abounds with evidence of this. But we never find them intimating that their exertions in diffusing the gospel were for the purpose of saving the heathen from everlasting torments. We leave it with every candid man to say, if the apostles and first Christians believed as people do now on this subject, whether they could have been thus silent.
Further; no instance is left on record where an unbeliever or backslider was told, as now they frequently are, that they had sinned away their day of grace, and that everlasting torments in hell would be their unavoidable fate. Nor is an instance recorded of a person being driven to distraction by the horrors of hell, produced by apostolic preaching. No example is given in Scripture of a person ending his days by suicide to get rid of his present terrors of hell torments. Some instances of suicide are recorded; see the cases of Ahitophel, Judas, etc. But do we find a single hint dropped that the terror of hell torments drove them to this? Even of Judas it is not said that he went to hell, which ought to teach some persons modesty and caution, who, in the heat of their zeal, affirm that he did. If such persons had the Bible to make, they would express many things very differently from what it has pleased God to do in the revelation of his will to mankind.
It will be allowed that from the gospel of John, the Acts of the Apostles, and the epistles, we learn what were the doctrines taught to the Gentiles. But can we learn from them that the doctrine of eternal punishment in hell was one of these doctrines? Certainly we cannot.
Suppose that such writings were published in our day, omitting all mention of hell or its endless punishment, should we not say that they did not teach the doctrine? We have not stated this as an argument conclusive in itself. But we think that if none of the other New Testament writers teach it, the argument is conclusive. We http://www.ThreeAngels.com.auhave seen what all admit in regard to the Old Testament, and have endeavoured to show that the New does not differ from it; and, therefore, do not hesitate to say that their silence in regard to a place of endless woe is full proof against it.
Sometimes we learn what doctrines are held by persons from the accusations of their enemies. If we bring the doctrine before us to this test, we shall find some additional confirmation that endless misery was not taught by our Lord or his apostles.
1st. Let us inquire what accusations the Jews brought against the Saviour. They accused him of many things; such as his being an enemy to Caesar, in league with Beelzebub, and a blasphemer. At his trial Pilate said to him, “Behold how many things they witness against thee.” The principal of these were, that he called himself the Son of God, and said he was able to destroy their temple. But did the Jews ever accuse him of having threatened them with endless misery? No; bad as they were, they never preferred this charge. If he had done it, they would have brought it forward against him. The Jews had no idea of going to hell; and if the Saviour had threatened any such fate, they would have indignantly resented it. But this formed no ground of accusation, notwithstanding their unwearied opposition to him.
2d. Let us see what accusations were brought against his followers. They also were accused of being enemies to Caesar. But passing over other accusations, we shall fix on what Stephen was accused of as a fair specimen of what they were all charged with. “This man ceases not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law; for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.” Enemies as the Jews were to the disciples of our Lord, they did not even insinuate the charge that they ever threatened Jews with endless torments.
They say that Stephen said, “Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place;” but they do not say that either Jesus or Stephen said that he would destroy them with everlasting misery in Gehenna. No; let me advocate, for once, the cause of the Jews; they never brought such a charge against Christ or any of his followers. On this occasion, let it be remembered, that the accusers of Stephen were false witnesses, procured for the very purpose of finding him guilty.
Now, can any man suppose that they would have failed to prefer the worst charges that could have been found ed upon the truth? Those who can believe this must be prepared to believe anything. But they could not bring such an accusation against him, or any of the first preachers; for none of them ever made such a threatening. All who had heard them preach could have been called as witnesses to prove that it was a false accusation. Such a charge would have been confronted by public opinion.
Again; let us see what accusations the Gentiles brought against the followers of Christ. They accused him of turning the world upside down; of turning away much people, saying that “they were no gods which were made with hands.” In consequence of this they were accounted atheists, enemies to the gods, and deserving to be abhorred of men. Now, give me leave to ask, was the charge ever brought against them in any shape, by any person, that they threatened men with endless punishment? No; all the Jesuitical ingenuity in the world cannot find a word said which has such an appearance. But had the apostles ever threatened the Gentiles with punishment in hell, would they have failed to bring this accusation against them? The objector may say, You show that the heathen nations all believed in the doctrine of endless punishment, and that the Jews learned it from their intercourse with them; therefore, the heathen could not be offended with the apostles for teaching one of the tenets of their religion. To this I answer, that the heathen believed in a future punishment in Hades; but observe that the apostles neither taught such a punishment there nor in Gehenna. This is a fact we think beyond all fair discussion. If they had preached future punishment in Gehenna to them, they might have said, We have heard of it in Hades, but why preach this new doctrine, a punishment in Gehenna? They did not preach it in Hades, which shows that they did not believe this heathen notion; and, as they are never accused of threatening Gentiles with endless punishment in Gehenna, it is clear that no such doctrine was taught by them.
Another circumstance, corroborative of the views I have advanced concerning Gehenna, is the following. According to my views, the conduct of our Lord and his apostles is just what might be expected; but if by Gehenna is understood a place of endless misery, it is strange and unaccountable. What I refer to will be best seen by, 1st. Considering our Lord’s conduct. We have seen, from a consideration of all the passages in which he speaks of Gehenna, that nine times out of twelve all he says concerning it was addressed to his disciples. In only one instance did he ever say to the unbelieving Jews, “How can ye escape the damnation of hell?” Matthew 23: 33. Now, notice, that at verses 38, 39, he adds, Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, ye shall not see me henceforth till ye shall say, blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.”
After this, he never said a word to them about the damnation of hell. Now, let it be supposed that by this expression he meant endless misery in a future state. I ask, is it possible he should only mention it once? I ask again, can it be believed that he who said on the cross, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,” should have ceased but with his dying breath to warn these men that such a place of misery awaited them? I ask once more, is it possible that he, who, when he beheld the city, wept over it, on account of temporal calamities in which it was soon to be involved, should shed no tears in anticipating the endless misery of its wicked inhabitants? On the supposition that Gehenna is such a place, our Lord’s conduct is unaccountable. But on my views of the damnation of hell, his conduct excites no surprise; all is rational, and what the circumstances of the case warrant us to expect. They had rejected their promised Messiah, the measure of their iniquity they were soon to fill up, and they could not escape the damnation of hell.
2d. The conduct of his apostles. This was in perfect agreement with that of their Master. They are silent about Gehenna to the Gentiles. If it should be objected here, “Why did not the apostles continue to speak to the unbelieving Jews about the damnation of hell, allowing it to mean the temporal miseries coming on that generation? Why should they not have continued to warn them of this, as their Lord had done before them?” The answer to this is easy. In Luke 19: 42, our Lord told the Jews that the things which belonged to their peace were now hid from their eyes. Their doom was fixed, their punishment was unavoidable.
Accordingly our Lord said, “How can ye escape the damnation of hell?” Soon the wrath of God was to come on them to the uttermost. This came in the destruction of their city and temple, when such calamities were experienced, that unless the Lord had shortened the days no flesh could have been saved.
In many places of the epistles, written to believers, allusions are made to the judgments of God coming on the Jewish nation, though not mentioned under the name Gehenna. The event is not only alluded to, but spoken of as near; and Christians are exhorted to patience and holiness, in view of it. But these very parts of the epistles are by many, like the texts which speak of Gehenna, all applied to punishment in a future state of existence. See, for example, 1 Peter 4: 17—19, and other texts, considered in my Second Inquiry.
SECTION 8
THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF ENDLESS MISERY CONSIDERED,
DRAWN FROM THE USAGE OF GEHENNA IN THE
TARGUMS, AND OTHER JEWISH WRITINGS.
IF Gehenna, in the New Testament, means, as is generally believed, a place of endless misery, we might expect the evidence of this to be plain and conclusive. But, on examination, we have found strong evidence on the opposite side of this question. We have considered all the texts in which this word occurs, and have seen that by Gehenna our Lord referred to God’s punishment of the Jewish nation. Besides, a great number of facts have been produced, in confirmation of this view of the subject, which never can be reconciled with the common views entertained of Gehenna.
It is contended by Dr. Campbell that Gehenna, in the days of Christ, signified, not what it did in the prophets, but a place of endless suffering, and that in the New Testament it has no other signification. Mr. Stuart takes the same ground. In his Exegetical Essays, p. 141, he says, “It is admitted that the Jews of later date used the word Gehenna to denote Tartarus, that is, the place of infernal punishment.” He says, p. 146, “That the word Gehenna was common among the Jews, is evinced by its frequency in the oldest Rabbinical writings. It was employed by them, as all confess, in order to designate hell, the infernal region, the world of woe. In no other sense can it in any way be made out that it is employed in the New Testament.” The authority, to which Mr. Stuart refers for this sense of Gehenna, is not the Old Testament writers, but “the oldest Rabbinical writings,” and “the Jews of later date.” This we learn from p. 27. “The later Hebrew, the Talmudic and Rabbinic, was not so late, but that it preceded the time when the New Testament was written.”
From such statements as these, an argument has been urged like the following: “In the days of our Lord, Gehenna was commonly used among the Jews to designate hell, a place of endless misery. Our Lord and his apostles must have used it in this sense, if they meant to be understood by their hearers, unless they apprized them to the contrary.
But they did not do this; hence it is concluded that Gehenna is used to designate the place of future punishment, and that it is used in no other sense in the New Testament.” In reply to this argument, we observe, 1st. Admitting that Gehenna, in our Lord’s day, had obtained this sense among the Jews, the conclusion drawn from it does not follow, and for the following among other reasons.
This, in no instance, was the sense of Gehenna in the Old Testament: and the writers of the New used words and phrases in the sense they have there. They spoke, “Not in the words which man’s wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Ghost teaches.” 1 Corinthians 2:13. Our Lord and his apostles had no occasion, then, to apprize their hearers in what sense they used the term Gehenna. Again, to suppose that they used Gehenna in a new sense is to accuse them of adopting human innovations in religion—a thing they reproved in the Jews.
Again, those who use this argument would object to its application to other words and phrases. The y would be the last to assert that our Lord and his apostles adopted the sense which the Jews had attached to the words justification, righteousness, etc. At what point, then, are we to stop, if we begin to adopt Rabbinical glosses given to the language of Scripture? But,
2d. We question the truth of the statements made, from which this conclusion is drawn. Is it true that in our Lord’s day, Gehenna was exclusively used among the Jews to designate a place of future punishment? This is roundly asserted, and has long been taken for granted. Let us examine its truth.
Between the closing of the Old Testament canon by Malachi, and the commencement of the gospel dispensation, about four hundred years intervened. Some time during this period Gehenna must have changed its sense, if, in the days of our Lord, it designated the world of woe; for, in regard to its sense in the Old Testament, there is no dispute. It becomes necessary, therefore, to notice all the Jewish writings, between the days of Malachi and that of our Lord, in order that we may trace the history of the word. The following are all the Jewish writings extant, of which we have any knowledge.
1st. The Septuagint version. The first question to be settled is, at what time was this version made? Dr. Kennicot, in his Dissertation, says, pages 319, 320, “After many voluminous controversies amongst learned writers upon the Greek version of the Old Testament, we seem to have three circumstances clearly ascertained: that there was no Greek version before that called the Seventy—that the version so denominated was made at the beginning of the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, about 280 years before Christ—and that the version, then made, was only of the Pentateuch.” I add, Jahn says, all the books were translated, “at latest, in the second century before Christ.” The Septuagint version was commenced 280 years before Christ, but was not perhaps completed until about 150 years before this period.
The only other question necessary to be decided is, do we find Gehenna used in the Septuagint to designate hell, the world of woe? Dr. Campbell says, “The word Gehenna does not occur in the Septuagint.” But here he was mistaken, for it does occur there with a slight variation in the spelling of the word. For example, see Joshua 18: 16, where the word occurs, and is spelled Gaienna. The compound Hebrew word ge enm in both cases is merely given in Greek letters. But it is useless to dwell on this topic, for the seventy translators, in rendering the passages from the Hebrew, where valley of Hinnom and valley of the son of Hinnom are mentioned, never suggest that such phrases were intended to designate hell, or the world of woe. No one alleges they do this. It is manifest, then, that “in the second century before Christ,” Gehenna had no such sense affixed to it, and if it had, it received no countenance from the seventy translators. Had the change in its meaning then taken place, it would have had its influence upon the Seventy, for we see how education swayed the authors of our common version in translating Sheol, Hades, Tartarus and Gehenna. The Septuagint brings us to within less than 200 years before Christ, and yet Gehenna signifies what it did among the prophets. Besides, we see that it retained its meaning among the Jews in Egypt, and it is well known they were the first in corrupting the Jewish religion, by mixing heathen opinions with it.
2d. The Apocryphal books. These books are the best authority extant, respecting the religious opinions of the Jews between the days of Malachi and the coming of Christ. As they are in the hands of most English readers, let us first advert to the time when the Apocryphal books were written. This is not easily determined, for the dates of the books are uncertain.
But it is not of much importance to settle their dates precisely. Those who wish to see what is said on this subject, may consult Horne’s Introduction, Prideaux’s Connections, and Jahn’s Introduction. It is certain most of them were written previous to the days of our Lord.
The second book of Esdras is an exception, for some think it was written by some Christian since that period. Gray, in his Key to the Old Testament, says, p. 531, “The second book of Esdras is not to be found in any Hebrew or Greek manuscript. It is supposed to have been originally written in the Greek language, but is extant only in a few Latin copies, and in an Arabic version.” He adds, p. 534, “The book was never admitted into the Hebrew canon, and there is no sufficient authority to prove that it was ever extant in the Hebrew language. Its pretended prophecies are not produced in evidence by Christian writers, striking as such testimony must have been, if genuine; and the book was never publicly or generally acknowledged either in the Greek or Latin church; nor was it ever inserted in the sacred catalogue, by either councils or fathers; but is expressly represented as Apocryphal by St. Jerome, who describes it as rejected by the church.” But, notwithstanding the date and character of this book, we have no objection to use it, and shall avail ourselves of what it says on the subject, in common with all the other books.
It should be distinctly understood by the reader that our examination of the Apocryphal books is merely to ascertain what were the opinions of the writers relative to Gehenna. The books we do not consider canonical, and are not referred to as proof of the truth of such opinions. Gray, in his preface to the Apocrypha, says, p. 511, “The books which are admitted into our Bibles under the description of Apocryphal books are so denominated from a Greek word, which is expressive of the uncertainty and concealed nature of their original. They have no title to be considered as inspired writings; and though in respect of their antiquity and valuable contents they are annexed to the canonical books, it is in a separate division; and by no means upon an idea that they are of equal authority, in point of doctrine, with them; or that they are to be received as oracles of faith; to sanctify opinions, or determine religious controversies.” But supposing all the Apocryphal books were written some time during the period which intervened between the days of Malachi and the Saviour, the question then comes before us, what were the opinions entertained by the writers on the subject of punishment in Gehenna?
1st. Do they ever use the term Gehenna to designate a place of future punishment? This has been asserted by some, but is certainly a great mistake, for Gehenna does not occur in any of the Apocryphal books. It is not used there in any sense, which settles the question that they gave no countenance to the opinion of Campbell and Stuart. I might here drop the subject, having already ascertained the information required. But I will inquire, 2d. Do the Apocryphal writers use the term Hades to designate a place of future punishment for the wicked? The term Hades occurs sixteen times in the original Apocryphal books, and is rendered as follows, in our English version:
First. It is rendered death. See Wisdom of Solomon, chapter 1: 14. It cannot mean a place of punishment here.
Second. It is rendered “the place of the dead,” Ecclesiastes 48: 5, “who (Elias) didst raise up a dead man from death, and his soul from the place of the dead, by the word of the Most High.” The reference is here to what the prophet did, in raising man to life, recorded in the Old Testament. When it is said he raised the “soul from the place of the dead,” the person himself is meant; for the term soul is often used in the Old and New Testaments to designate the man or person, as we have shown. In Scripture, Sheol or Hades is represented as the place of all the dead.
Third. Hades is rendered “grave” in the following texts: Wisdom of Solomon 2: 1; Ecclesiastes 9: 12; 14: 12,16; 17: 27; 28: 21; 41: 4; 2 Mac. 6: 23. No one can doubt that in these texts it simply means grave, and was so understood by our translators.
Fourth. Hades in the following places is rendered “hell.” Song, verse 66; Wisdom of Solomon, 16: 13;17: 14; Ecclesiastes 21: 10; 51: 5, 6. Although thus rendered, it is obvious that it simply refers to the grave, or state of the dead. If the reader turns to all the above texts, he will see that Hades is used there very much as Sheol is in the Hebrew canonical books. It is not intimated by any of the writers, that they believed Hades was a place of punishment after death. Not one of them insinuates that any person is alive in Hades. On the contrary, our translators render it “the place of the dead,” not the place of the living.
3d. Do the Apocryphal writers use the term Tartarus to designate a place of future punishment for the wicked? No; the word is not used by any Apocryphal writer. None of them venture to say, what Mr. Stuart asserts, “that in the Hebrew Sheol, Hades, there was a Tartarus, a place of punishment for the wicked.”
There are three additional places where the word hell occurs in the Apocryphal books. 2 Esdras 2: 29; 4: 8; 8: 53. But any one who consults them must conclude, from the phraseology connected with the word, that Hades, not Gehenna, is used in the original. We have seen from Gray, that though the second book of Esdras is “supposed to have been originally written in the Greek language,” it is now only extant “in a few Latin copies, http://www.ThreeAngels.com.auand in an Arabic version.” As the passages stand in our English version, no one can suppose the writer meant to teach by them a place of future punishment. The hell mentioned is not said to be a place of torment, or a state of conscious existence. The phraseology used shows Sheol, Hades, the grave, is referred to, for it is similar to the language used about Sheol in the Old Testament.
It is then manifest, from the above examination, that the Apocryphal writers do not use Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, or Gehenna to designate hell, the world of woe, as has been supposed. Further, they do not use Gehenna in any w ay, which settles, in the most satisfactory manner, the question in debate. That some of the Apocryphal writers believed in future punishment, and held other opinions not found in the Jewish Scriptures, we have shown in our Second Inquiry, from pages 86—98, to which we refer the reader. But this only confirms what has been stated in another place, at the Jews, while in Babylon, and after their return, I imbibed many opinions, from their intercourse with the heathen, which are not taught in their sacred books. This fact is admitted by all, and what many of these heathen opinions were may be learned from the Apocryphal books. But none of the writers of them designate the world of woe by the term Gehenna, which shows that this was not its common usage among the Jews when they were written. Now, it is certain some of the Apocryphal books were written near the times of the New Testament, and some think one or more of them was written after this period. Does this look as if Gehenna was in common use among the Jews to designate hell, the world of woe? Let the reader judge.
3d. Philo Judoeus’ writings. The first question to be determined is, at what time did Philo write? Calmet answers, Philo “was pretty far in years when he was deputed with others to go to Rome, about A. D . 40, by the Jews of Alexandria, to defend the right of citizenship of Alexandria, which the Jews claimed, before the Emperor Caius.” It is obvious, then, that Philo must have written his works about the time our Saviour was on earth.
The next question is, does Philo in his writings use the term Gehenna to designate the world of woe? This we have every reason to suppose he did, if in our Saviour’s day Gehenna was used in this sense, and was, as Dr. Campbell asserts, exclusively confined to it. It is evident Philo believed in endless punishment. He says, the punishment of the wicked persons is to live forever dying; and to be forever in pains, and grief, and calamities. See Whitby on Mark 9: 43, 44. It is no t surprising Philo should believe in endless punishment, if Calmet’s account of him be correct. He says: “Philo, a famous Jewish author, of the city of Alexandria, and of the race of the priests. He made himself so famous by his eloquence, and by his knowledge of the philosophy of Plato, that it was commonly said of him at Alexandria, either Philo imitates Plato, or Plato imitates Philo. And the learned called him the Jewish Plato, or the second Plato.” Philo could not have been a true Platonist without believing in endless punishment. There is every ground for supposing that he would use the term Gehenna, if in the days of our Lord it signified endless punishment.
The question then is, does the term Gehenna occur in Philo’s writings designating a place of endless punishment? It is of no consequence, in settling the present question, that he believed in endless punishment. No, the question is, did he use the term Gehenna to designate this place of punishment, which is said to have been its exclusive sense in the days of the Saviour? In answer to this, we must say, we have never seen, or heard, that Philo’s writings are quoted in proof of this. Nor have we been able to find that he uses the term Gehenna in any sense whatever. If he does, let his writings be quoted, that we may see what he says on the subject. No doubt they would be quoted, if they contained any proof on the point in question.
4th. Josephus’ writings. At what time did Josephus live and write? Calmet says, he was “born at Jerusalem, in the first year of the reign of Caius, A. D . 37.” And his writings are all included between A. D . 70 and A. D . 100. He was then born not far from the time of the Saviour’s death, and his writings appeared about the same period with the books of the New Testament.
Does Josephus use the term Gehenna to designate hell, the world of woe? We answer, no; nor have we ever seen his writings appealed to in proof of such an opinion. He gives an account of the opinions of the Jews relative to future punishment, but does not use Gehenna to describe it. Whitby, on Mark 9: 43, 44, quotes Josephus thus: “The Pharisees held that the souls of the wicked were to be punished with perpetual punishment, and that there was appointed for them a perpetual prison.” But neither he nor any other person, so far as I know, ever quoted Josephus to show he used the term Gehenna in reference to future punishment. It does not appear, from Josephus’ works, that any punishment after death was believed among the Jews, until after their return from the Babylonian captivity, or near the times of the Saviour.
5th. The Jewish Targums. It is to these Targums we are chiefly referred for proof that in the days of our Lord Gehenna designated hell, the world of woe, and in this sense it is always used in the New Testament. It is http://www.ThreeAngels.com.aunecessary, then, that we examine this with care and attention. Let us first ascertain the nature and number of these Targums. For the information of some of my readers, I give the following abridged account of them from Prideaux’s Connections, volume 4, pages 560-585.
“The Chaldee paraphrases are translations of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, made directly from the Hebrew text into the language of the Chaldeans; which language was anciently used through all Assyria, Babylonia, Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine; and is still the language of the churches of the Nestorian and Maronite Christians in those eastern parts, in the same manner as the Latin is the language of the Popish churches here in the west.
And, therefore, those paraphrases were called Targums, because they were versions or translations of the Hebrew text into this language; for the word Targum signifies, in Chaldee, an interpretation or version of one language into another, and may properly be said of any such version or translation; but it is most commonly by the Jews appropriated to these Chaldee paraphrases; for being among them what were most eminently such, they therefore had this name by way of eminence especially given to them.
“These Targums were made for the use and instruction of the vulgar Jews after their return from the Babylonian captivity; for, although many of the better sort still retained the knowledge of the Hebrew language during that captivity, and taught it their children, and the Holy Scriptures that were delivered after that time, excepting only some parts of Daniel and Ezra, and one verse in Jeremiah, were all written therein; yet the common people, by having so long conversed with the Babylonians, learned their language, and forgot their own.
It happened, indeed, otherwise to the children of Israel in Egypt; for, although they lived there above, three times as long as the Babylonian captivity lasted, yet they still preserved the Hebrew language among them, and brought it back entire with them into Canaan.
The reason of this was, in Egypt they all lived together in the land of Goshen; but, on their being carried captive by the Babylonians, they were dispersed all over Chaldea and Assyria; and, being there intermixed with the people of the land, had their main converse with them, and therefore were forced to learn their language; and this soon induced a disuse of their own among them, by which means it came to pass that, after their return, the common people, especially those of them who had been bred up in that captivity, understood not the Holy Scriptures in the Hebrew language, nor their posterity after them. And, therefore, when Ezra read the law to the people, he had several persons standing by him, well skilled in both the Chaldee and Hebrew languages, who interpreted to the people in Chaldee what he first read to them in Hebrew. And afterwards, when the method was established of dividing the law into 54 sections, and of reading one of them every week in their synagogues, the same course of reading to the people the Hebrew text first, and then interpreting it to them in Chaldee, was still continued. For, when the reader had read one verse in Hebrew, an interpreter standing by did render it into Chaldee; and then the next verse being read in Hebrew, it was in like manner interpreted in the same language as before; and so on from verse to verse was every verse alternately read first in the Hebrew, and then interpreted in Chaldee, to the end of the section; and this first gave occasion for the making of Chaldee versions for the help of these interpreters. And they henceforth became necessary not only for their help in the public synagogues, but also for the help of the people at home in their families, that they might there have the Scriptures for their private reading in a language which they understood.
“This work having been attempted by divers persons at different times, and by some of them with different views (for some of them were written as versions for the public use of the synagogues, and others as paraphrases and commentaries for the private instruction of the people), hence it hath come to pass that there were anciently many of these Targums, and of different sorts, in the same manner as there anciently were many different versions of the same Holy Scriptures into the Greek language, made with like different views, of which we have sufficient proof in the Octapla of Origen. No doubt, anciently there were many more of these Targums than we now know of, which have been lost in the length of time. Whether there were any of them of the same composure on the whole Scriptures is not anywhere said.
Those that are now remaining were composed by different persons, and on different parts of Scripture; some on one part, and others on other parts, and are in all of these eight sorts following. 1. That of Onkelos on the five books of Moses. 2. That of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the prophets, that is, on Joshua, Judges, Samuel, the two books of Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets. 3. That on the law, which is ascribed to Jonathan Ben Uzziel. 4. The Jerusalem Targum on the law. 5. The Targum on the five lesser books, called the Megilloth, that is, Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah.
6. The second Targum on Esther. 7. The Targum of Joseph, the one-eyed, on the book of Job, Psalms, and the Proverbs; and, 8. The Targum on the first and second book of Chronicles. On Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, there is no Targum at all. The reason given by some for this, is, because a great part of those books is written in the Chaldee language, and, therefore, there is no need of a Chaldee paraphrase upon them. This, indeed, is true for Daniel and Ezra, but not for Nehemiah; for that book is all originally written in the Hebrew language. No doubt, anciently, there were Chaldee paraphrases on all the Hebrew parts of those books, though now lost. It was long supposed there were no Targums on the two books of Chronicles, because none such were known till they were lately published by Beckius, at Augsburg, in Germany, that on the first book A. D . 1680, and that on the second in 1683.”
2d. We shall now lay before the reader what the Targums contain on the point in question. What, then, do the advocates of endless misery produce from them, showing that Gehenna was made an emblem of hell, the world of woe? Parkhurst thus writes: “From this valley having been the scene of those infernal sacrifices, and probably, too, from its continuing, after the time of Josiah’s reformation, 2 Kings 23: 10, a place of abominable filthiness and pollution, the Jews in our Saviour’s time used the compound word ge enm, for hell, the place of the damned. This appears from that word being thus applied by the Chaldee Targums in Ruth 2: 12; Psalm 140: 12; Isaiah 26: 1—5, and 33: 14, and by the Jerusalem Targum, and that of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, Genesis 3: 24, and 15: 17; comp. 2 Esdras 2: 29.”
Again; Whitby, on Mark 9: 43, 44, says, “That Gehenna was by the Jews still looked on and represented as the place in which the wicked were to be tormented by fire; so the Jerusalem Targum represents Gehenna, which is prepared for the wicked in the world to come, as a furnace sparkling and flaming with fire, into which the wicked fall. And the Targum upon Ecclesiastes speaks of the fire of hell, Ecclesiastes 9: 15; of the sparks of the fire of hell, chapter 10: 2, and of the wicked who shall go to be burned in hell, chapter 8: 10.
Accordingly, our Lord speaks, verse 47, and Matthew 5: 22, of the wicked being cast into the fire of hell, and of their being cast into a furnace of fire, Matthew 13: 42. The ancient Jews held that the punishment of the wicked in hell should be perpetual, or without end. So Judith saith that they shall weep under the sense of their pains forever, chapter 17.”
Dr. Allen, in his lecture, pages 20, 21, gives us the following account: “As the word Gehenna is a Hebrew word, it is worthy of our inquiry to ascertain the meaning attached to the word by the Jewish writers. By Gehenna the Jews understood the place of punishment, or the punishments of the wicked after the present life. The Targum of Jerusalem, on Genesis 3: 24, says that ‘two thousand years before the foundation of the world, God founded paradise for the just, and Gehenna for the impious, like a two-edged sword, cutting on either side. In the midst of it he placed a raging fire, in which the wicked shall be burned.’ So the Targum of Jonathan, on Isaiah 33: 14, says, ‘that the impious are judged and delivered over to everlasting fire in Gehenna.’ On Isaiah 65: 5, their punishment will be in Gehenna, where the fire burns perpetually.”
The following is to be found in the Targums on the texts to which Whitby and Parkhurst refer us.
“Ruth 2: 12. The Lord shall abundantly recompense thee in this age for thy good work, and shall be thy complete reward to the age that shall come, from the presence of the Lord God of Israel; because thou hast come to join thyself to his people and worship, and find protection under the shadow of the majesty of his glory, and for this righteous conduct thou shalt be delivered from the punishment of Gehenna, that thy portion may be with Sarah and Riblah, and Rachel and Lea.”
“Psalm 140: 10, 11. Let coals of fire fall from heaven upon them; let him cast them into the fire of Gehenna; into miry pits; from which let them not rise to eternal life. Let the angel of death hunt the violent man, and cast him into Gehenna.”
“Isaiah 26: 15. Thou hast been revealed to us, O Lord, as about to assemble the dispersed of thy people; it shall also come to pass that thou wilt collect them from their wanderings; that thou might appear in thy power, to cast all the wicked into Gehenna.”
“Isaiah 26: 19. And those who transgress thy word, thou wilt deliver into Gehenna.”
“Isaiah 33: 14. Who among us shall dwell in Zion, where the splendour of his majesty is as consuming fire? Who among us shall dwell in Jerusalem, where the wicked are to be judged, and cast into Gehenna, into everlasting burnings?”
In the Universalist Expositor, volume ii, pages 367, 368, we have the following account of Gehenna, as collected from the Targums. “We come, at last, to the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel; and in the latter of these we meet, for the first time in Jewish writings, with Gehenna in the sense alleged. In the former, so far at least as the end of the paraphrase on Genesis, neither that term nor anything else relating to our subject occurs; and we presume that such is the case with the rest of the work, since it is nearly a literal translation, and is never quoted by the critics for examples in point. But in the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, Gehenna is several times used; and here, as we have already observed, it seems appropriated exclusively to scenes either of future woe, or of severe and extensive judgments in this world; perhaps always to the former.
The author speaks of Gehenna as the place which God ‘hath prepared below for transgressors;’ to which he ‘will adjudge them in the day of trial;’ and ‘from which he will preserve his righteous servants.’ When he redeems the captivity of his people, he will appear in his power in order to cast all the impious into Gehenna. It is ‘prepared, of old, for the nations that have oppressed Israel; the King eternal hath prepared it deep and wide; a flaming pile is kindled therein, as of much wood; and the word of the Lord as a torrent of sulphur sets it on fire!’ The dissemblers, in their terror, exclaim, ‘Who among us shall dwell in Jerusalem, where the impious are to be judged and sent into Gehenna with eternal burning?’ ‘The blessed shall see them descending into the land of Gehenna;’ such as say, ‘Stand by thyself, come not near unto me, for I am holier than thou,’ shall have their punishment in Gehenna, where the fire burns continually; and their bodies shall be delivered to the second death. When all people shall come ‘from month to month, and from Sabbath to Sabbath, to worship before the Lord; they shall go forth and behold the carcasses of the sinners who have despised the word of the Lord; their souls die not, and their fire is not quenched; and they shall be judged in Gehenna, until the righteous shall say of them, We have seen enough,’ etc. Such is the language in which this author speaks of Gehenna. And we may repeat, that it is not only in a different style, but under a different name, that he mentions the valley of Hinnom. At the date of this Targum, therefore, we may conclude that the term had become appropriated by the Jews to a place of future torment. Nothing remains but to point out the age of the work.”
3d. We shall now examine at what time the Jewish Targums were written. Jahn, in his Introduction to the Old Testament, pages 64—68, thus writes: “The Chaldee paraphrases are known by the name of Targums (which m eans a version or an interpretation). The most celebrated among them is that of the Pentateuch, ascribed to Onkelos, whom the Babylonian Talmud makes contemporary with Gamaliel, adding many incoherent tales respecting him.
It is evident, however, that he lived several centuries before the Talmudical writers, since they know so little of him, although he wrote in Babylonia. Onkelos, therefore, would seem to have written not in the fourth or fifth century of the Christian era, but in the third or rather in the second, and this is confirmed by his paraphrase itself,” etc.
Jahn says, concerning the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the prophets, “The work is a collection of interpretations of several learned men, made towards the close of the third century, and containing some of a much older date; for that some parts of it existed as early as in the second century, appears from the additions,” etc.
Respecting the Targum of the Pseudo Jonathan on the Pentateuch, Jahn says, “that it was not written before the seventh or eighth century. It seems, however, to have been compiled from older interpretations.”
As to the Jerusalem Targum on the Pentateuch, Jahn observes, “This work is more modern than that of the Pseudo Jonathan, or certainly not more ancient. It seems to have been compiled, however, from more ancient works, and hence contains many sentences which are found in the New Testament,” etc. Jahn adds, “The other Chaldee paraphrases are neither older nor better than the preceding, but abound with digressions and fictions.”
We have quoted Jahn’s authority respecting the age of the Jewish Targums, because he stands very high as a writer among orthodox people. The following from the Universalist Expositor generally confirms his statements. In p. 368, speaking of the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, it is said, “This is uncertain. Prideaux, together with several of the old critics, and even Gesenius among the living, place it not far from the Christian era, on the authority chiefly of Jewish traditions. Prideaux, however, has well observed, that, ‘in historical matters, it is not to be regarded what the Jews write or what they omit.’”
Most of the eminent writers now agree that it could not have been completed till some time between two and four hundred years after Christ.
Dr. Jahn thinks it a collection of the interpretations of several learned men, made towards the end of the third century, and containing some of a much older date. Eickhorn says that “Jonathan certainly lived later than the birth of Christ;” and, judging from his style, his fables, his perversion of the prophecies concerning the Messiah, and from the profound silence of the early Jews and Christian fathers, he concludes that his compilation cannot have been made before the fourth century. The same circumstances that Eickhorn adduces, are thought by Bertholdt to indicate the second or third century; and he is confident that the collection “cannot have attained its complete form before the end of the second century.” With these general conclusions it is said that Bauer likewise agrees; and some critics have referred the work to as late a period as the seventh or eighth century.
Such is the account which the various critics give of the dates of the Jewish Targums. We shall now submit a few brief remarks for the consideration of our readers.
1st. Those who refer us to the Targums for proof that Gehenna, in the days of our Lord, was used among the Jews to designate hell, the world of woe, seldom quote what they say, on this subject, fully and fairly to their readers. Mr. Stuart makes no quotations at all in proof of his assertions, nor does he even name the books or pages where such proof may be found. We suspect he was somewhat ashamed to do this; for what man, tender of his own reputation, would quote the silly remarks which Dr. Allen quoted from the Jewish Targums?
No madman ever said more silly and ridiculous things than are to be found in the Jewish Talmuds and Targums. The Targums, most commonly referred to in proof of such a sense given to Gehenna by the Jews, are those into which the writers introduced their own “glosses and silly stories, fables, prolix explications, and other additions.”
2d. Let the reader observe that the texts on which the Targums are written afford no foundation for such a sense being given to the term Gehenna. This term is not used in the texts in any sense whatever; nor is the writer in any of the texts speaking either of a future punishment or a future world. None of the texts afford the least reason for saying Gehenna means hell, the world of woe. There is no connection between the text and the comment given on it by the Targumists. They might have given the same comment on any other text in the Bible, with equal propriety. If the texts, then, afforded no foundation for such comments, why were they made, and why should Christians regard them?
3d. But what decides the question at issue is, the Targums were not written in the days of our Lord, consequently cannot be quoted as proof that in his day Gehenna among the Jews designated hell, the world of woe. It was impossible, in the nature of the case, that our Lord derived this sense of Gehenna from the Jewish Targums, as the dates of them show. They were not in existence until several hundred years after our Lord was on earth, as the best critics have testified. Why then are they appealed to at all in proof of this? And on what ground did Mr. Stuart assert that the later Jewish writers gave such a sense to Gehenna, prior to the writing of the New Testament? It appears from the following quotation that the facts are very different.
“From the time of Josephus, onwards, there is an interval of about a century, from which no Jewish writings have descended to us. In this period we meet with the first information which we receive from any quarter whatsoever that Gehenna was the place of the damned.
Still, it is not from a Jew that this earliest notice comes, but from the celebrated Christian father, Justin Martyr, about A. D . 150. He quotes the language of our Saviour, ‘Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna;’ and then adds, for the instruction of the heathens to whom he was writing, that Gehenna is the place where those are to be punished who have led unrighteous lives, and disbelieved what God declared by Christ. This is, of course, merely his interpretation of that term, as he understood it in the New Testament; and, notwithstanding that he had been brought up in one of the cities of the ancient Samaria, he certainly had no acquaintance with the language, and probably none with the peculiar usages, of the Jews.
“The next notice of the kind is, we think, that of another Christian father, Clemens Alexandrinus, about A. D. 195. Maintaining the doctrine of a future state, he adduces the authority of the heathen philosophers: ‘Does not Plato acknowledge both the rivers of fire, and that profound depth of the earth which the barbarians (the Jews) call Gehenna? Does he not prophetically mention Tartarus, Cocytus, Acheron, the Phlegethon of fire, and certain other like places of punishment, which lead to correction and discipline?’ Here Clemens meant, beyond all doubt, that the Jews denominated the place of future punishment Gehenna; but whether he spoke from personal knowledge or from presumption it is altogether uncertain. He knew it to be a Jewish, not a Greek word; http://www.ThreeAngels.com.auand he may have judged its usage among the Barbarians, as he called them, by what he supposed its sense in the New Testament.” [Universalist Expositor, volume ii., pages 361, 366.
4th. But suppose the Targums were written prior to the days of Christ,—yea, suppose that among the Jews in his day the current sense of Gehenna was hell, the world of woe,— what doe s this prove? It does not prove that this sense was given to Gehenna by divine authority. Nor does it prove that our Lord used it in this sense. On the contrary, there is not the least foundation for supposing that he would lay aside the Old Testament sense of Gehenna, and adopt this new sense on the authority of men, and especially such writers as the authors of the Targums. Jesus Christ gave no countenance to men’s inventions in religion, or sanction to the alterations which the Jews had made in the language of their Scriptures.
The whole of his teaching proves this; and the texts, with their contexts, where he used the term Gehenna, stand opposed, as we have seen, to such a sense of the word. Besides, the facts we have adduced never can be reconciled with this sense attached to the term Gehenna. But if people will contend that the authority of the Targums is good, in establishing that Gehenna in our Lord’s day meant hell, the world of woe, they can have no reasonable objection to receiving it as good in a case closely connected with this. I shall therefore submit, for their serious consideration, the following observations.
1st. If the Targums are good authority that Gehenna is a place of endless punishment, their authority is equally good in determining who are to suffer it. Permit me, then, to adduce the same authority from Whitby, on Romans 2, to show that no Jew went to hell to be punished forever, but all the Gentiles are fit fuel for hell fire. He says, “The Jewish religion was very much corrupted at our Saviour’s coming, so that they thought it sufficient to obtain God’s favour, and to secure them from his judgments, 1st. That they were of the seed of Abraham; and hence the Baptist speaks thus to them, Bring forth fruits meet for repentance, and (think it not sufficient to) say within yourselves, we have Abraham for our father, Matthew 3: 8, 9. The Chaldee paraphrasts do often mention their expectation of being preserved for the merits or good works of their forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and their writers add, that hell fire hath no power over the sinners of Israel, because Abraham and Isaac descend thither to fetch them thence.
2d. They held that circumcision was of sufficient virtue to render them accepted of God, and to preserve them from eternal ruin, for they teach that no circumcised person goes to hell, God having promised to deliver them from it for the merit of circumcision, and having told Abraham that when his children fell into transgression, and did wicked works, he would remember the odour of their foreskins, and would be satisfied with their piety. And, 3d. They taught that all Israelites had a portion in the world to come; and that notwithstanding their sins, yea, though they were condemned here for their wickedness; whereas, of all the Gentiles without exception, they pronounce that they are fuel for hell fire.” Let persons, then, who quote the Targums in proof that Gehenna or hell is a place of endless misery, take their choice. They must either reject their authority altogether, or be willing to go to hell on the same authority; as Gentiles we must all be content to be fuel for hell fire. We might here take our leave of the Targums; for what has now been stated is sufficient to convince any man that their authority is not for a moment to be regarded. But we shall proceed.
2. Parkhurst says, that “the Jews in our Saviour’s time used the compound word ge enm, for hell, the place of the damned.” And he adds, that “this appears from that word’s being thus applied by the Chaldee Targums, and by the Jerusalem Targums, and that of Ben Uzziel.” And why does it not also appear that all the stories, and glosses, and fables, which they introduced into their Targums, are also true? We have the same authority for the one as the other. If it should be said that the Targums are only appealed to for the manner in which the Jews used this word, we reply that this is not the whole truth, for it is in the way the Jews used this word in the Targums that the doctrine is attempted to be proved. The sense in which our Lord used the word Gehenna is assumed, and the Targums are appealed to, not only for the sense of this word, but for the truth of the doctrine.
Let it be shown, from the context of the passages in which it is used, that this is its sense, and there is no necessity to appeal to the Targums. But if it be true which is stated in the above quotation, why does it not also appear that the Gentiles were fuel for hell fire? By this way of making things appear to be true, it will be no difficult thing to show that all the silly, sick-brained stories of the Apocrypha, Targums and Talmuds, are true. Besides, by the same rule, we ought to believe that the fire of hell is literal, material fire, for the Targumists appear to have believed this, as is plain from the above quotation. But notice, Whitby says that “the Jewish religion was very much corrupted at our Saviour’s coming.” By what evidence does it then appear that the Gentiles were fuel for hell fire, and that this is a corruption of their religion, but that hell fire itself is not also a part of this corruption? Neither of these is taught in the Old Testament.
From what source, then, do we learn that both are not a corruption of their religion? How could they be anything else but a corruption of it when not found in their Scriptures? If this is denied, let proof be produced to the contrary. After reading the above quotation from Whitby, no one can doubt that the Jewish religion was very much corrupted. It was a corruption, however, as any one may see, which flattered themselves, and sufficiently expressed their enmity against the Gentiles. After seeing this quotation, and considering the strange and ridiculous opinions held by the Jews, what credit can any man give to anything such persons could say about Gehenna being a place of endless misery? One would certainly be disposed to think, that, so far from the doctrine being true, it was invented for the purpose of showing their deep-rooted aversion to the Gentiles. If Gehenna, held by them to be a place of endless misery, be a truth, yet all the other things stated in the above quotation are considered corruptions of their religion, we honestly own that we have seldom seen a truth held with so many absurd notions. To say the least of it, the testimony of such witnesses is very suspicious.
3d. But we should like to know how the writers of the Targums came by the information which they detail to us concerning Gehenna? By what means did they come to know that it was a place of punishment for the wicked, that the punishment was to be literal fire, and endless in its duration? I repeat the question, where did the above persons get all this information? Did they derive it from the heathen, or did they invent it themselves? If from neither of these sources, let it be shown from what source they did derive it. Until it is proved that this information was derived from God’s authority, no man ought to believe it.
But it may be objected to this, by saying, is it not said, in the above quotations, that our Lord speaks, Mark 9: 47, and Matthew 5: 22, of the wicked being cast into the fire of hell, and of their being cast into a furnace of fire, Matthew 13: 42 ? The two first of these passages have been considered, being two of those in which Gehenna occurs. It has been shown that Gehenna in no instance signifies a place of endless misery for the wicked. As to the last passage, we have shown in our Second Inquiry, that it has nothing to do with a place of endless misery, but refers to the same temporal calamities which are spoken of under the emblem of Gehenna, by the prophet Jeremiah. It is there shown that our Lord did not derive his allusion to a “furnace of fire” in the above passage, from the Targums, but from the Old Testament Scriptures. It is very certain that all professing Christians, not only in our day, but for many ages past, have believed that Gehenna is the place of eternal punishment for all the wicked. It would not be difficult to show from what source this information was derived. We might also expect that, instead of referring to the Targums, God’s authority would be appealed to at once, and the scripture evidence of its truth would be full and explicit.
A subject of such universal and deep interest to the human race, we think, would not be left as a matter of doubtful disputation, depending on the sense which the writers of the Targums give to the word Gehenna. Even when such writings are appealed to, they afford no proof of the doctrine, and give us but a poor opinion of either the piety of the writers or the correctness of their religious opinions. If eternal punishment in Gehenna be a part of the revealed will of God, at some time or other this revelation must have been given. Now, I am willing to believe it, and shall teach it with all the ability God has given me, if it can be shown that such a revelation has been given during any part of the four following periods of time, which includes all periods in which it could be revealed.
1st. I shall believe it if it can be proved that it was revealed at any time during the Old Testament dispensation. That such a doctrine as the eternity of hell torments was not revealed during this period, is now generally admitted. It is confessed, by Mr. Stuart and others, that it was not revealed under the name of Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, or even Gehenna, during that dispensation; and it is not pretended that any other name is used to express this place of endless punishment. I therefore observe, 2d. That I shall believe this doctrine if it can be proved that God revealed it in any time from the completion of the Old Testament Scriptures to the commencement of the gospel dispensation. The time which elapsed between these two events was about four hundred years. Malachi, in closing his book, commanded attention to be given to the law of Moses, until the coming of John the Baptist, but gives no injunction to pay attention to the Apocrypha or the Targums. And we have no account during the above period, that any inspired prophet arose, and revealed such a doctrine to the world. To quote any writer from Malachi to John the Baptist, in proof of this doctrine, is nothing to the purpose.
3d. I will believe this doctrine if it is proved that God revealed it since the New Testament was completed. This is not supposed, for it is contended by all who hold it, that it was known long before this. To contend that it was revealed after the New Testament was completed, would be to give it up as a Scripture doctrine, and sanction all the wild pretensions to inspiration since that period. If we do not end our revelations with the New Testament, we shall have a host of inspired fanatics, and an inundation of enthusiastic reveries, for the faithful sayings of God.
4th. I will believe this doctrine if it can be proved that it was revealed by God to men, during the ministry of Christ or any of his apostles; or, in other words, if it can be proved from the New Testament. All the passages where Gehenna occurs, we have considered, and we think have shown that no such doctrine is taught in them. Besides, we have adduced a number of facts at variance with such a view of the subject. But we have a few remarks to make on the above quotations, of a different nature from those already made.
1st. There is considerable similarity in the opinions held by the Targumists and Christians in the present day. I need not notice that both are agreed that Gehenna means hell, world of woe, for this is obvious. But it deserves special notice, the similarity of their opinions as to those who must go to hell. The Jews considered all Gentiles as fuel for hell fire, but exempted themselves from this punishment. No Jew could go to hell; or if he did, “Hell fire hath no power over the sinners of Israel, because Abraham and Isaac descend thither to fetch them thence.”
The “merit of circumcision,” and “the odour of their foreskins,” was sufficient to preserve them from hell. Such was the faith of the persons on whose authority we are to believe Gehenna to be a place of endless misery. Christians now retaliate on the Jews, and consider them fit fuel for hell fire. Christians also believe no Christian will go to hell. Ask any one of them, Do you believe you shall go to hell? O, no! say they, God forbid. But why not?
The reasons they assign are very similar to those the Jews assigned. They are the children of godly parents; they have been baptized; they are members of the church. These, or similar things, have put all their fears to rest about hell. The fact is, I never met with a person, in my life time, who believed hell was a place of punishment for himself. No, this is for the wicked Jews, the heathen, or wicked persons around them. We have even known some good people, who, while their children lived, considered them as on the broad road to hell; but, when they died without much evidence of a change, still hoped they were gone to heaven. This conduct of theirs has reminded us of the conduct of the ancient Romans with their Caesars. While they lived they counted them devils, but after death deified them.
2d. But how came the Jews to believe in a place of endless misery, and at length to use the term Gehenna to express it? There are several points fixed about this, which enable us to form at least a rational conjecture respecting it. Let it then be observed, Mr. Stuart, Dr. Campbell, and others, seem to admit that a place of endless punishment is not taught in the Old Testament. Here is one point fixed. Again; it is admitted by all, that the term Gehenna, and no other term, is used in the Old Testament to express a place of endless punishment.
Indeed, it was impossible to use Gehenna in such a sense if no such place was known, for a place must first be known before we can give it a name of any kind. Here is another point fixed on the question before us. Again; it is stated by Dr. Campbell and others, that during and after the Babylonian captivity the Jews learned from the heathen the notion of endless punishment in a future state. This we have seen above. The introduction of this and other heathen opinions among the Jews was gradual, but in the days of our Lord had become general, with perhaps the exception of the sect of the Sadducees.
But though they learned from the heathen this notion of a place of endless punishment, they could not learn from them to call it by the name Gehenna, for this was a Hebrew term. Another point which seems to be certain, is, that the Jews, from a variety of causes, had imbibed a deep-rooted hatred of the Gentile nations. They counted them dogs, and excluded them from all participation in the blessings of their Messiah’s reign. It is also universally admitted that no place known to a Jew was more abominable than Gehenna, the valley of Hinnom. Jahn, in his Archaeology, p. 527, says, “In the later periods of the Jewish kingdom, this idol was erected in the valley south of Jerusalem, namely, in the valley of Hinnom, and in the part of said valley called Tophet, so named from the drums which w ere beaten to prevent the groans and cries of children sacrificed, from being heard, Jeremiah 7: 31, 32; 19: 6—14; Isaiah 30: 33; 2 Kings 23: 10. The place was so abhorrent to the minds of the more recent Jews, that they applied the name of Ge Hinnom or Gehenna, to the place of torments in a future life. The word Gehenna was used in this way (namely, for the place of punishment beyond the grave), very frequently, in oriental writers, as far as India. Compare Wetsten’s New Testament, at Matthew 5: 5.”
Such are the points which seem to be fixed relative to this subject. From these facts we may form a rational conjecture how the Jews came to use the term Gehenna to express a place of endless punishment in a future state. They did not apply this term to express a place of endless punishment for themselves, but for the Gentiles. No Jew could suffer its torments; but all the Gentiles were fit fuel for its fire. The Jews had even no dealings with the Samaritans; and they counted it proper to hate their enemies, Matthew 5: 42. See how strong this prejudice was even in the minds of Christ’s own followers, Acts, chapters 10 and 11.
The whole New Testament shows to what extent self-righteousness, self-love, national pride and vanity, had taken possession of the minds of the Jews. The quotation made from Whitby, on Romans 2, shows the malignant hatred which the Jews had to the Gentiles. To express this hatred of them, they consigned them to hell fire; and it is a probable conjecture, that, as no place was more abominable to Jews than Gehenna, they used the term Gehenna to express the place of endless punishment to the Gentile nations. This conjecture, the reader will perceive, seems to be countenanced from the quotation from Whitby, and also from the accounts given from the Targums respecting Gehenna. But, at this distance of time, we have no hope of being ever able to determine when, or by whom, this new sense was first given to Gehenna. That it was not from divine authority, seems certain, and in the nineteenth century it is high time for Christians to discard all human authority in the things of religion.
We have now finished our examination of the term Gehenna. The result to which we have come, and the evidence by which we have arrived at it, are before the reader; let him judge for himself. In conclusion, we would observe,
1st. If any person believes my views are unscriptural, the first step to be taken to convince me of my error is to account rationally for the things I have stated. Until these are fairly removed out of the way, it is impossible for me to believe that Gehenna, in the New Testament, designates hell, a world of woe. Let any candid man examine these facts, and then say if it is possible, with them in view, for him to believe this doctrine. They form a phalanx of difficulties which is impenetrable against its reception. Upon no part of this whole Inquiry has more labour of thinking been bestowed, than in attempting to reconcile the facts with the common opinion that Gehenna designates a place of endless punishment. I have turned this subject round, and viewed it on all sides, with all the attention I could command.
I can sincerely say, I have sought, but sought in vain, to find something which could fairly account for the facts, and reconcile them with this doctrine. The more I have laboured in this way, the facts have increased against it. And I am persuaded that if the labour was continued, they would still increase, for I am not convinced that the subject is exhausted.
2d. The next step to be taken, to convince me of my error, if it be one, is to examine all the texts which speak of Gehenna, and show that I have misinterpreted them. When this is done, there will be no need to refer me to the Jewish Targums for proof that Gehenna in the New Testament means hell, a world of woe, for I will believe the doctrine without any appeal to their authority. The only question to settle with me, is, Has God revealed this doctrine in the Bible? If he has, this is enough for me. But if he has not, popular belief, the Jewish Targums, all human authority, will not convince me.
3d. That Gehenna in the New Testament means hell, the world of woe, is assumed. The most plausible argument in favour of this sense, is its usage in the Targums. But if this argument ever had any force it is destroyed, for it is now seen that it was derived from a mistaken opinion that the Targums existed prior to the days of our Lord. This has always been taken for granted, as if it ought not, yea, could not, be questioned. How this case stands, let the reader judge from the evidence laid before him. Should it still be said, Gehenna is to be found in this sense in Jewish writings prior to the days of our Lord, I demand that the names and dates of these writings be given, and let them be quoted, that all may see what they say on this subject. Assertions prove nothing; and if evidence can be produced, why withhold it, for who can believe without it? *
* It is important that the reader should keep in mind, that the best authorities quoted by Mr. Balfour, fix the date of the Targums so long after the time of Christ, that they can do nothing towards deciding the sense in which Gehenna was used by him. This is a point of the highest importance; for, admitting that Christ used the word in its popular acceptation, the objector has yet to furnish the evidence that it had acquired a sense different from what it had in the Old Testament. Until this evidence is adduced, the interpretations given by Mr. Balfour stand in full force.
4th. If the true sense of Gehenna in the New Testament is to be learned from its usage in the Targums, but very few persons can understand the Scriptures on this subject. Not one in ten thousand ever heard of such writings, and not one in a million of our race ever saw them or has had an opportunity to consult them. Can any man believe God has left his rational offspring at the mercy of such interpreters of the true sense of Gehenna? It is allowed that the Bible is the religion of Protestants; and no maxim is more true than this, “The Bible is the best interpreter of itself.” Why, then, go to the writers of the Targums, enemies of Christ and of Christianity, to learn that Gehenna means http://www.ThreeAngels.com.auhell, world of woe? How could they tell that in this sense he used Gehenna, if they wrote several hundred years after our Lord was on the earth? They did not hear him deliver his discourses in which he speaks of Gehenna, and if they had, there was some temptation on their part to pervert his meaning. He announced punishment to their nation under the emblem of Gehenna,—“How can ye escape the damnation of hell?”
5th. To quote as authority the Targums, or even the Christian fathers, that Gehenna means hell, world of woe, in the New Testament, is a plain concession that such a sense is not to be found in the Bible. If Universalists depended on such authority for the truth of universal salvation, their cause would be deemed indefensible. They would be looked on as weak, silly, credulous people; obstinately attached to a false system, which cannot be supported by scripture authority. But do they support their views of Gehenna, or any other part of the ir system, by such kind of authority as this? No. We have appealed to evidence and argument drawn from Scripture, for the views we have advanced about Gehenn a, and invite a refutation by an appeal to the same authority. All we have had to do with the Targums, and other Jewish writings, has been in exposing the rotten foundation on which the common doctrine rests about Gehenna punishment.
SECTION 9
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
THERE is no truth revealed in the Bible against which objections may not be urged. It would, however, be a waste of time, and a very trifling employment, to answer every one which might be made. Those which are rational, and which affect the subject in dispute, demand an answer. Every one which has occurred to me, or has been suggested by others, of any weight against my views, I shall now attempt to consider. They divide themselves into two classes; common popular objections, and objections which are urged against the argument adduced. Let us begin with the first of these.
OBJECTION I.
It is said, “If you do away Gehenna or hell as a place of endless punishment, what is left to deter men from the commission of every crime?” “Indeed,” say some, “if I believed there was no hell, I would indulge myself in all kinds of iniquity! Look,” they say, “at the loose principles, and still more loose morals, of the Universalists;” and then add, by way of triumph, “who ever heard of a revival of religion among them?” It will be allowed that I have stated this objection fully and fairly. It shall now be my business as fully and fairly to meet it.
“If hell, a place of endless punishment, is done away, what is left to deter men from the commission of crime?” In reply, I remark—
1st. Under the Old Testament dispensation, it is allowed that the doctrine of endless hell torments was not known. Suffer me, then, to ask what was left to deter men from crime before this doctrine had existence? When these persons have told us what was left in those days to deter men from c rime without it, we are prepared to inform them what can deter men in these days without it. And if this doctrine was not preached under the Old Testament to make men holy, how came any then to be holy without it? Did Adam preach the doctrine of hell torments to Cain to make him holy? Did Noah preach this doctrine to make the antediluvians holy? Did Lot preach this doctrine to make the Sodomites holy? Yea, was the belief of this doctrine the cause of the holiness of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Lot, and a host of others? Did the belief of hell torments make them holy, in distinction from those who were unholy? If this was the cause of their being holy themselves, why did they not preach it to make their friends, neighbours, and indeed all mankind holy? If this doctrine was believed in those days, and was so well fitted, as is supposed, to prevent wickedness, why was it not preached? Surely Noah ought to have preached it to the people of the old world, when all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. He was a preacher of righteousness, but I do not find a hint given in his history that he was a preacher of hell torments to deter men from their licentious courses. Besides; why did not Lot preach it to the Sodomites to make them holy?
They were sinners before the Lord exceedingly; but I do not find that this doctrine kept him holy, or that he preached it to others to deter them from licentiousness. Not a word is said which would lead one to conclude that the ante-dilvuians and Sodomites were all believers in the doctrine of universal salvation, and that this was the cause of their wickedness; but that Noah, Lot, and others, believed in the doctrine of hell torments, and that this led them to holiness.
2d. If the doctrine of hell torments is so well calculated to prevent sin, and promote holiness, why did not our Lord teach it to the Jews who are allowed to have been a race of very wicked men? Can any man believe that, by the damnation of hell, Jesus meant a place of eternal misery; that he thought it well fitted to prevent licentiousness, yet only mentioned it once to the unbelieving Jews? Did he think there was nothing left to prevent men from committing all manner of iniquity, and yet but once, and that in a discourse relating to the destruction of Jerusalem, say to them, “How can ye escape the damnation of hell?” It is not the easiest thing in the world for us to believe this.
3d. It is an indisputable fact that the apostles of our Lord never said a word about hell to the Gentiles. If they knew that hell was a place of endless misery for the wicked, and thought it such an excellent antidote against licentiousness, why did they never make use of it? They must have either been ignorant of such a doctrine, or very culpable in not preaching it, to deter men from crime; or they did not consider it so efficacious as the objector imagines.
The Gentile nations in the apostles’ days were very licentious. And it appears from Chapter 1, Sect. 3, that they were also believers in the doctrine of eternal misery in Tartarus. But we see that the belief of this doctrine did not turn them from their licentious courses. Nor did the apostles of our Lord think the preaching of eternal misery, either in Hades, or Gehenna, would effect this; for they do not say one word to them about punishment in either of those places. Let the objector then account for it, if the apostles were of his mind about this, why they did not preach this doctrine to prevent wickedness in their day. And let him account for it, why the Gentiles, in believing it, should be so licentious. If the prophets, Jesus Christ, or his apostles, did not teach eternal torments in hell to promote holiness, ought not their doctrine to be charged with a licentious tendency as well as mine? There is no way of evading this, but by proving that they did teach this doctrine to mankind. This we think never can be done. If I am then to be condemned, how are they to be cleared? And if their doctrine did not lead to licentiousness, how, injustice, can the views I have advanced be charged with it?
I shall not feel much ashamed at being found in such company. These facts are sufficient to put down this objection forever. Nor need we be alarmed that the doctrine will produce an increase of iniquity, when the inspired writers never used the opposite doctrine to check the progress of sin in the world. They had certainly something left to deter men from sin, and which they deemed so efficacious as to supersede the necessity of the doctrine of hell torments.
4th. Let us inquire what that was which they deemed sufficient without it. Paul says, “the goodness of God,” and not hell torments, leads men to repentance. It is “the grace of God,” not hell torments, which teaches men to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts. It is the “love of Christ” not hell torments which constrains men not to live to themselves, but to the glory of God. All who are acquainted with the Scriptures know to what extent I might here refer to texts of a similar nature, showing the same thing; but I forbear. Here, then, was the sovereign remedy, which they proposed to cure a licentious world. If this failed, they had no other to propose. All other remedies which people have tried, have been like the woman, who spent her all on the physicians, but rather grew worse. The love of God in the gift of his Son is that which when believed, and its influence felt, constrains to love and to good works.
Everything else to effect a cure without this is only religious quackery, and this we deem the very worst kind of quackery. But,
5th. Those persons who aver that if the doctrine of hell torments is done away, there is nothing left to deter men from the commission of every crime, must certainly think that where this doctrine is taught, it greatly tends to prevent wickedness. I believe that this will be strongly contended for. Is this then true? Can it be established by sufficient evidence? Has the preaching of hell torments to mankind produced such glorious effects as such persons would have us believe? Our actual observation of its effects, we admit, is very limited. But we have seen a little of it, at least in two quarters of the globe, and we think facts will warrant us to say that hell torments and heathenish morality have been preached to people until they have been preached into the grossest immorality. Was not this tried for ages among the Gentile nation s, but did it turn them from sin to God? No; it was when the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. Besides, our own actual observation does not lead us to think that where the doctrine of hell torments is most preached, there the people are most holy. *
* It would be well for those who think that there is a peculiarly saving power in the doctrine of endless torture to consider the following facts. 1. It has been generally believed by the heathen world. 2. It was the general http://www.ThreeAngels.com.audoctrine of the Jews in the time of Christ. Perhaps it will be said, these facts do not present the case fairly; for though these nations held the doctrine in question, it was so associated with errors as to prevent its efficacy. To this we reply, 1. The Jews grew corrupt in proportion as the doctrine of endless misery gained credence among them. 2. Christians have been the most corrupt when this doctrine has had the greatest ascendency over them. This is true in regard to the Catholics, and the oldest Protestant sects. In proof, we refer to the dark ages, to the Episcopal church, and the Presbyterian church. Besides, while some of the worst men bearing the Christian name have been zealous advocates of endless misery, some of the best men of the church have been Universalists.
6th. But admitting that the preaching of hell torments deters men, in many cases, from the commission of crimes, what opinion are we to form of the morality produced by such a cause? We do not envy that parent the respect and obedience which he receives from his wife and children who obtains them from the fear of being cast into a furnace of fire! This might do well enough for an eastern despot, but no rational man, far less the God of the universe, would think this true obedience or morality. We venture to say that such a course to produce obedience, either to men or to God, is as bad state policy as it is false divinity. It shows as much ignorance of human nature as a want of common humanity. In the preaching of Jesus Christ and his apostles, I do not find any attempts made to frighten men from their licentious courses into religion, by terrific descriptions of hell torments. They had so many rational arguments, to induce men to obedience to God, that they never employed them. Had they deemed them of as much importance as the objector, we have no doubt they would have preached them to the world. At any rate he must first prove that they did preach this doctrine before his objection is of any force.
7th. The apostles’ doctrine of salvation by grace, through faith, was denounced as leading to licentiousness. Let us sin, says the objector, because grace abounds. Now, we should like to know how salvation in this way to all, should be of a licentious nature, and not also to a few? The truth is, the number saved can make no difference in the case. If the doctrine is licentious when extended to the whole human race, it must be so though limited to a single individual. But every one knows how the apostles refuted the objection. “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein?” We repel the charge in the same way. But the persons who bring this charge against us seem to think that, because no hell torments are prepared, men are to go to heaven without any Saviour or salvation. We believe no such doctrine. On the contrary, we firmly believe that all are saved from their sins, reconciled to God, and made meet for heaven. If there be any Universalists who believe otherwise, we disown them, and would be glad to have them give up the name until they have relinquished such principles. But we never heard of any Universalists who held the opinion that persons go to heaven in their sins. No; in their writings and preaching they disclaim the idea, and consider it not very candid or honourable in their opponents to bring such a charge against them.
Should it be said here, “But, whatever they pretend, do you not see a great many, who profess to be Universalists, living very licentious lives?” we freely grant this; but if this is any argument against the doctrine, it is one which will prove a great deal too much. It will prove equally against the Congregationalists, the Baptists, the Methodists, the Unitarians, and, in short, every religious denomination in the world. Do you not find many who profess the principles of all these sects, who live licentious lives? We are sorry to say that this is but too evident. This kind of argument would even prove the principles of the Bible to be licentious.
Are there not many who profess its principles that lead licentious lives? Yes, alas! too many. But you will seldom find that the disciples of Paine, or Voltaire, are so uncandid, and reason so incorrectly, as to conclude that the Bible is of a licentious tendency, because many who believe it are very wicked men. But, say the objectors, those licentious persons, who profess to believe the Bible, do not understand the principles they profess. Granted. And why will not the objectors also allow that many, who profess to be Universalists, do not understand the principles which they profess? If it is no reproach to the other sects to have such kind of professors, why should it be any reproach to the Universalists? The fact is, such professors are no honour to any denomination professing the Christian name, and we once heard of a sect of Deists who would not have received them into their community, for they would not admit an immoral person among them. We are sure the fact is too evident to be disputed, that wherever the eternity of hell torments has been published, and published too in all the horrors with which human eloquence could decorate it, and enforced with all the clerical dignity and civil authority that popes, priests, and kings, could afford, it has not prevented wickedness in the earth. In my judgment, it has produced immorality and other evil consequences, which human nature, bad as it is, condemns.
Should an appeal be made to facts, by comparing the numbers of those who have lived licentiously, embracing the various religious systems which have been in the world, we are not prepared to admit that the balance of the account would be against Universalists. But admitting that it was greatly against them, it could only prove thathttp://www.ThreeAngels.com.au their views tend more to licentiousness than the others. All these different systems produce it to a certain extent, but that of the Universalists is the most prolific. But such a mode of reasoning is false, for it is allowed that an argument which proves both sides of a question cannot be a good one. The fact is, that persons professing the very best principles have led licentious lives. The grace of God has been turned into lasciviousness; and what good is there which men have not abused?
But if even a greater proportion of licentious men were externally attached to Universalists we should not be surprised, nor do we think this would prove anything against the doctrine. When our Lord was in the world, we are told that “Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.” Luke 15: 1. He was also called by his enemies, “A friend of publicans and sinners.” Had our Lord preached to them the doctrine of hell torments, why were they so fond of hearing him, and why was he accused of being their friend? Certainly he said nothing to encourage them to continue in sin; but we think it is equally evident that he did not preach the terrors of hell torments to turn them from their iniquities. If he did not preach this doctrine, there is as little wonder that sinners flocked to hear him, as that now a great many of similar characters should flock to hear the Universalists. We think, then, that allowing a greater proportion of immoral people should be disposed to hear the preachers who exclude the doctrine of hell torments from their sermons, the case is not surprising. It was so in the days of our Lord, nor is there anything in the nature of the case but what might be expected.
But it is said further, “If I believed that there was no eternal punishment, I would indulge myself in all kinds of iniquity.” But we would ask, Is this person’s holiness of the right kind? If it is, we do not see but that God must hold up the torments of hell, even in heaven, to prevent this person becoming licentious there! When the stimulus of hell torments is removed, what is there to preserve such a person holy? Nothing; and even when thus prevented from licentiousness, what is his holiness good for? If it were not for his evil example in society, we would say to him, Indulge in all manner of iniquity, for your wickedness will as soon bring you to heaven as your holiness. But, further; it is a very evident case, that the obedience of all such persons is the obedience of a slave under the terror of the lash. Yea, it shows very clearly, that, under all this hypocritical obedience, such persons are in love with sin, and nothing under heaven prevents their outward indulgence of it but the fear of hell torments. Indeed, the objector openly avows that if there was no hell he would indulge his lusts without restraint. Holiness, for its own sake, he does not love. Holiness, from love to God, he knows nothing about. And, instead of pursuing it because he finds it the way of peace and comfort to himself, or of any benefit to society, he confesses it to be a burden; and, but for the terror of hell torments, he would prefer a licentious course of life. Can any Universalist be a worse character than this? and if there be a hell, can any man be found, who is a more fit subject for its punishment? The terror of hell torment is a common topic. It is held up in such a terrific point of view, that we do not much wonder the objector loses sight of everything else, and thinks that all he has need to be saved from is merely from hell. We must here indulge ourselves with a few remarks relative to this view of the subject.
1st. To be saved from hell torments is all that concerns the objector. This, we fear, is the case with too many. We are not much surprised at this, for, in preaching about hell, the chief thing dwelt upon is to be saved from its dreadful punishment. This is urged so earnestly, and described so glowingly, that the mind is wholly absorbed in it, and it becomes the most essential part of religion.
2d. The objector is constrained to practise self-denial, much against his inclination, to avoid the torments of hell. If there was no hell, he would indulge in all kinds of iniquity. But, seeing that there is such a place, to avoid it he restrains his inclinations. His holiness is the mere effect of fear. The man is chained and in fetters, and cannot act himself. Only let him loose from these, by assuring him that there are no eternal torments, and he would be foremost in the ranks of licentiousness.
3d. The objector has a very wrong view both of sin and the salvation of Jesus Christ. He thinks sin a pleasant, good thing, if it were not for the hell torments in which it must end. He plainly intimates that this is the chief if not the only thing which prevents his present enjoyment of all the pleasures of sin. Now, nothing is more obvious from Scripture than this, that sin is connected with present misery; and that truth and holiness are productive of happiness. The ways of transgressors are hard, whilst wisdom’s ways are ways of pleasantness and all her paths are peace. A man that fears the Lord is happy; but though the wicked join hand in hand they shall not go unpunished. Licentiousness is inseparably connected with loss of health, reputation and property; with the pangs of remorse and mental agony. Holiness is connected with health, reputation and temporal prosperity, in addition to peace and serenity of mind, which are worth everything else the world can afford. But the objector does not think so; for he says a life of licentiousness is the most happy life he could lead, and, but for the dread he has of hell torments, he would gratify every sinful lust and passion.
But he has also a wrong view of the salvation of Jesus Christ. His mind is so much absorbed with the subject of hell torments, that he has no idea of being saved from sin, but merely from such punishment. The objector should remember that our Lord received the name Jesus, because he should save his people from their sins. But does he find that he received this or any other name because he should save them from eternal torments? I do not find it once mentioned in the Bible, that Jesus is said thus to save. He came into the world to save the chief of sinners, to save men from sin, from the course of this present evil world, from ignorance, folly, crime and death; but no inspired writer ventures to say that he came to save men from endless punishment in Gehenna.
But the objector says further, “Look at the loose principles and still more loose morals of the Universalists;” and he adds by way of triumph, “Who ever heard of a revival of religion among them?” As to the first part of this charge, we think enough has already been said, showing that persons who understand the true principles on which the doctrine of universal salvation is founded in Scripture, can neither be licentious in their principles nor morals. Such Universalists are no more accountable for the licentious principles and practices of all those who style themselves Universalists, than Calvinists, Methodists, Baptists, are for similar characters among them. The very same charge has been brought against other denominations; and at the present time is urged with great zeal against the Unitarians, and indeed all who are not orthodox.
As to the charge of loose principles, we observe that this is a very loose way of speaking; for we may call any principles loose which do not exactly accord with our own. This is the kind of shot every party fire in their turn at each other, when they have nothing better at hand. Before we can determine any principle to be loose, we must first settle what principles are scriptural. The standard must first be established before we can determine who deviate from it. The principles of our Lord and his apostles were counted loose by the Jews. Besides, do we not find that everything which does not accord with the popular creeds of the day is branded with this same mark for party purposes? At the Reformation the principles of the reformers were counted loose by the Romish church; but these very loose principles which they advocated are certainly a blessing to us in the present day. Indeed, what man, since their day, who has advocated anything contrary to the popular belief, has not been obliged to submit to the same kind of scorn and obloquy? Some of the principles advanced by those calling themselves the orthodox, would have been deemed not only loose but also heretical, by the persons whose names are the objects of veneration to the different sects of the day.
Calvin would not now own many of those who call themselves Calvinists, because their principles have become so loose, and differ so much from his. And we doubt if Hopkins would not disown many who call themselves Hopkinsians. Yea, Mr. John Wesley, if he was to rear his head from the tomb, would remonstrate with the Methodists that they have become loose in their principles in not following up the system which he left them.
And it is a notorious fact, that there is a falling off in almost every sect, from the rigid systems which were originally given them by their respective founders. All sects of professed Christians have corrupted their way, and are more loose in their principles than they once were. What can be more loose, compared with ancient orthodoxy, than that Jesus Christ made an atonement for the sins of the whole world? Yet this loose principle is now embraced by Methodists, Congregationalists, Baptists, yea, by almost all sects of Christians. This loose principle, which formerly would have been considered universal salvation in disguise, is now advocated by the sects of the day, and what more loose principles they may yet adopt, it is not for me to say, or even conjecture. Such has been the rapid march of scripture inquiry and investigation, that orthodoxy now is a very different thing from orthodoxy twenty years ago. And what orthodoxy will be twenty years hence, time must develop. If Calvin was alive, that which is now current orthodoxy would be heterodoxy with him. He would disown it.
Connected with this loose principle another is now advocated, that the number which shall be sent to hell, to be eternally miserable, will not be a greater proportion of the whole human race than the persons executed in any country are to the whole community. The man who should have broached such a loose principle as this, in former years, would have been burned as a heretic. We ask, how much more loose must those persons become in their principles to be as loose as I am in mine? They have not many steps to take to stand on my ground; indeed, they have got one foot on it already. If Jesus Christ made an atonement for the sins of the whole world, we really think that such persons might let all the world be saved.
Why deny him the glory of saving all for whom he died? Must he die in vain for a number, and must they suffer eternally for the very sins for which he made atonement or reconciliation? And if such persons have reduced the number which are to be eternally miserable to so few, why not let the Saviour’s triumph over sin and death be complete, in saving the whole? If my principles are loose, the principles of such persons are far removed from old, rigid orthodoxy. The fact is, that nothing is easier than to call certain principles loose. The question with every man ought to be, are they true or false? This suggests another:
What saith the Scriptures? To them I have appealed, and by their decision I am willing to abide, and shall feel grateful to the man who will show me my error by an appeal to the same authority. The word of God, correctly understood, is true orthodoxy, and no man’s principles ought to be condemned as loose until it is shown that this standard of truth does not warrant them. It will be allowed that men have gone beyond the Bible in rigid principles. This present orthodoxy warrants me to assert. It is the duty of orthodox people to show that my principles are more loose than the Bible.
To the second part of this charge, made with such an air of triumph, “Who ever heard of a revival among the Universalists?” we shall now attempt a reply. As we do not wish to hurt the feelings of any who may differ from us about revivals of religion, we shall touch this point with as gentle a hand as possible.
1st. If preaching the doctrine of hell torments produces revivals of religion, it is not to be expected that any revivals of this kind could be produced among Universalists; for they do not preach it. That the preaching of eternal torments in hell is one of the principal causes which produce revivals of religion in the present day, will not be denied. None of the subjects of such revivals would be deemed genuine converts, unless they subscribed to this doctrine, and confessed they had seen themselves doomed to hell by God’s word. Yea, some even demand the confession of them, that they were willing to be damned, in order that they might be saved.
2d. There were no revivals arising from this cause, produced by the prophets, by Christ, or his apostles; nor could they be produced, for they did not preach the doctrine of hell torments. We think no man will affirm that any revival of religion was produced, or so much as attempted, by preaching such a doctrine. They never used it as a means to frighten persons into a profession of religion. They were never found running from house to house, terrifying men, women, and children, by the most frightful descriptions of hell torments, until the whole community was in a religious ferment, and a reaction must take place, from the mere want of being able to carry the excitement any further. Nor do we find, in those days, what is too obvious in these, the different sects all exerting themselves in every possible way to secure the greatest number of converts to their different churches. A man must shut his eyes very close who does not see through all this religious manoeuvring.
3d. Deducting, then, all the religion produced by the preaching of endless misery, which appears in religious excitements, how much would be left with the subjects of it? Such people’s minds are lashed with the terrors of hell torments into religion, or something that passes for it, and the fear of this punishment, in a greater or less degree, operates upon them all the days of their lives. Should we hear of revivals among such persons, any more than among Universalists, if this false doctrine, the chief cause of their production, was done away?
We question this; for, as far as our observation has extended, the doctrine of hell torments has been a constant theme in public preaching, and in private meetings, to work on the minds of the people. This has been done with children, and others of weak minds, in a way, and to an extent, which men of common sense and prudence ought to avoid. But let us consider what the scriptural idea of a revival of religion is, and by what means it is produced.
A scriptural revival of religion may be viewed in a twofold light.
1st. When true religion is revived among those who are already professors of it; when they are stirred up to be more obedient to God, and lively in obeying his commandments, and observing the ordinances which he has appointed. 2d. When persons, formerly irreligious, are convinced of their sins, believe the gospel of Christ, and turn to the Lord. I presume no person, yea, the most zealous contenders for revivals of religion, would object to this statement.
Let us then consider how scriptural revivals of religion were produced. It will, perhaps, be the best way, here, to refer to some examples of revivals mentioned in Scripture. The first I refer to is that which took place in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, seen at large in the two books bearing their names. What, then, produced this revival of religion in those days? Was it by preaching the eternity of hell torments? Was it by working on the passions and alarming the fears of people, by efforts to overwhelm their understandings with terror? No man will say this, who has ever read those two books. How, then, was this revival of religion produced? It was by reading the Bible, and pointing out to the people how far they had departed from what God had commanded in his word, and showing them that all their sufferings originated in this departure from God. This statement of the means by which this revival was produced, no one will dispute. Nor can the man be found who will venture to assert that preaching hell torments to the wicked had any share in effecting it. We should rejoice to see a revival of religion among all professors of religion in the present day, produced by studying the Scriptures, to see how far they have departed from the law of the Lord.
We trust we should not be wanting in giving it all the aid in our power. I pass over attempts made by Jeremiah and other servants of the Lord, to produce revivals of a similar nature among the Jews, but without success. I only observe, in passing, that they used similar means to effect it, as did Ezra and Nehemiah. But when those means failed, they did not betake themselves to the means so efficacious in our day, to work on the passions of men, by preaching the doctrine of hell torments, in order to effect their purpose.
A second instance of a revival of religion mentioned in Scripture, is that in the days of John the Baptist. Was it produced by preaching hell torments? John never used the word hell in all his preaching to the people. It was produced by preaching repentance, and pointing them to the lamb of God who was to take away the sin of the world. But the most extraordinary revival of religion is that which took place on the day of Pentecost, and during the ministry of the apostles. Now, let all read the Acts of the apostles, and see if they can find that any one of the apostles ever said a word about hell, or its eternal torments, to produce this revival. Peter, on the day of Pentecost, is as silent on the subject of hell torments as if no such thing existed in the universe of God. He addressed the very men who had been the betrayers and murderers of the Lord of glory; but did he threaten them with the torments of hell, or enforce his doctrine by saying they were exposed to such a place of punishment? And is not all the preaching of the apostles uniformly the same in regard to this subject? No working on the passions; no attempts made to terrify people into religion.
One might with as much truth affirm that an eruption of Mount Vesuvius produced this revival, as that it was effected by preaching endless misery! Let men only preach as the apostles did, by declaring the glad tidings of forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ, and many things which go by the name of religion would be at an end. As the means of revivals in our day are very different from those used by the apostles, so are the revivals produced by such means. The converts made, instead of partaking of the meek, humble and gentle spirit of Christ, become censorious, bigoted and dogmatic; and with reluctance will they admit that persons, who certainly give as much evidence as themselves of Christianity, can really be Christians. They get attached to their minister, and to their sect, and zeal for these is often mistaken for a zeal for God and his glory.
Strong excitement of the animal passions, sometimes even to extravagance, is ascribed to the power of God, at work among the people. We think we may say to such persons, in their own language, “Who ever heard of such revivals of religion among the apostles and primitive Christians,” or who ever heard of their producing any kind of revival whatever by terrifying people with fearful descriptions of eternal misery? The course which the apostles pursued was open, manly and dignified, and the doctrine they preached was glad tidings of great joy to all people. Their object was not to save men from Gehenna or hell, but from ignorance, idolatry, licentiousness and unbelief, and to instruct them in the knowledge and obedience of the one living and true God. But the primary object of preaching in the present day seems to be to save men from hell; to attach converts to some religious party, and enjoin on them to believe neither more nor less, all the days of their lives, than is contained in the creed which they subscribed to on their admission.
No one will certainly construe what is said in the foregoing remarks into a disapprobation of true revivals. We maintain, yea, we advocate scriptural revivals of religion. We know of nothing which could afford us more heartfelt joy than to see all parties in religion, yea, all mankind, attending to the oracles of God, and sincerely searching them, in order to obey the Lord. We have shown that terror is the principal agency in producing revivals in the present day; and to such, and such only, our observations apply. Divest modern orthodoxy of this most powerful engine for producing religious excitements, and henceforth it would probably have as few to boast of as Universalism itself. We know not why the truth of God preached by Universalists should not produce a scriptural revival of religion, equally as when preached by others. Is it the particular medium or manner of communication that gives the word of God effect? O r is the power of the Lord exclusively confined to a certain class of preachers?
It is now as it was in the days of the apostles, the Lord bears testimony to his own word. Paul may plant, and Apollos water, but God gives the increase. We have seen printed rules for bringing about revivals of religion, and some preachers have not hesitated to say that it was the people’s own fault that they had not revivals among them. Yea, some have determined beforehand that they would get up a revival, and have gone to work in their own way and accomplished it. All this we really think is without precedent or example in the history of apostolic preaching.
OBJECTION 2
It is objected, “This is a very pleasing doctrine to the world.” In reply, I would observe, 1st. That the question to be settled is this, Is it a true or false doctrine? The Bible must decide this, and to it we have appealed. Of what use can it be, in determining whether a doctrine be true or false, to call it either pleasant or unpleasant? Such arguments are generally used by those who have nothing better to urge, or are too indifferent about what is truth to give themselves the trouble of investigation. To ascertain the truth of any doctrine, we have only, according
to this objection, to find out if it is pleasant or unpleasant. If pleasant, it must be false, and if unpleasant, true. This mode of decision saves a great deal of time and labour in reading and investigation, for who would put themselves to the trouble of these, when a decision can be made by so short and easy a process?
2d. I might, in my turn, say the opposite doctrine is a very harsh doctrine. Perhaps there is more force in this objection against it than in the one we are considering. If they must be false because they are pleasant, does it follow that the opposite doctrine is true because it is harsh? We should rather think it an argument against its truth. That the objector’s doctrine is not a harsh one he has got to prove. The very saying that my doctrine is pleasant implies that his is harsh. We doubt if any man can seriously meditate on the doctrine of eternal misery, and say it is pleasant. Influenced by religious prejudices, and overawed by public opinion, persons assent to it, but do not feel convinced in their judgments of its truth. When they begin to reflect seriously on the eternity of hell torments, and compare it with the well-known character of God as a being of goodness, mercy, and truth, the mind is at a stand what conclusion to adopt. They think the Bible teaches it; and, therefore, they must believe it, though opposed to the character of God.
3d. The gospel of the grace of God is a very pleasing doctrine, and if the objection has any force against my views, it lies equally against that. It is certainly a very pleasing doctrine that there is a possibility that any of the human race will be saved. It is still more pleasing that there is a probability that a great number of them will be saved. And we are at a loss to know why it should not be still more pleasing, if it can be proved that all the human race will certainly be saved. But while the two first of these will be admitted as truth, the last is considered false, because it is the more pleasant. Does the objector say, we know the two first are true, but not the last? This is the very point at issue, and the proof must be drawn from something besides the pleasing nature of the doctrine. If a doctrine is to be suspected of falsity because pleasing, we must say that that doctrine has the greatest claim which teaches the salvation of the fewest. Hence a doctrine which should teach the endless misery of all men would have the greatest mark of truth; the more harsh and unpleasant a faith, the greater the evidence of its truth.
4th. The force of this objection arises from the idea that all are to be saved in sin. This is the objector’s mistake, not mine. Should he say, this is the inference that many draw from it, I reply, I cannot help this any more than the objector can when persons draw false inferences from his doctrine. Yea, I cannot help this any more than the apostle could when persons said, “Let us sin because grace abounds.” What doctrine is there from which men may not draw encouragements to sin? The only one that I can think of is that of universal, eternal misery. Even this is not an exception, for the inference would be, since at death we are all to be eternally miserable, let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die. If some have argued, “Let us sin because grace abounds,” perhaps others have also said, let us sin because eternal torments abound.
5th. Is it not God’s design that the gospel of his grace should be a pleasing doctrine to the world? It is glad tidings of great joy to all people. We ask, does God mean to save the world by the preaching of an unpleasant doctrine? If so, we know of none better fitted to effect this than that of eternal torments. Had the apostles preached this doctrine as ministers do now, we should have been inclined to believe that God meant to save men by its agency. But will any man affirm that their preaching has any affinity to many sermons we hear in our day? The word hell is now on the lips of all preachers who believe this doctrine, so frequently, that one would think, if they learned their divinity from the Bible, that it was full of hell. The apostles never used this word in any sermon; but the ministers seldom omit it. Whether my views be right or wrong, it is certain it was not God’s design to save men in the apostles’ day by preaching hell torments to them; and it is also very certain that m y views are more like those entertained by the apostles, than those now taught by orthodox preachers. I put in, therefore, my claim for being more orthodox than they are, if apostolic preaching is a true standard of orthodoxy. I may add, what seems also certain, that if it be God’s design now to save men by preaching the doctrine of eternal misery, he has changed his mind, for this was not his design in the days of the apostles.
6th. If the opposer is sincere in urging that because the doctrine is pleasant it cannot be true, does it not fairly follow that the more unpleasant any doctrine is, the more certain can we be of its truth? Upon this principle no doctrine ought to be more firmly believed than that of eternal misery, for it is a most unpleasant doctrine. All Universalists, therefore, ought to believe the objector’s doctrine because it is so unpleasant to them. But, on the http://www.ThreeAngels.com.auother hand, the objector ought to believe their doctrine, because so extremely unpleasant to him. By this mode of deciding what is truth, both doctrines are proved true, and the two ought to believe each other’s doctrine, and reject their own. But when they have done this, they must just reject the new doctrines they have embraced, and receive their former ones, for the very same reason; for the doctrines they have embraced respectively are pleasant, and those they now oppose are unpleasant. In short, it proves both doctrines true and both false at the same time.
7th. Is it possible to receive any doctrine until it appears pleasant? We think not. Let the objector try. The doctrine of endless misery he has received, and it must appear pleasant, whatever it may be to other people. We think he ought not to deny this, and sure we are that we shall never envy him any part of the pleasure which it affords him, until we have altered our mind greatly on this subject.
8th. If my doctrine is so pleasant, why is it not universally received? Why is it so much opposed? So far from being so pleasing, it is one which is generally condemned. All sects are agreed to put it down, if possible. There is something, then, in it which renders it unpleasant.
What that is can be easily perceived. It certainly bears hard against the pride and self-righteousness of the human heart. It affords no room for one man to glory over another as a particular favourite of Heaven. Some, yea, many, murmur against the good man of the house that every one should have a penny; and, like the elder son in the parable, are angry that the father should treat prodigals with such kindness. They think there should be a hell to punish sinners in forever, and some have even gone so far as to say if all men are to go to heaven, they do not wish to go there. So long as such a spirit prevails, there need be no wonder that my views of this subject should be hated and opposed. The first thing such persons ought to do is to consider the nature of their spirit. Can such a spirit be the spirit of Christ?
OBJECTION 3
It is further objected, that “This is a very good doctrine to live by, but it will not do to die by.” In answer to this I will say, that the objection implies that the doctrine of eternal misery is one which will do both to live and die by, while mine can afford no hope or comfort either in life or in death. Perhaps the objector means that his doctrine affords more of these, both in life and in death; but that mine only affords a false and temporary hope and comfort in life, but no hope or comfort in death. Taking this to be his idea, we would then ask him how he knows that his doctrine will do better to live and die by than mine? We do not think he can make any possible reply to this but by saying, “My doctrine is true, and yours is false.” Well, whoever urges this objection will consider it a duty first to prove that my views are unscriptural. For,
1st. If they are true, why will they not do to live and die by better than the opposite views, which must be false? The whole here depends on the truth or falsehood of my views. If they can be proved from the Scriptures false, I frankly confess that they are neither fit to live by nor die by. Candour in the objector will certainly also grant, that if my doctrine is true, his doctrine of eternal torments is not fit either to live or die by, because it must be false. I contend that the truth, or, in other words, the doctrine of the Bible, is that which men can either live or die by comfortably. Error is not good for men, either in life or in death. It is truth which gives real hope and joy to the mind, and it is truth which is a light to the feet and lamp to the path. The whole here depends on which of the two doctrines is from God. While this remains undecided, I have as good a right to say to the objector as he has to me, your doctrine is a very good doctrine to live by, but it will not do to die by. Until he fairly meets the arguments by which I prove Gehenna or hell is not a place of endless misery, I might dismiss this and other objections of a similar nature. But,
2d. The objector must allow that if his doctrine is so good to die by, it is not very good to live by. He certainly cannot deny that the doctrine of eternal torments has given much distress to many, and many, too, whom he would admit to be the excellent of the earth. We think it does not give one half the distress to the thoughtless and licentious as it does to the more thinking, serious, and exemplary part of the community. The former laugh, dance, and play, and drive away all their fears of hell torments. The doctrine gives distress and misery of mind to the most valuable part of society. These, and these almost exclusively, are the persons who are rendered miserable all their life-time by it. Many instances have occurred where persons of thinking and serious habits have been driven to distraction, and even to suicide by it. But was a case ever known where a person was distressed in his mind, went deranged, or ended his days, because hell was not a place of eternal torment for a great part of the human race? We have found a few who would be very sorry if my views could be proved true.
This we have imputed to want of consideration, and a false zeal for a favourite doctrine; but we are under no apprehension, that, if they are found true, they will carry their zeal so far as to end their days in consequence of it. Is not my doctrine, then, better to live by than that of the objector?
3d. But if my views are such as may do to live by, but will not do to die by, how came it to pass that persons could both live and die by them under the Old Testament dispensation?
It was not known in those days that Gehenna was a place of eternal misery for the wicked, yet many lived happy and died happy. It does not appear from anything I have ever noticed in the Old Testament, that persons then derived any hope or consolation, either in life or in death, from the doctrine of eternal torment; nor that it was any motive in producing obedience to God’s commandments. We find no holy man of God, in those days, urging the eternity of misery as a good doctrine to live and die by, and warning men against the opposite as a dangerous error. Besides, how could the apostles and first Christians either live happy or die happy, seeing they knew nothing about hell as a place of endless misery? They knew nothing of this doctrine; therefore, let the objector account for it why my views will not do to live and die by now, as well as in the days of the apostles. What would the objector have done had he lived eighteen hundred years ago? He cannot say that the apostles ever preached the doctrine of hell torments for any purpose; and far less that they preached it as a good doctrine in life and death.
4th. But let us examine a little more particularly what there is in the doctrine of hell torments which is so much better fitted to live and die by than the sentiments which I have stated in the foregoing pages. The objection we are considering is often used, and serves some, on all occasions when argument fails, in defending the doctrine of hell torments. When hardly pushed to defend it from Scripture, the matter is cut short, thus: “Ah! your doctrine may do very well to live by, but it will never do to die by.” This, perhaps uttered with a sigh or a groan, answers in place of a thousand arguments with many. I shall therefore give it more attention than it deserves. Let us, then, consider the comparative merits of the two opposite doctrines to live by. My doctrine, that hell is not a place of eternal torment for all the wicked, is barely allowed to be one which men may possibly live by in the present world. Now, how Adam, Noah, Abraham, Lot, and others, made out to live by it, I do not stop to inquire. I leave my opponents to inquire, how they, and the apostles, and first Christians, yea, I may add Jesus Christ himself, succeeded in living so well by it. When they have found out this, I can be at no loss to tell them how I and others can live by it. But we pass over this, and wish to bring the comparative merits of the two doctrines into notice, as best fitted to live and die by.
Then let us attend to the fitness of the doctrine of eternal misery to live by. If it is indeed better fitted for this purpose, it must be in the following things: 1st. As a ground of hope in respect to future happiness. But how any man can make the eternal torment of others a ground of hope to himself, I am unable to devise. If the eternal misery of one human being affords the objector any ground of hope, the more doomed to this punishment, then, so much greater the extent and solidity of his ground of hope. But, as this is not probably the idea of the objector, I observe,
2d. Does it afford a more certain and sweet source of joy in this world, than the opposite doctrine? A man’s joy must arise from his hope, whether it is well or ill founded. If, then, the doctrine affords no ground of hope, it can be no source of joy to him. Besides, we have always thought that Jesus Christ and him crucified was the foundation of true hope, and the source of true joy to people in this world. We never understood that the certainty of endless misery was set forth in Scripture as the ground of our hope, or the source of our joy. The apostle, Gal. 2: 26, says: “The life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” But did the apostle ever say that the life he now lived in the flesh he lived by the faith that hell was a place of endless misery, either as a ground of his hope or source of his joy? Or did he ever say that Christ loved him and gave himself for him, to save him from the punishment of this place? He joyed in God through our Lord Jesus Christ; but I do not find that hell torments were a source of joy either to him or to any one else. It could not be so; for none of the apostles ever spoke of hell as a place of endless misery. We then ask, how this doctrine can be to any a better doctrine to live by than mine? We ask, further, in what way is it better fitted to live by than mine, if the persons who profess it derive neither hope nor joy from it? I ought to allow, perhaps, that it does afford a selfish joy to some, that they are secure from the torments of hell, while multitudes are doomed to suffer its punishment forever. This, we presume, is all the joy which this doctrine affords, and we ought to call it anything but Christian joy.
3d. Perhaps it is thought to be a better preservative against a licentious life, and a more powerful motive to holiness. This, I presume, is the ground on which the doctrine of eternal misery is counted the best of the two to live by. Is this, then, true?
We think we have said enough, in answering the first objection, to prove that it is not. We shall, however, add the following remarks here, to show that it cannot be true. We ask, then, is love or terror the more powerful principle to stimulate to a cordial and universal obedience? Let both Scripture and every day’s experience decide. Will any man affirm that the obedience required of us in Scripture is there held forth as an obedience induced by the terror of hell torments? No; it is the obedience of gratitude and love. Terror may frighten men to comply with many things to which their hearts are totally averse. It is love which sweetly constrains, not only to external obedience, but to the obedience of the heart.
But what do experience and daily observation teach concerning this? Who, that is acquainted with the history of the world, or with human nature, will say that terror of the most horrid punishment has been found efficacious in producing a cordial obedience in any department of human society? So much are legislators and others convinced to the contrary, that many nations are altering their code of laws respecting the severity of human punishments. We then ask, in what respect the doctrine of eternal misery is better fitted to live by than my doctrine, if it affords no hope or joy to those who believe it, and is not a proper inducement to a holy life? Let the objector point out, if he can, its preferable nature, and show wherein it consists. My doctrine is, that God never threatened men with eternal torments; that he never made any such revelation to the world, but sent his Son to make reconciliation for transgressors, and to save them from their sins. That this doctrine is better fitted to live by, as to hope, joy and obedience, we should deem it a waste of time to show. My doctrine then, compared with its opposite, is like noon-day to the gloom of midnight.
Certainly it w ill not be disputed, that, if my views are scriptural, all anxious fears about eternal misery are at once removed; a foundation of hope and of joy to men laid open, calculated to animate and console the mind under every trouble; and motives to gratitude and obedience presented, which the doctrine of eternal misery does not afford. On the other hand, endless misery fills the mind with gloom and anxiety; it presents views of God not very favourable to his character; and is not calculated to make men love and serve him. We may indeed hope in his mercy revealed in the gospel through Jesus Christ, and may have joy in believing that we shall escape the torments of hell. But that the best of men are still haunted with fears and anxieties, notwithstanding this, will not be denied. That this has been their state of mind, in regard to their own personal safety, is what we might expect; but they have been also perplexed and distressed, as we think every good man must be, about the eternal condition of all their fellow-creatures. We pity the man, who, if he thinks himself safe from this place of torment, feels no concern for the unnumbered millions of men all equally interested in the decision of this important question. Let us now consider how the doctrine of eternal misery is better fitted than my doctrine to die by. It must be,
1st. As a ground of hope in death. But we ask, what ground of hope it can afford to any man, at death, to think that the doctrine of eternal misery is true? Can he look on his wicked wife, and still more wicked children, and neighbours, in the hour of death, and make their eternal misery a foundation of hope for his own eternal blessedness? Can the certainty of their eternal misery afford him any hope of safety? Can he die with a more joyful hope because their misery is to have no end?
2d. As a source of joy and consolation in death. But to which of the saints of old shall we refer, to find that the doctrine of endless misery was any source ofjoy to them when about to leave this world? Can anything like this be found in all the book of God? What name ought even a joy of this kind to receive, if it was possessed? But we do not think this doctrine affords any joy in death, to a person dying, either concerning himself or those he is about to leave. We rather think the doctrine, at this hour, is often to the believers of it themselves rather a source of pain and uneasiness. Should their hope of heaven be such as to banish all fear for themselves, it often proves a source of misery to them in regard to the friends and relations they leave behind. This, we think, will not be disputed. Now, allowing that my doctrine is true and the objector’s false, how different would be the state of mind in which men would bid a last adieu to friends and relations, yea, to all the world! Such separations are often heart-rending scenes. My doctrine at this time gives hope, is a healing balm, for it is only a momentary, not an eternal separation. But the opposite doctrine adds pungency to every parting pang, and the only consolation it affords to the dying saint, with regard to many of his relatives, is, that he shall have the pleasure of viewing from heaven their torments in hell forever. Let us suppose ourselves by the bed of a dying person, and hear him say that he was full of hope and joy, arising from his belief in the eternity of hell torments; and that the torment of his relations, friends and neighbours, would give him pleasure in heaven. I ask, what should we think of such a person? It would certainly be charity to believe that he was disordered in his mind. If we did not, we should conclude that some evil spirit possessed him, and that in this state of mind he was very unfit for heaven.
To conclude. We are either too blind, or too perverse, to perceive how the objector can prove that his doctrine is a good doctrine, either to live or to die by. We should be glad to see it shown, if it can be done, how eternal misery in hell can be to any man a good doctrine, in life, or at death; in time or in eternity.
OBJECTION 4
But the objector will say, again, “If you are correct, we must believe the most learned and good men, yea, most Christians, for a great many ages, have been in a great error. Do you think yourself wiser than any of them?” In answer, I would remark,
1st. That I make no pretensions to superior learning, wisdom or goodness. I only profess to have paid some attention to the Scriptures on this particular point, which those persons, taking the subject for granted, have inadvertently overlooked. It will be granted that no man is perfect in knowledge. And it will be seen that those learned and good men from whom I differ, very unfortunately took it for granted that Gehenna was a place of endless misery for all the wicked. Had they not done this, but, as I have attempted to do, examined into the truth of this doctrine, they would have given a very different account of Gehenna or hell from what they have done. From their superior learning, talents, and means of information, to which I have no access, they would have placed this subject in a much more luminous and convincing light. Were those very men alive, they would be the last men who would blame me for my inquiry on this important subject.
2d. This objection was urged at the Reformation against the reformers, and indeed may be urged against all reformation to the end of time. It will serve a Jew, a Mahometan, or a Pagan, as well as a Christian. If it has any weight against me, in the present case, it is equally strong against every man who advances anything from his Bible contrary to what learned and good men have believed in past ages. Those very men, whom I am blamed for differing from, were blamed in the same way, in dissenting from learned, wise and good men who preceded them. They did not scruple to dissent from, or go beyond, those who went before them, and assigned their reasons for so doing. And why should not we do the same thing? If this were not done, knowledge would be perfectly stationary, and an end be put to advancement in biblical knowledge. Had the reformers been frightened with this and similar objections, we would now be all good Catholics, or perhaps idol worshippers, worshipping the works of our own hands.
3d. So long as such learned and good men are allowed to be fallible, it must be admitted that they may have been mistaken. We ought not to receive their opinions about Gehenna or any other point, without examination. We ought to bring them to the Bible for trial, and be satisfied that they are not the mere opinions of men, but the faithful sayings of God. This I have done with respect to the common opinion entertained about hell, and I request every man to try what I have advanced by this infallible standard. If those men have been mistaken, it is certainly high time that the mistake was corrected. If they are correct, and the common opinion concerning hell be true, much good must result from the present discussion, in leading men to examine more carefully the ground on which their faith is built. It will not be denied that a great many, who are believers in the doctrine of hell torments, have received this doctrine by tradition from their fathers, without any scriptural examination of it for themselves.
4th. It is allowed that those learned and good men lived and died in many errors, and some who bring this very objection against me take the liberty to dissent from their opinions in other things. Why may they not have erred in thinking that Gehenna was a place of endless misery? And why have not I as good a right to dissent from them in this thing as they have in other things? Let the subject be impartially examined, and truth will be brought to light by the investigation. Can any Calvinist, Hopkinsian, Baptist or Methodist, urge such an objection with a good grace, when each one dissents from the doctrines of so many learned, wise and good men, who lived before them? Before any open their lips against me, let them return to the doctrines of their forefathers, and confess how greatly they have departed from the good old way. But each sect thinks that their departure from the fathers is a nearer approach to the doctrine of the Bible. This is just what we think concerning our departure from their views of Gehenna. In proportion as we have receded from them we think we have approached the truth in the Bible concerning this subject.
If we are to believe just as learned and good men have taught in past ages, many things now most surely believed must be renounced. You hear men every day call themselves Calvinists; but Calvinism now is a very different thing from what is found in the works of John Calvin. You also hear of orthodoxy; but orthodoxy is not the same now that it was twenty years ago, and what is true orthodoxy in America would not be orthodoxy in Scotland. The truth is, men are beginning to search the Scripture for themselves, and are taking the liberty to dissent from their fathers, however learned or good they may have been.
The Reformation was the dawn of day, after the long night of ignorance and superstition. But were the reformers to rise from the tomb, they would be surprised to see some good and wise and learned men contending that we must advance no further, but must sit down satisfied where they left us. Happy for us that we live in an age and in a part of the world where it is not in the power of man to stop the tide of inquiry and investigation.
OBJECTION 5
Another popular objection against my views of Gehenna is thus stated: “Supposing that the evidence you have produced, showing that Gehenna is not a place of endless misery, to be almost, if not altogether, conclusive, yet allowing a bare possibility that the opposite doctrine may be true; those who believe it, though in an error, are still on the safest side. They can lose nothing if your doctrine is true, but you may lose both soul and body forever if their doctrine is true.” I have stated this objection with all the force I can give it. It is predicated on a mere possibility that the doctrine of hell torments may be true, and that in face of evidence allowed to be almost, if not altogether, conclusive, in proving the opposite doctrine true. We shall offer a few remarks in reply.
1st. If there is any force in this objection, it is certain we ought not to be regulated, in our belief or disbelief of any doctrines, by the degree of evidence which may appear in their support. This has nothing to do in the case; for though the evidence in favour of a doctrine is conclusive, it is nothing; we must reject it on the possibility that it may be false, providing it does not threaten so great a punishment as that for which no conclusive proof can be
adduced.
2d. Whether my views of Gehenna, or the commonly received doctrine about it, be the truth, one thing is certain; every scriptural doctrine is based on evidence. This is the criterion of truth; and no man believes any doctrine, further than he understands it, and perceives the evidence of its truth. Where the evidence for or against any doctrine is equally balanced, the mind is in doubt, and suspense prevails, until something additional appears, which leads the mind to preponderate to one side or the other. This is the natural course of every candid mind, in serious search after truth. But here, though the evidence adduced that Gehenna is not a place of endless misery is allowed to be nearly conclusive, yet the mind must preponderate to the opposite side. It is not even allowed to hang in doubt, and suspend judgment until further evidence shall appear, but must come to the conclusion at once, on the mere ground that possibly endless misery may be true. The mind must adopt the opposite conclusion of that to which the evidence leads. A mere possibility, thrown into the one scale, far outweighs all the evidence in the other. This is not the course a candid mind pursues in considering the comparative weight of evidence. If the importance of the subject demands scrupulous care in coming to a decision, the evidence on both sides is subjected to a strict examination, and further evidence is eagerly sought to remove doubts and decide with certainty on the subject. I enter my protest against believing an old popular doctrine, upon the mere possibility that it may be true, without examining evidence on the other side. Had such a course been pursued, or had such objections as this and others been allowed at the Reformation, we should today have been in a darkness which might be felt.
3d. The objector has reduce d the subject in discussion to one of mere profit and loss. Let us examine the account.
1st. Let us attend to his side of the account. It stands thus: The doctrine of eternal torment may possibly be true, and, if true, those who reject it may lose soul and body forever.
Such is the loss charged; it is one which cannot be exceeded, and of such a nature that no man should on any consideration place himself in a position in which it may be incurred. No language has a word to express my folly and madness in avowing such sentiments, if they are not true. I certainly, then, must have the credit of being a sincere believer of what I have advanced relative to this subject, whether true or false.
But how is this account proved against me to be true? I deny that the entry is true, or that the account of loss charged can be proved. Is it the belief that hell is a place of endless misery which saves any man? And is it unbelief in this doctrine which damns any man to this punishment? Here seems to be one radical mistake of the objector. He thinks that if his doctrine is true, all who have not believed it must suffer this punishment for not believing it.
But if this was true, he would send all the ancient prophets and saints to hell. He would also send all the apostles and first Christians there, yea, the Saviour himself, for neither he nor they seem to have believed his doctrine. If their unbelief of it does not involve such an awful and solemn loss to them, how can it to me?
Placing me in such company, I shall not feel much alarmed. Besides, he will be obliged to add to our company all the Universalists, and all who have doubted the truth of his doctrine, and a multitude which no man can number, who have in their hearts disbelieved it. He, perhaps, may be obliged to add even himself; for a belief founded on a mere possibility that the thing believed is true, is surely not far from unbelief concerning it.
But the objector labours under a mistaken notion as to what saves. According to him, it is the belief of the doctrine that hell is a place of endless misery. But this saves none from hell or from anything else. Jesus Christ is the Saviour, and it is the gospel or glad tidings of God’s grace or favour through him that saves men from everything that can harm them. Nor would the objector undertake to defend that a man who believed the gospel, and showed his faith by his works, would be damned if he did not also believe the doctrine of endless misery.
Would he not pause a moment before, with one undiscriminating sweep, he sent all to hell who have not believed his doctrine? This charge must then be cancelled from his side of this account against me. The objector may take his choice, either to do this, or with me to consign prophets, apostles, and innumerable others, over to eternal misery.
2d. Let us now examine my side of this account against the objector. My loss is the loss of both soul and body forever, if his doctrine is found true. It is freely granted, that, if my doctrine is true, neither the objector nor any other man loses soul and body forever. But because these are not lost, does it follow that he loses nothing? We think that this is another very considerable mistake which requires to be corrected in his account. Is it no loss to a man to live all his days, and at last die in a very great error, though that error does not involve him in eternal misery? Is it no loss to him that his error gives him very wrong views of God and his designs of mercy? Does it makes no difference, as to profit or loss, whether we look on God as dooming a part, and by far the greater part, of mankind to inconceivable and endless misery, or are persuaded that God never threatened one of the children of men with such a punishment? Is it no difference to him whether he spend his days in the certain and joyful hope of heavenly happiness, without any fears and anxieties about eternal misery, or live under fear and anxieties all his days, and, with trembling as to his future destiny, give up the ghost? And allowing him free from all such fears and anxieties as to his own future happiness, is it no loss to be denied the same hope and comfort of mind as to all his fellow-creatures? In one word, does he suffer no loss by conceptions of God which mar his own peace and comfort, and involve so many of his fellow-mortals in endless misery? Such is a brief statement of the objector’s losses. Can he now say that he loses nothing, admitting my doctrine true, and his own false? *
We come now to the second class of objections which are supposed to have some weight against the evidence adduced that Gehenna is not used to express a place of endless misery. These we shall attempt to consider without much regard to the order in which they are brought forward.
* According to this objection, Universalists must go to hell because their opinion of God’s character is too good; and others go to heaven because they believe him not so good a being as Universalists do.
OBJECTION 6
It has been objected that a very great change took place in the language of the Jews during the captivity in Babylon, and that it would be wrong to interpret words in the New Testament according to the sense which they have in the Old. It has been thought that during the captivity the Hebrew language ceased to be vernacular among the Jews, and that they brought back from Babylon the Chaldaic instead of it. This has been urged against the views we have given of Gehenna, and in favour of its meaning a place of endless misery. In reply to this, it ought to be noticed that the supposed fact on which this objection is founded is disputed by the learned. Mr. Parkhurst, in his Lexicon, on the word Ebrais, p. 181, thus writes:—“A strange notion, originally derived from the Jewish rabbis, the descendants of those who crucified the Lord of Life, hath prevailed, and is but too generally received, that during the Babylonian captivity the Hebrew language ceased to be vernacular among the Jews, and it is pretended that they brought back the Chaldee or Babylonian, instead of it; and, in consequence, that the language commonly spoken in Judea in our Saviour’s time was not Hebrew, but Syriac, or Syrian-Chaldaic. But,
“1st. Prejudice apart, is it probable that any people should lose their native language in a captivity of no longer than seventy years’ continuance? (Compare Ezra 3: 12; Hag. 3: 2.) And is it not still less probable that a people so tenacious of their law as the Jews, should yet be so negligent of their language wherein that law, both religious and civil, was contained, as to suffer such a loss, and exchange their mother tongue for that of their detested and idolatrous enemies; especially since they had been assured by the prophet Jeremiah, chapter 25: 11, http://www.ThreeAngels.com.au12; 27: 22; 29: 10 (comp. Dan. 9: 2), that after a captivity of no more than seventy years they should be restored to their own land? But,
“2dly. It appears from Scripture that under the captivity the Jews retained not only their language, but their manner of writing it, or the form and fashion of their letters. Else, what meaneth Esth. 8: 9, where we read that the decree of Ahasuerus, or Artaxerxes Longimanus, was written unto every province according to the writing thereof, and unto every people after their language, and to the Jews, according to their writing and according to their language? (Compare Esther 1, Ezra 4: 7.) And let it be remarked that this decree was issued, according to Prideaux, Connect., part i., book 5, five years after Ezra had obtained his commission for his return to Jerusalem with those of his nation, of which see Ezra 7.
“3dly. ‘Ezekiel, who prophesied during the captivity to the Jews in Chaldea, wrote and published his prophecies in Hebrew.’—Leland’s Reflections on Lord Bolinbroke’s Letters, p. 229, 3d edit., where see more.
“4th. The prophets who flourished soon after the return of the Jews to their own country, namely Haggai and Zechariah, prophesied to them in Hebrew, and so did Malachi, who seems to have delivered his prophecy about an hundred years after that event. Now if Chaldee was the vernacular language of the Jews after the captivity, what tolerable reason can be assigned why those inspired men addressed not only the priests and great men, but also the body of the people in Hebrew, and did not, as Daniel and Ezra have sometimes done, use the Chaldee language? It is, I think, by no means sufficient to answer, with Bishop Walton, that they did this because the rest of the sacred books were written in Hebrew; for if there were any force in this reason, it would prove that Daniel also and Ezra ought to have written in Hebrew only.
“5thly. Nehemiah, who was governor of the Jews about a hundred years after their return from Babylon, not only wrote his book in Hebrew, but, in chapter 13: 23, 24, complains that some of the Jews, during his absence, had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab, and that their children could not speak, ihurit, the Jews’ language, but spake a mixed tongue.
Now ihurit is Hebrew, as it appears from all the other passages in which it occurs, namely, 2 Kings 18: 26, 28; 2 Chronicles 32: 18; Isaiah 36: 11, 13. But how impertinent is the remark, and how foolish the complaint of Nehemiah appears to be, that the children of some Jews who had taken foreigners for wives, could not speak pure Hebrew, if that tongue had ceased to be vernacular among the people in general a hundred years before that period! ‘So that (to use the words of the learned Spearman, to whom I am greatly indebted in the above observations), this very text of Nehemiah, I think, refutes the received supposition of the Hebrew being lost in the Babylonian captivity.
“6thly. It is highly absurd and unreasonable to suppose that the writers of the New Testament used the term Hebrew to signify a different language from that which the Grecizing Jews denoted by that name; but the language which those Jews called Hebrew after the Babylonian captivity was not Syriac or Chaldee, but the same in which the law and the prophets were written. This appears from the prologue to Ecclesiasticus, which, according to Prideaux, was penned by the grandson of Jesus about 132 years before Christ; for he there observes that “the same things uttered in Hebrew and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them; and not only these things (this book of Ecclesiasticus) but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference when they are spoken in their own language.
“Lastly. It may be worth adding that Josephus, who frequently uses the expressions ten ebraion dialekten, glottan ten ebraion, ebraisti, for the language in which Moses wrote (see inter. al. Ant. lib. i. cap. i. § 1, 2. Compare lib. x. cap. i. § 2), tells us, De Bell, lib. vi. cap. ii. § 1, that towards the conclusion of the siege of Jerusalem he addressed not only John, the commander of the Zealots, but tois po llois, the (Jewish) multitude, who were with him, ebraizon in the Hebrew tongue, which was, therefore, the common language of the Jews at that time, that is, about forty years after our Saviour’s death. Compare Ant. lib. 18, cap. vii. § 10.
“On the whole, I conclude that the Jews did not exchange the Hebrew for the Chaldee language at the captivity, and that the terms Ebrais, Ebraikos, Ebraisti, in the New Testament, denote, not the Syriac, or Syro-Chaldaic, but the Hebrew language, commonly so called; though I readily grant that this language, especially as it is spoken by the Galileans (See Mark 14: 73; Matthew 26: 73, and under Galilaois), had in our Saviour’s time deflected from its ancient purity, as particularly appears, I think, from the words Abba, Akeldama, Boanerges, Gogotha, which see in their proper places.”
We give this just as we find it, that the reader may judge for himself. But, in whatever way this point is determined, we are unable to perceive its bearing against the views we have advanced about Gehenna. Admitting that a great change took place in the language of the Jews during their captivity, if, by this word, they did not understand a place of eternal misery from their Scriptures before they went to Babylon, yet understood it so after they returned, it follows that this notion was learned during the captivity. This is no honour to the doctrine, nor is it authority for a moment to be regarded. However great the change in the language of the Jews was during the captivity, we think it has been proved that our Lord uses the term Gehenna, in the sense it was used by the prophet Jeremiah, as an emblem of temporal calamities. Until this is disproved, and it is established that this change in the Jewish language gave such a different sense to this word as the objector supposes, it does not deserve a serious consideration.
But though the idea of a place of future misery was learned by the Jews from the heathen, yet their giving it the name Gehenna was of a later date. This is evident from considering that neither Nehemiah, Ezra, nor any Old Testament writer, after the captivity, ever spoke of this doctrine, or applied this word to it. The fact is, that, whatever change either the ideas or the language of the Jews underwent in Babylon, there is no proof to be derived from the Old Testament that Gehenna was changed in a sense from being an emblem of temporal punishment, to being an emblem of endless misery. We presume no person will pretend that any proof can be produced of this. Let us, then, be informed upon what rational and scriptural grounds this term was so differently understood by the inspired writers of the New from those of the Old Testament. There must be a conscious lack of evidence, to urge the change which the Jewish language underwent in Babylon as any proof that our Lord used the term Gehenna to express a place of endless punishment for the wicked. It is rather exploding the doctrine than proving it, to have recourse to such means in establishing it.
OBJECTION 7
It has been urged that though the Targums are not good authority to prove any doctrine, yet they are sufficient testimony to show in what sense Gehenna was used among the Jews about our Saviour’s time, an d it is evident from them that it expressed a place of endless misery. But this argument is founded in the mistake that the Targums were written before our Lo rd’s day. We think this has been disproved. But supposing this was the sense of Gehenna then, it is very evident the Jews could not understand it in this sense when they read the Old Testament Scriptures. How they understood it when they read the Scriptures is one thing, and how they used it in common discourse, and in making all the Gentiles fit fuel for the fire of hell, is another. If they gave it such an application, this is no proof that our Lord used it in the same manner. If they learned the notion that Hades was a place of endless misery among the heathen, and applied the term Gehenna to it,—yea, consigned over all the Gentiles to its punishment,—does this prove that our Lord either adopted this notion of theirs, or used Gehenna in this sense? That he should adopt this popular sense of the word is far from being probable, and that he used it, as Jeremiah had done, as an emblem of temporal punishment, we think has been proved. Can any man reasonably believe that our Lord used Gehenna in a sense seemingly invented out of enmity to the Gen tiles, and laid aside its use in the Old Testament? Besides,—and what ought to settle this question,—the apostles, so far from making the Gentiles or any others fit fuel for hell fire, never used the word in speaking to them, or about them.
OBJECTION 8
It is further objected: Admitting, say some, all that you have advanced about Gehenna or hell to be true, yet the doctrine of eternal misery can be established from other parts of Scripture. If this is true, many a man might have saved himself a great deal of labour in writing and preaching, and many books on this subject are mere waste paper, for they are written expressly to establish the very contrary. If this ground is taken we shall be very happy, for it is greatly abridging the ground of debate on this subject. Am I, then, to understand that all the texts which speak about Gehenna are abandoned as not teaching the doctrine of endless misery?
If they are, it is to be lamented that they have been so long quoted as the principal proofs of this doc trine, and thus perverted from their true meaning. My labour, at any rate, is not lost. If I am instrumental in rescuing so many parts of God’s word from such a misapplication of them, I shall have the consolation that I have not lived or written in vain. A correct understanding of God’s word is, to me, the first thing in religion. There can be no real religion in the perversion of that blessed book. If all such texts are relinquished as proof, we hope we shall hear no more about he ll as a place of endless misery. Not only the texts, but the very word hell, must be laid aside as inapplicable to the subject. But if this is done we shall feel some impatience until we learn by what other name it is called in Scripture.
OBJECTION 9
It has been objected to my views, that by Gehenna a STATE, and not a PLACE, of future endless punishment is intended, and that I have dwelt too much on the idea of its being a PLACE. In reply to this we observe,
1st. That, before this objection is urged against me, such as hold to the doctrine of endless misery ought to give up speaking of it as a place of punishment. It is always represented as a place in writing, in preaching, and in conversation. Let the writer or the preacher be named who does not speak of it as a place, but a s a state. Dr. Campbell, Edwards, and all other writers that I have seen or heard of, speak of it thus. Yea, some have even pretended to tell where it is located, and have described, also, the nature of its punishment and the wretched condition of its inhabitants in a very circumstantial manner. There can be no reasonable objection brought against my speaking of it as a place until such persons give up this mode of speaking about it. But if any uneasiness is felt, as if the doctrine was in danger, in speaking of hell as a place of endless punishment, we have no objection that they adopt the term state. Only let us fairly understand one another, and let them not blame me for speaking about it as they do themselves, until they have made this alteration.
2d. Supposing, then, the word state to be substituted for the word place, we ask what advantage is gained in favour of the doctrine of endless misery? How does this new word shield it from what has been advanced against it? If it affords it any asylum, we confess our inability to perceive it. We are equally at a loss to perceive how it invalidates a single fact or argument which we have advanced in proof that Gehenna or hell in the New Testament does not teach the doctrine of endless misery. If we are mistaken, let our mistake be pointed out.
3d. We should feel obliged to the persons who wish to abandon the word place, to describe to us what they mean by state, and endless punishment in this state, without any idea of place. We hope they will be kind enough to inform us, also, why they wish to shift their ground from place to state, and whether this is coming nearer to the scripture mode of speaking of their doctrine; or is it with a view to perplex and evade the arguments urged against it? Men who would lay aside the good old way of speaking of hell, must have some reasons for doing it. We wish to know them.
4th. We have attempted to show that Gehenna, spoken of in the New Testament, is in reference to the same punishment of which the prophet Jeremiah had spoken long before concerning the Jewish nation. He had made Gehenna, or the valley of Hinnom, an emblem of this punishment. In speaking, therefore, of Gehenna as a place, it was not my views which required this so much as in opposing the common ideas entertained on this subject. This was rather a thing I could not avoid than anything in my views which required such a mode of speaking in establishing them. Why, then, blame me for what they do themselves, and which their own views of this doctrine force upon me in controverting them?
5th. It is allowed that heaven is a place as well as a state. Buck, in his Theological Dictionary, volume i., p. 330, says, “Heaven is to be considered a place as well as a state; it is expressly so termed in Scripture, John 14: 2, 3; and the existence of the body of Christ, and those of Enoch and Elijah, is a further proof of it. Yea, if it be not a place, where can those bodies be? And where will the bodies of the saints exist after the resurrection?” I appeal to all the world if hell is not as generally spoken of as a place as heaven is. And substituting the word hell for heaven in this quotation, the same things may be said of the wicked as are said of the righteous. I only ask, in the language of this quotation, Where will the bodies of the wicked exist after the resurrection, if hell be not a place? For all who believe this doctrine say they are to be raised.
6th. The popular views of Gehenna or hell no t only represent it as a place, but the Bible is thought to countenance this view of the subject. It is very certain that the Scriptures do not mention hell as a state, and do not guard us against supposing it to be a place, as this objection would have us believe concerning it. All past orthodoxy would denounce the man as heretical who would insinuate that hell was not a place, but only a state. And must I now be condemned as heretical for not speaking of hell as a state, but as a place?
OBJECTION 10
It has been objected, that the words spoken by our Lord, Matthew 23:33, to the unbelieving Jews were prophetic, and that by the dam nation of hell he might simply mean some punishment after death, without any reference to the place or the nature of the punishment. On this objection we remark,
1st. That it has been shown in considering this passage above, that our Lord’s words are not a prediction, but simply a threatening of temporal punishment to the Jews. But this objector takes it for granted that our Lord’s http://www.ThreeAngels.com.auwords are prophetic. It is not assertions and suppositions, but proof that can avail on this subject. If the objector says, that by the damnation of hell our Lord might simply mean some punishment after death, without any reference to the place or the nature of the punishment, let him produce some evidence of it.
We think we have shown from this text and its context that our Lord had no reference to a punishment after death, but to the temporal punishment coming on the Jewish nation. Let the objector disprove what we have said, and let him show from the context how his supposition can be supported from it. We may suppose anything; but, if unsupported by evidence, ought mere suppositions to be regarded?
2d. If the objector can prove that the punishment mentioned in this passage is after death, we really think that the place where it is to be suffered is called Gehenna by our Lord. Why he should think the punishment to be after death, and yet have any difficulty as to its location, or the nature of the punishment, we cannot conceive. The context of this place, surely, gives him no reason to conclude that the punishment is after death, but the reverse.
And if it does not determine, also, the nature of the punishment to be temporal, and that which was to come on the Jewish nation during that generation, it will be difficult to determine anything from the Bible. If the punishment of which our Lord spoke in this passage be after death, it will not be difficult to show that every punishment mentioned in the Bible is after death.
OBJECTION 11
It is further objected, If the mere silence of the Old Testament concerning Gehenna as a place of endless misery is of any force against it, will it not be of equal force against the doctrine of future existence, the resurrection of the dead, and many other things which are not revealed in the Old Testament? In answer to this, we remark,
1st. That we have never laid much stress on the silence of the Old Testament respecting Gehenna not being a place of endless misery. We have decidedly expressed our willingness to believe the doctrine, if it can be proved from either Testament. We have said, and we now say, that it is somewhat remarkable that such a doctrine should not be taught in the Old Testament.
2d. The objector proceeds on the assumption that future existence and the resurrection of the dead were doctrines not revealed under the Old Testament. But this he must prove before his objection can invalidate anything which I have said, drawn from the silence of the Old Testament, to prove that Gehenna or hell is not a place of endless misery. If he proves that a life of happiness after death was unknown under the Old Testament, it is freely admitted that my argument, drawn from its silence about future punishment, is destroyed. But if future happiness was known, and future eternal misery not known, how stands the argument? It is easily seen that it has considerable force in favour of the views which I have advanced.
3d. That both future existence and the resurrection of the dead were in some degree known under the old dispensation, we think can be proved. Our Lord blamed the Jews for not inferring this from the words of God to Moses at the bush. Paul, in the 11th of Hebrews, shows, we think decidedly, what was the faith of the ancient patriarchs about this. Though life and in-corruption were brought to light by the gospel, yet, if this were the proper place, we think it could be shown that it was not the doctrine, but the fact, which was brought to light. But can the objector prove the contrary, and can he show that the doctrine of hell torments was brought to light by the gospel? Unless he can do this, what I have said about the silence of the Old Testament respecting hell torments, remains unaffected by this objection.
OBJECTION 12
It has been objected, Since paradise in the Old Testament merely referred to temporal happiness, but in the New is used for heavenly blessedness, why may not also Gehenna, used in the Old Testament for temporal misery, be used in the New for eternal punishment? If the objector thinks so, let him show, from the use of the words paradise and Gehenna in the Old and New Testaments, that this is actually the case. To admit things at this may be rate is nothing to the purpose, and especially on a subject of such importance as the one in question. Do we find a place of future eternal happiness and a place of eternal misery equally and clearly revealed in Scripture? This is the first thing to be settled. Were both o f these revealed, there would be nothing strange that paradise and Gehenna should be used by the inspired writers in speaking of them. But is this true as it respects a place of eternal misery?
http://www.ThreeAngels.com.au Page 118
No; we do not find, upon looking at all the places in the New Testament where the words paradise and Gehenna are used, that similar things are said of Gehenna as a place of future punishment after death, as are said of paradise as a place of happiness after death. Let our readers judge if there be any affinity between paradise and Gehenna, and if these two words are used to express future eternal blessedness and misery alike in Scripture. The objector takes it for granted that paradise is used in the Old Testament. But in this he is mistaken, for the word does not occur there. Paradise is not even a Hebrew word, but is allowed to be Persian. Had the objector noticed that this word is not used in the Old Testament, it might have prevented such an objection being made against my views.
OBJECTION 13
It has been objected that the reason why John said nothing about Gehenna, was that he was the beloved disciple; and the reason why all the apostles are silent about it is, they wished to save men by love, and not by the terror of hell torments. This objection has some comfort in it, even if it does not convince us of our error. In reply we may remark,
1st. If this was the reason why John and the apostles said nothing about hell torments, it is fair to infer that modern preachers wish to save men by terror and not by love. How, then, does the objector account for the difference between apostolic and modern preaching? This objection agrees with my views so far as this, that God makes men obedient by love and not by terror. So far, well.
2d. It seems from this objection, that the more we become apostolic or like John in love, the less we shall say about hell torments. If we can only, like John, be beloved disciples, and be like the apostles in our tempers and dispositions, we shall not mention endless misery in our preaching or conversation, though we may be full in the belief that all sinners are in the downward road to ruin. For,
3d. This objection, notwithstanding all the love in John and the apostles, and their desire to save men by love and not by terror, supposes Gehenna to be place of endless misery. The objection proceeds on the supposition that John and all the apostles believed this, yet said nothing about it, because they wished to save men by love rather than terror. There is another difficulty. Christ, it seems, wished to save men, yea, his own disciples, by the terror of hell torments! The objector approves of the conduct of the apostles, and thinks it was a lovely disposition in them; it showed love to the persons whom they addressed in saying nothing to them about hell. Let no man say that this is love. What! John and the rest of the apostles love men’s souls, and believe them exposed to endless misery in hell, yet never once mention their danger to them? All will agree with me in saying that this is anything but love or faithfulness to the souls of men.
OBJECTION 14
It is further objected that, If Gehenna signifies wrath to come, it was natural to speak to Jews of endless misery by the former, and to Gentiles by the latter mode of expression. Why it was natural to speak to Jews of eternal misery by the one expression and to Gentiles by the other, we are not informed. But,
1st. Allowing that this is the case, can it be proved that Gehenna, and the phrase, wrath to come, are used in Scripture to express either to Jews or Gentiles endless punishment? We have shown that Gehenna is not so used in Scripture, and we can show that the expression, wrath to come, does not refer to a future state of existence. Wrath, yea, even the wrath of God, may be wrath to come, and yet be wholly confined to the present world. We think it will be difficult to prove that the wrath to come, mentioned in Scripture, had any reference to a state of punishment after death.
2d. Upon examination we think it will be found that the phrase, “wrath to come,” refers to temporal punishment to Jews as well as Gentiles; but, as the damnation or punishment of hell or Gehenna had a particular reference to the temporal miseries of the Jews, at the destruction of their city and temple, we never find it spoken of to the Gentiles. *
* The phrase “wrath to come” is found in Matthew 3: 7, and is explained by Dr. Clarke as follows: “The ‘wrath to come.’ The desolation which was about to fall on the Jewish nation for their wickedness, and threatened in the last words of their own Scripture. See Mal. 4: 6. Lest I come and smite the earth—this very land, with a curse. This wrath or curse was coming; they did not prevent it by turning to God, and receiving the Messiah; and, therefore, the wrath of God came upon them to the uttermost.” In agreement with this interpretation are the views of Dr. Clarke of Matthew 3: 10. He says, the Romans were the axe in the hands of God for cutting down http://www.ThreeAngels.com.authe Jews. He applies verse 12 to the same judgment, and thus makes wrath to come, hewn down and cast into the fire, and unquenchable fire, synonymous expressions, which John employed to describe the judgment soon to come on the Jews.
OBJECTION 15
It has also been objected, that if my views of Gehenna be correct, my interpretation of the passages where our Lord spoke to his disciples concerning it, go to show that he was more concerned for their temporal safety than their eternal welfare. This objection to some will appear more plausible than many others which we have stated. But in answer to it, we remark, 1st. That it assumes the question in debate, the whole of the present Inquiry being to prove “that the eternal welfare of the disciples was not in danger.” This objection goes on the presumption that the disciples were in danger of eternal misery, and that, according to my interpretation of the passages in which our Lord spoke of Gehenna, he was more concerned about their temporal safety than he was about their deliverance from eternal misery. The objector has then got to disprove the evidence I have adduced, showing that Gehenna does not refer to a place of endless misery. 2d. That our Lord should be more concerned for the temporal safety of his disciples, than for that of the unbelieving Jews, many reasons might be assigned.
They were his disciples, and their temporal safety could not be a matter of indifference to him. Their temporal safety also made manifest his character, in not destroying the righteous with the wicked. And was not this very sparing them, as a father spares his only son that serves him, a fulfilment of what God had spoken? See Mal. 3: 17, 18, and comp. chapter 4. But, above all, was it not a matter of importance that our Lord should show concern for the temporal safety of his disciples, as they were to be witnesses of his resurrection, and the heralds of his salvation to the ends of the earth? All these and other things which could be mentioned account for our Lord’s solicitude about the temporal safety of his disciples, without supposing that their souls were in danger of endless punishment in Gehenna.
OBJECTION 16
It is further objected, As Jews and Gentiles believed hell to be a place of misery, why did not Christ and the apostles take occasion to contradict this false notion; and why did they express themselves so much in favour of it, that a great part of mankind from that time to this have supposed it fully taught in the New Testament? Some remarks are made in Chapter 1, Sec. 3, which meet this objection. We offer a few additional remarks here in reply to it. 1st. Then, we ask, how came they by such a belief? It was not from the Old Testament, for that does not teach such a doctrine. 2d. But the point of this objection lies in the following things: It is asked, “Why is it that neither Christ nor his apostles ever took occasion to contradict this false notion that hell was a place of misery?” In answer to this we ask, in our turn, “If Christ and his apostles believed this doctrine common to both Jews and Gentiles, why did they not avail themselves of this universally received notion to inculcate and enforce this doctrine?” To have taught it, could have given no offence to either of them; yet we find them silent on the subject that Gehenna or even Hades is such a place.
The only exception to this is the parable of the rich man, which has been shown not even to teach an intermediate state of punishment. If this popular belief then was true, and believed to be so by the Saviour and his apostles, why did they not avail themselves of it, and enforce it on both Jews and Gentiles? 3d. If we are to conclude that because Christ and his apostles never expressly contradicted this false notion, common to both Jews and Gentiles, and that they by their silence sanctioned it as true, it follows that all the false notions entertained by Jews and Gentiles not expressly contradicted by them are true. But we presume few would admit this, though it is a natural consequence from this objection. When any man will fairly make out that their not contradicting expressly all the false Jewish and heathen notions is proof that those about which they are silent are true, we shall admit the one in question to be of the number. But another part of the point of this objection is, that “on the contrary, they expressed themselves in appearance at least so much in favour of this opinion, that a great part of mankind from that time to this have supposed it fully taught in the New Testament.”
In reply, we would ask in what parts of the New Testament do we find this? Not surely from those parts which speak either of Hades or Gehenna. The places where our Lord used those words, have been considered, and we think it has been shown that in none of them did he teach such a doctrine. His apostles never once named Gehenna, nor even intimate that either Hades or Gehenna referred to a place of endless misery. If our Lord and his apostles did in appearance speak of such a place of misery, some other texts must be referred to than those in which the words Hades and Gehenna are found. But it is supposed that Jesus Christ and his apostles expressed themselves in appearance, at least, so much in favour of this opinion, “that a great part of mankind from that time to this have supposed it fully taught in the New Testament.”
It will not be denied that men from that time to this have supposed Christ and his apostles to teach doctrines which they are now coming to be convinced are not taught in the Bible. That the one we have been considering is not of that number ought not to be taken for granted. It is admitted by all that a great many Jewish and heathen notions were very early incorporated with the doctrine of Christ and his apostles. Past ages have furnished but too much evidence that the Scriptures have been used to countenance almost every opinion. Closer attention to the oracles of God has exploded many of them, and increased attention may expose the falsehood of many more.
That hell, a place of endless misery for the wicked, is an opinion which originated with the heathen we have shown; and have also attempted to show that those texts on which this doctrine has been founded have been greatly misunderstood. If we have erred in interpreting them, let this be pointed out. Until this is done, and it is shown that the doctrine of hell torments did not originate in heathenism, but in the authority of God, our views stand unshaken by this objection.
OBJECTION 17
We find it also objected, If there be no place of punishment in a future state, prepared for such as die in unbelief, how is this part of mankind to be disposed of after death; in what part of the universe is an abode to be assigned them? Not in heaven; for God is represented in Scripture as bringing with him thence, at the resurrection of the dead, only those that “sleep in Jesus,” and of all the dead only “the dead in Christ” are said to ascend thither with him to dwell forever with the Lord.
Not in Gehenna or hell; for, according to your views, there is no such place in the world to come. On this objection let it be remarked, 1st. Whatever abode we assign such persons in a future state, we think we have shown that God does not assign to them as their abode, Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, or even Gehenna. If God has not assigned to them such a place, it is rash in us to assert this without his authority. If he should leave them without any abode, either as to happiness or misery, there we ought to leave them. Dr. Campbell, as we have seen, declares that Hades is at last to be destroyed, and accordingly he assigns them an everlasting abode in Gehenna, but we think without any warrant from Scripture. If, then, we have proved that hell or Gehenna is not the everlasting abode which God has assigned them, and seeing the objector thinks that heaven is not to be their abode, we ask him, in turn, how they are to be disposed of? If he denies that heaven is to be their abode, we think it has been shown that hell is not said to be their abode. If it is said, because they are not to go to heaven they must go to hell; we may reply, because they are not to go to hell they must go to heaven.
2d. The objection states that their abode is not to be in heaven, and the reasons assigned are, “For God is represented in Scripture as bringing with him from thence, at the resurrection of the dead, only those that ‘sleep in Jesus;’ and of all the dead, only ‘the dead in Christ’ are said to ascend thither with him to dwell forever with the Lord.” This refers to 1 Thessalonians 4: 43, etc., on the whole of which passage I shall make the following remarks.
1st. The grand distinction in this passage is between the dead and those found alive on the earth at the period referred to. The passage does not teach how the wicked dead and those wicked found alive are to be disposed of; for not a word is said about the wicked. The persons asleep or dead, verse 13, and those which sleep in Jesus, verse 14, and also as asleep, verse 15, and the de ad in Christ who shall rise first, verse 16, all refer to the same persons.
They refer to the dead, and we presume are exclusively con fined by the objector to believers. On the other hand the we, who are said to be alive and remain, mentioned verses 15—17, must also be confined exclusively to believers then found alive on the earth. These shall not prevent, or go before, them who are asleep. Before they shall ascend, the dead in Christ shall rise, and both shall ascend together to meet the Lord in the air. These last we must confine to all living believers found on the earth, for if we extend it to all living, indiscriminately, why not the first also to all the dead indiscriminately? But if we take into view the 15th chapter of 1st Corinthians, and especially from verse 51—58, which seems to treat of the same subject, all the dead seem to be included. Compare, also, verses 20—22, 31, 35, 42—45.
2d. It is evident that the passage makes no distinction between two classes of people to be raised at this period, righteous and wicked. Either, then, this passage does not teach us anything concerning the wicked, or they are included with the others here mentioned. If they are not, and their resurrection is nowhere else spoken of, the inference would be that they are not raised at all. But in some other places their resurrection is asserted. See Acts 24: 15.
If Paul, then, in the passage does not include all dead and alive, it is rather singular that he should say nothing about the resurrection of the wicked, or how those left on the earth are to be disposed of, after all the others have left it to meet the Lord in the air. If he did not see fit to consign them over to hell forever, nor inform us how they are to be disposed of otherwise, the objector ought to prove that hell is to be their everlasting abode. If I am mistaken in my views of Gehenna or hell, I wish to see my error pointed out. If it is to be their abode, I am in a great mistake. But if this passage is allowed to speak only of believers, yet there are others which do not accord with what the objector seems to draw from it.
According to this objection, none but such as died believers in Christ are to be finally happy in heaven. This at once excludes all the heathen world, and a great part of what is called the Christian world. But how does all this agree with the promises of God, that in Christ all the families of the earth are to be blessed; that the heathen are given him for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession; that God hath reconciled all things to himself by Jesus Christ; that he is Lord of all, Lord both of the dead and of the living; that every knee shall bow to him and every tongue confess? But see among others the following passages, which we think it will be difficult to reconcile with the objection urged from this passage. 1 Corinthians 16: 24—29; Romans 5: 12— 21; Revelation 5: 13; Philippians 2: 9— 12. In short, how could it, with any propriety, be said, that the devil, the works of the devil, and death, the last enemy, are all destroyed, if this objection is founded in truth?
But the whole force of this objection seems to rest on the expression that is here used concerning the persons who are to be raised, that they sleep in Jesus. The term sleep is used for death, and we think it can be proved that it is so used concerning good and bad. It is then the words “in Jesus,” on which the whole depends. Now we would ask, if even those who died in ignorance and unbelief concerning him are persons for whom he died,—for whose sins he was a propitiation,—and if he is not to give up the kingdom until all things are subdued,— yea, such persons are to be raised by him,—may it not be said that they sleep in him?
But there is one thing in this passage which I would notice, and with it conclude my remarks on this objection. In verse 13, the apostle, addressing the Thessalonians, says, “I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them who are asleep, that ye sorrow not even as others who have no hope.” Who were asleep, let me ask, and concerning whom the apostle wished them, “not to sorrow as those who have no hope”? According to the view taken in the objection, they were only believers, or believing relatives who had died. But why should they sorrow so much for them, and be told not to sorrow like the heathen, whose grief at the death of their relatives was excessive? If we confine those who are represented as asleep to believers only, it should seem that the Thessalonians had even little hope as to them, and went to excess in grief, and needed to be cautioned against it. But if we consider the apostle as exhorting them against excessive grief at the death of their relations who even died heathens, it not only obviates this difficulty, but their minds are consoled by the apostle concerning them. To understand it otherwise would represent the Thessalonians as being grieved only at the death of their believing relations, and no way concerned for the future condition of such of them as died heathens.
Such are the objections, of any importance, which we have heard urged against the views we have advanced concerning hell or Gehenna. Some of them, we frankly admit, are too trifling to have been noticed. After a consideration of them we must say that not one of them, yea not all of them taken together, have even led us to suspect that what we have said concerning hell is contrary to Scripture. But let our readers consider them, and judge for themselves.
SECTION 10
CONCLUDING REMARKS.
IF the sentiments advanced in the preceding pages have been duly considered by the reader, he no doubt perceives that the conclusion which results from them is, that there is no place of endless misery taught in Scripture, as is commonly believed by most Christians.
This we admit to be the fair inference which results from what has been stated, unless it can be proved that such a place of endless misery is revealed in Scripture under some other name than Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, or Gehenna. It is our deliberate and candid opinion that these words are never used in Scripture to express such a http://www.ThreeAngels.com.auplace of misery. We have laid the evidence on which this opinion has been formed before our readers, and they are left to judge for themselves as to its truth or falsehood. Some, no doubt, will condemn what we have said, without giving the evidence produced a patient hearing. The popular but senseless cry of heresy is sure to be rung in people’s ears to deter them from paying any attention to the subject. From such persons we expect nothing but noise and abuse, for they have no de sire that their faith should stand in the wisdom of God. But there are others, whose good sense, judgment and piety, we respect, who, no doubt, will conclude that my inquiry has ended in a great and fatal error. To all such I would offer a few remarks, in vindication of myself, against this sentence of condemnation.
1st. Let those who thus condemn me consider if they do not take for granted the grand question which has been under discussion. Do they not first determine in their own minds that hell is a place of endless misery, and, because my investigation has not brought me to this conclusion, conclude I must be in a great error? But why ought not such persons to admit that they may be in an error on this subject, and, instead of condemning me, bring the subject to Bible for examination? It is not our work to make a Bible, to alter it, or bend it to support any sentiment, however popular in the religious world. It is a duty incumbent on every man to study that precious book with serious care and attention, and, by every just rule of interpretation, to ascertain what is its true meaning. This I have attempted to do, and, unless I shut my eyes against evidence, and am determined to be an implicit believer in the doctrine of endless misery, to what other result could I come on this subject? If, after all the care and attention I have been able to give this subject, it can be proved that I am in an error, let it be done, and I pledge myself to renounce it. I have the testimony of my own conscience that I have sought after the truth, and that without any regard either to the favour or the frown of my fellow-creatures.
2d. But if we are not to examine into the truth of religious doctrines unless our examinations end in the belief that the popular and long-established views of them are true, all inquiry and investigation might as well be spared. It is much easier to adopt the popular belief at once; for, after all our labour and care, to this we must come at last. Besides, in this way we a void all the pain and popular odium which a change of religious opinion frequently involves. But, had this course been pursued by all who have gone before us, what would our condition now have been as to science or religion? We had to-day been sitting in darkness, and saying to the works of our own hands, “Ye are our gods.” The Bible is the religion of Protestants, and among all the sects into which they are divided, free inquiry is, to a certain extent, inculcated. Most sects, however, have their limits fixed, beyond which if a man goes, he becomes suspected, and perhaps is denounced as an heretic. He may inquire and investigate as much as he pleases, to support the peculiar tenets of his sect, but beyond this it is dangerous to proceed. Should he push his inquiries further, and find some of them the inventions of men, he must conceal his discoveries, for, if he does not, the vengeance of the whole sect, if not the whole religious community, will be poured out on his head. I must be very fond of suffering, thus to expose myself.
3d. Since I am to be condemned because my investigations have not resulted in the popular belief of the doctrine of endless torments, I do not see any possible way of getting rid of error, or increasing in knowledge. I have done no more than thousands have done before me,—examine the Bible for myself, and state the result for the consideration of others. Such as have done this, have seldom escaped the appellation of heretics. But the first to condemn others, are generally the last to examine for themselves. If, in this investigation, I have travelled beyond the record, let this be pointed out by an appeal to the same record. If a man, under mistaken views of a religious doctrine, avows his mistaken sentiments, and thereby brings more truth to light, and excites inquiry, are not these valuable ends served to society?
4th. Suppose the views which have been advanced had been the universal belief of the religious community, and the opposite doctrine had never been known in the world, and that I had come forward, and attempted to show that endless misery was a doctrine taught in Scripture, and that the contrary was a mistaken view of the subject, should I not be liable to the very same condemnation to which I am now subjected? The trumpet would sound loud and long by all religious parties against me. It would be sagely and gravely remarked, “What a dreadful doctrine he has embraced! What dreadful views his doctrine gives of the God who made us! He represents him as dooming a great part of his creatures to endless misery! His inquiries have led him into a most dreadful error.” I appeal to every candid ma n if this would not be my fate, and if as good ground would not be afforded for such conclusions and condemnations in the one case as in the other! But let us view the two opposite doctrines in the following points of light.
1st. How do the two doctrines affect the character of God? Let us view them as to his promises. He promised that the seed of the woman should bruise the head of the serpent. To bruise a serpent’s head is to kill or destroy it. But is the serpent’s head bruised, if the greater part of the human race are to be eternally miserable? Even this is too gross to be believed by respectable orthodox writers in the present day. Mr. Emerson, in his book on thehttp://www.ThreeAngels.com.au Millennium, commenting on Genesis 3: 15, thus writes, p. 11, “Now the question arises, Has the serpent’s head been bruised in any degree answerable to the manifest import of the passage under consideration? A great part of mankind have gone to destruction. Does this look like bruising the serpent’s head? If the greater part of the human race are to be lost by the cunning craftiness of Satan, will that look like bruising his head? To me it would seem far otherwise.
Should Satan continue the god of this world from the beginning to the end of time, leading whole nations captive at his will, surely he will seem to have cause to triumph. But the head of Satan must be bruised; his plots must be crushed. Are all mankind to be saved? Certainly not. That would be giving the lie to numerous declarations of eternal Truth; it would be throwing away the Bible at once. And if the Bible be thrown away, it would be impossible to prove the salvation of any. But there is no doubt that by far the greater part of mankind will be saved. This appears necessary, in order that the serpent’s head may be bruised. I am strongly inclined to the opinion of Dr. Hopkins, that, of the whole human race, thousands will be saved for one that is lost.”
We are happy to see from such respectable authors that “thousands will be saved for one that is lost;” and that, if the greater part of the human race are to be lost, Satan’s head would not be bruised, but that he would have cause to triumph. If so many must be saved, as stated in this quotation, to avoid these consequences, we would suggest it for the consideration of all, as well as that of the worthy author, whether Satan’s head could be bruised, or he destroyed, and whether he would not have cause of triumph if one individual of the human race was lost. If but one was left in his power to be tormented forever, how could his head be bruised, and why would he not triumph in this small conquest? We do not see how the number could materially alter the case. We seriously think that if the number to be saved be so great, in proportion to those lost; whether it would not be well to consider if all mankind may not be saved, and we believe this without throwing away our Bibles. On this quotation, we cannot help remarking how different the sentiments contained in it are, to those considered true orthodoxy in former ages. In those days, it would have been considered throwing away the Bible to say that thousands will be saved for one lost, just as much as saying in these that all will be saved. If Christ comes so near saving the whole human race, in the name of humanity, why not let his triumph be complete; why strain at the gnat and swallow the camel? God also promised to Abraham that in his seed, which was Christ, all the families of the earth should be blessed. But if the doctrine of endless misery be true, and a great part of mankind are decreed to such a punishment, how can this promise of God be fulfilled? Let any one go over the promises and predictions of the Old Testament, and then candidly say if he finds them in unison with the limited views of salvation which most men entertain. It would be as endless, as useless, for me to dwell on this topic.
But let us view the two doctrines in regard to the threatening of God. The doctrine of eternal misery supposes God threatened that Adam in the day he ate of the forbidden fruit should be doomed to endless misery. Hell torment, then, was threatened before sin existed, or before the promise of a Saviour was given. But is this a correct understanding of the death threatened? The falsehood of it is evident from one fact, that neither Adam, Noah, Abraham, nor any of the Old Testament believers so understood it. If they did, would they not have taught it to mankind?
But let us also view the two doctrines, in regard to the attributes or character of God. It has been said that my views are very dishonourable to God. His justice, his holiness, and truth are dishonoured, if there be no endless punishment for all the wicked. But if my views dishonour God’s justice, holiness and truth, what comes of his mercy and goodness, if the opposite doctrine be true? We have seen attempts made by some metaphysical writers to reconcile eternal misery with the mercy and goodness of God, but in vain. All they have said is only enveloping the subject in mist, or throwing dust in people’s eyes to blind them on this subject.
It is reported of the late Dr. Osgood that when he was asked the question, “How he reconciled the doctrine of eternal misery with the character of God as a God of mercy and goodness,” he lifted both his hands, and said, “If any man is able to do this I cannot do it.”
Whether Go d is more glorified in men’s damnation or in their salvation, I need not discuss. One thing is certain; that those called orthodox writers in the present day are fully aware that if God did not ultimately save the greatest part of mankind, God’s character would be dishonoured. If this was not the case, who could deny that the Devil was more honoured than God? Mr. Emerson, aware of this, agrees with another celebrated divine that those saved at last will exceed those that are lost by a large majority. I am truly glad to see men of intelligence, so much concerned for God’s honour and glory in this respect; and I hope the time is not very distant when they may think God most honoured and glorified by saving the whole human race. It is a very evident case that those writers do not hesitate to dissent from ancient orthodoxy.
Had they written so in some former ages, they would have suffered death in some of its most terrific forms for their temerity. At any rate, I am not a greater heretic now than they would have been then.
2d. How do the views advanced, and their opposite, affect the Scriptures of Truth? I think it will not be denied that my views of all the passages in which Gehenna occurs, are explained consistently with themselves, and their respective contexts. Those who give a different interpretation, pervert the Scriptures, and shut their eyes against the context and scripture usage of words. The context points out the sense I have given Gehenna; scripture usage comes in aid; nor is anything taken for granted. But that Gehenna is a place of future misery, is assumed and asserted without proof, and when the context and scripture usage are consulted for evidence, all they afford is on the opposite side.
3d. Let us see how the two doctrines affect the various religious sects in the world. Allowing that this doctrine was universally the faith of all parties, discord must cease, and Christians would embrace each other as children of the same father, and heirs of the same inheritance. It would lead all sects to treat each other very differently from what they have done. But how does the opposite doctrine operate among them? Hell being a place of endless misery, Christians have been for ages consigning each other over to its punishment, and that often for conscientious differences of religious opinions.
4th. Let us consider how my views and their opposite affect the diffusion of the gospel in the world. Say some, “If your views are correct, why trouble ourselves or be at such an expense to send the gospel to the heathen?” The principal object in sending missionaries to the heathen in our day seems to be to save them from hell. If this be the object of sending them, we think they may abide at home; for certainly theirs is an errand on which the apostles were never sent. Those who wish to see what they proposed, yea, accomplished, by preaching to the heathen, may consult the Acts of the apostles and all the epistles. Because there is no eternal torment from which to save them, shall we not impart to them the knowledge and hope of eternal life? Unless we can terrify them with preaching hell, shall we let them live and die ignorant about heaven?
In short, because we cannot save them from a place where they shall dishonour God and be punished forever, shall we not save them from dishonouring his name and from punishment in the present world? I pity the man who can feel and reason thus. Supposing the happiness of heaven and the torment of hell out of the question, and that the heathen world were as ignorant of science, agriculture, and the arts of life, as they are of spiritual things, how ought we to feel and reason on this subject? Deists and atheists, in this case, would put Christians to the blush, if they would do them no service, because they had no hell torments to save them from. My views of hell, so far from abating true Christian zeal, only give it a right direction. The zeal manifested in the present day in behalf of the heathen is highly to be commended, and nothing prevents its being more generally approved but the object towards which it is directed. It is zeal, but we think not according to true knowledge. If an intelligent heathen were to ask a modern missionary, after hearing him preach hell torments, the following questions, what could he answer? “Do you profess to take the apostles as a pattern in your preaching and conduct?”
To this the missionary would, without doubt, reply in the affirmative. “Give me leave,” says he, “then, to ask you what heathen nation they ever went to and preached as you do? To what sermon of theirs can you refer in which they mentioned the word hell?” Were I this missionary, such questions would nonplus me. To what could the missionary appeal in defence of himself? Not to his Bible, a book they know nothing about. Not to anything he could point them as an object of sight, feeling, or hearing. He could indeed refer them back to the old heathen fables about hell, from which source Dr. Campbell thinks the Jews derived this notion . But we are rather inclined to think so far as our knowledge of present heathenism goes, that the heathen have forgotten the ancient fables about hell, and are obliged to Christians for reviving this ancient doctrine of their fathers among them.
5th. Let us see which of the two doctrines accords best with the prayers of good men. What a good man desires, and is agreeable to his best feelings, he prays for. Accordingly, it is common with all Christians to pray for the salvation of all men; and we believe that they do this often with holy and ardent desires for its accomplishment.
But, is there not a contradiction between their wishes, feelings, and prayers, and their professed creed? If they are confident all will never be saved, why pray for the salvation of all? Their prayers ought to be restricted to the elect. And we see not why they ought not to pray for the eternal misery of all the rest, seeing it is the will, yea, the eternal decree, of God that they should be forever miserable. All we request here is that every Christian would impartially and seriously examine if my views may not be true, and especially since they are so much in unison with his best feelings, and his prayers, when in the most solemn intercourse with his God. If I am in an error, it is strange that this error should have such a place in the feelings and prayers of all Christians.
6th. How do my views and the opposite affect the eternal condition of men? According to my views, not one of the human race is to be punished forever. This is certainly a pleasing thought, amidst all the guilt and woe in our world. But how does the contrary doctrine represent this? It says that a certain number, no better than others, are to be received into heaven to enjoy its happiness forever. All the rest of the human race are to be banished to hell torments forever. The husband, the parent, the brother, the sister, shall look down from heaven on their relations in hell, and so far from having any pity at seeing them in an unspeakable and eternal torment, the very sight shall enhance and increase their happiness.
Now, give me leave to ask, and let conscience speak which of these two views is likely to be the truth. Unless everything like Christian feeling is banished from heaven, can such a doctrine be true? Yea, I ask, if Christian feelings are known in this place? Is it possible that the happiness of the place could be enjoyed, while it is known that a single individual is to be eternally miserable? If this be true, then, a believer does not better his situation, as to Christian feeling, by going to heaven. I once saw the idea highly extolled in an account of missionary proceedings, “that a Christian could not feel happy, so long as he knew that there was a single individual of the human race without the knowledge and belief of the gospel.”
This is like a Christian in this world. Heaven is, then, a change for the worse, if the eternal torment of innumerable beings in hell is to afford an increase ofjoy to its inhabitants. For my own part, I must say that with such feelings I could not be happy in heaven. To conclude. With the following remarks, we shall take our leave of this subject for the present.
1st. The books of the Old Testament, says Jahn, in his introduction, p. 4, go “back to sixteen centuries before the Christian era. The most ancient of them are between six and seven hundred years older than Homer, the oldest Greek poet, who lived in the ninth century before Christ; and about eleven hundred years older than Herodotus, the earliest Grecian historian, who wrote in the fifth century before Christ, and near the time when Malachi and Nehemiah composed the last of the Hebrew Scriptures.” Now, let the reader notice that in these ancient sacred writings not a syllable is to be found respecting endless torments. This doctrine is not taught under the name Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna, or by any other mode of expression. Mr. Stuart does not pretend that endless punishment is taught in the books of the Old Testament; and his very attempt to prove that Sheol included in it a Tartarus or place of future punishment shows they afforded no solid evidence of such a doctrine. After all his efforts to prove this, he is obliged to beg of his readers to grant that this may probably be true. But it is now generally conceded by orthodox critics and commentators that all the punishments mentioned in the O ld Testament are of a temporal nature, and are confined to the present state of existence.
Here, then, are inspired writings, “sixteen centuries before the Christian era,” none of which teach either endless or limited punishment in a future state. Now, let any candid man say, if either of these doctrines had been believed by these ancient sacred writers, would they not have taught it? Can any other reason be assigned why they did not teach it, except that it was not revealed by God or believed by them? Let it be remembered that in these ancient records God promised to Abraham that “in his seed (Christ, Gal. 3: 16) all the nations and families of the earth were to be blessed.” See Genesis 12: 3; 22: 18. But, if some of these families of the earth were in danger of limited or eternal punishment in hell, who can believe that these ancient sacred records would have been silent on the subject? Dr. Good, speaking of Arabia, says, “The oldest work that has descended to us from this quarter (and there is little doubt that it is the oldest, or one of the oldest works in existence), is that astonishing and transcendent composition, the book of Job.” But, in this oldest book in existence, not a word, in any shape, is to be found respecting future hell torments, and yet a future life by a resurrection from the dead is taught in it. Job 19: 25— 28; 14: 7—15. The hope of future life was entertained in those ancient times, and this hope was expressed. But if the fear of future punishment was also entertained, why was not it expressed?
Had no future existence been revealed in those ancient sacred writings, no surprise would be excited that they are silent on the subject of endless or limited future punishment. But the above texts, and Hebrews, chapter 11, with other texts which might be referred to, put it out of all question that a future life was known and believed in those days. Men then had a promise of future life to believe, but had no threatening of future endless punishment to fear.
Such was the state of things among those who enjoyed the earliest records of divine revelation. Where can you find in them any fears expressed by a single individual, either respecting himself or others, that after death there was either an endless or limited future punishment to be endured? Whether persons died a sudden or a lingering death; by their own hands or the hands of others; in the ordinary course of events or by the immediate hand of God; not a syllable escapes the lips of any one, that any of them had gone to hell to suffer such a punishment. The love of life and the fear of death prevailed then as now; but no man seems to have feared punishment of any http://www.ThreeAngels.com.aukind beyond it. And the reason why men had no dread of punishment after death was, they had no knowledge concerning it. But let us now see,
2d. What was the state of knowledge among the heathen nations, respecting future punishment, during the period o f sixteen centuries before the Christian era, while those ancient sacred records were enjoyed by others? Did they believe in future punishment, and in endless punishment? Most assuredly they did. It is well known that both the Greeks and Romans believed in endless punishment. And we have seen, from Mr. Stuart and his son, that this doctrine was derived by them from the ancient Egyptians. The Egyptian Amenti was the prototype and origin of the Hades of the Greeks, and Tartarus of the Latins. And Dr. Good, we have seen, declares, that the doctrine of future punishment is taught in the earliest records of Egyptian history. Now, it is manifest they did not derive this doctrine from the earliest records of divine revelation, for they are as silent as the grave on the subject. Be it also remembered that Moses, who wrote the first five books of the Bible, was brought up in Egypt, and was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.
It is very certain, then, if he had believed the doctrine of future punishment originated from God, he would have taught it in his writings. Had it been a truth from him, which the Egyptians had received through tradition, or lost revelations, it cannot be questioned but he would have approved of it, and taught it to the Hebrews. But he gives no hint that this doctrine was true, or ought to be believed, any more than the doctrine of transmigration, which was also believed by the Egyptians. Is it not, then, a very extraordinary fact, that the heathen nations, who had no divine revelation, should know all about endless hell torments in those days, yet those who enjoyed the earliest records of divine revelation should be ignorant and silent about them? Why should the heathen fables be full of this doctrine, yet God’s revelations to men silent on the subject? Why should the heathen philosophers know so we ll about it, yet the inspired writers know nothing about it?
But the reader ought also to notice under what shape the doctrine of future punishment was believed and taught among the heathen nations. Dr. Good remarks, it is “curious to observe the different grounds appealed to in favour of a future existence, in the most learned regions of the East: ‘the Hindu philosophers totally and universally denying a resurrection of the body, and supporting the doctrine alone upon the natural immortality of the soul, and the Arabian philosophers passing over the immortality of the soul, and resting it alone upon a resurrection of the body.’” He adds, that in Arabia, whence the book of Job originated, the immortality of the soul is “left in as blank and barren a silence as the deserts by which they are surrounded.” It is very evident, then, that if the doctrine of future punishment was believed in Arabia, it was a punishment after the resurrection from the dead.
But no countenance is given to such an opinion in the book of Job, which originated in Arabia, and is the oldest book in the world. But it is equally evident that future punishment, as held by the Hindu philosophers and other heathen nations, was the punishment of the immortal soul separate from the body, for they did not believe in the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead. When Paul preached it at Athens, the people mocked at it; for a resurrection from the dead was deemed by the heathen incredible. Their hope of future happiness, and dread of future misery, depended on the truth or falsehood of the doctrine they had believed, that the soul was immortal, and at death went either to Elysium to be happy, or to Tartarus to be miserable. They could have no hope on the one hand of future happiness, or dread of future misery on the other, but on the ground that the soul was immortal. We ought then to notice that the doctrine of the soul’s immortality was commonly believed among all the heathen nations. But we should inquire,
3d. If, in those ancient sacred writings, some of which existed sixteen centuries before the Christian era, anything is taught respecting the immortality of the soul. Nothing of the kind appears in any part of them. The soul is never once mentioned in the Bible as immortal. And in the book of Job, the oldest of the sacred books, the only ground stated for a future life is a resurrection from the dead. Dr. Good, we have seen, says, in Arabia, whence the book of Job emanated, this was the only ground for a future life known there. We search the Bible in vain to find the doctrine of the immortality of the soul; and yet, what doctrine is more generally believed among Christians? This doctrine, like the doctrine of future punishment, with which it is closely connected, is abundantly taught in heathen authors, and can be fairly traced to heathen origin. The next question, then, is,
4th. How the doctrine of the soul’s immortality originated among the heathen? It seems to be indisputable that the immortality of the soul was believed by most of the heathen nations. It was received among the Egyptians, Celts, Scythians, and other nations. It was taught by Zamolxis, Orpheus, Socrates, Plato, and a host of others. As it is not taught in the oldest records of divine revelation, nor in any part of the Bible, how came it to be so common among those who had no divine revelation? Whence did it originate among men? for on the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, the doctrine of future punishment is founded.
This doctrine among the heathen could not exist without the immortality of the soul. The following quotation from Enfield’s philosophy gives the best account we can find of the origin of his doctrine. He says, volume i., p. 50, “According to Zoroaster, various orders of spiritual beings, gods or demons, have proceeded from the deity, which are more or less perfect, as they are at a greater or less distance, in the course of emanation, from the eternal fountain of intelligence; among which the human soul is a particle of divine light, which will return to its source, and partake of its immortality; and matter is the last and most distant emanation from the first source of being, which, on account of its distance from the fountain of light, becomes opaque and inert, and whilst it remains in this state is the cause of evil; but, being gradually refined, it will at length return to the fountain whence it flowed. This doctrine of emanation afterwards produced many fanciful opinions in theology.”
This doctrine of emanation was extensively believed among the heathen nations, and from it the doctrine of the soul’s immortality seems to have originated. Herodotus asserts that the Egyptians “were the first people who taught this doctrine.” Speaking of the Indians, Enfield says, p. 56, “The human soul they represented as of divine original, because, with all the other eastern nations, they conceived it to be a particle, or an emanation of that intellectual fire by which they believed the universe to be animated. Their doctrine of the return of the soul to God, which some have confounded with the Christian doctrine of the resurrection, seems to have meant nothing more than that the soul, after being disengaged from the grosser material body, would be reunited to the fountain of all being, the soul of the world. It is an opinion still found among the Indians, and probably of a very ancient date, that there is in nature a periodical restitution of all things; when, after the return of all derived beings to their source, they are again sent forth, and the whole course of things is renewed. Inferior divinities were doubtless worshipped among them as emanations from the first spring of life.”
The doctrine of the immortality of the soul seems to have had one common origin among the heathen, and was communicated from one nation to another. On pages 121, 122, Enfield says, “The human soul, Orpheus, after the Thracians and Egyptians, from whom he derived his philosophy, held to be immortal. Diodorus Siculus relates that he was the first who taught (that is among the Greeks) the doctrine of the future punishment of the wicked, and the future happiness of the good. That this doctrine was commonly received among the followers of Orpheus appears from the following anecdote. A priest of Orpheus, who was exceedingly poor and wretched, boasting to Philip of Macedon that all who were admitted into the Orphic mysteries would be happy after death, Philip said to him, ‘Why, then, do you not immediately die, and put an end to your poverty and misery?’—The planets and the moon, Orpheus conceived to be habitable worlds, and the stars to be fiery bodies like the sun: he taught that they are animated by divinities; an opinion which had been commonly received in the East, and which was afterwards adopted by the Pythagoreans, and other Grecian philosophers.”
Much more might be quoted from the same writer. But we have quoted enough to show the origin of the doctrine, and its extensive diffusion among the heathen. It was not, however, universally believed, for Aristotle, Dicearchus, Ocellus, and others denied it; and even Socrates, and other wise men among the heathen, doubted it. Besides, the speculations of the heathen were various about it. The strongest believers in this doctrine derived little benefit from it, and for a good reason—it had no solid foundation. It originated in the speculations of men who, “professing themselves to be wise, had become fools.”
5th. But it may be asked, Is not the doctrine of the soul’s immortality revealed in the New Testament? No; for if it was taught there, it would be no revelation from God to the world, for it was a popular doctrine among the heathen nations many centuries before the Christian era. With more propriety it might be said the heathen revealed this doctrine to God than that God revealed it to them. Had the New Testament writers believed the soul to be immortal, why did they never speak of it as such? And why did they not alarm their hearers, as orthodox preachers do, describing the everlasting misery to which their precious immortal souls were exposed? But no such descriptions are to be found in the New Testament, notwithstanding they would have accorded with the popular opinions on the subject. But, though the heathen believed the soul immortal, and had hope of its living happy after death, the New Testament writers declared to them they had “no hope,” and were “without God in the world.” Ephesians 2: 12; 1 Thessalonians 4: 13. With little truth or propriety could they have said this, had they believed the soul immortal, and that men might hope for happiness after death on this ground. And with still less truth or propriety could Paul say, if Christ be not raised, they “who are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.” If their souls were immortal, they never could have perished, had Christ slept forever in the grave.
6th. But some will no doubt ask, May not future, yea, endless punishment still be maintained, if we abandon the immortality of the soul? This we more than doubt, for future punishment depends on, and arose out of, this doctrine. Among the heathen, the first of these doctrines could not exist without the last. Socrates and Plato would have deemed the man insane who taught future punishment, yet denied the doctrine of the soul’s immortality; for like all the heathen they considered a resurrection from the dead incredible.
How could any person be punished after death, if he did not live in a conscious state of existence to be punished? Punishment after death will, in all probability, be believed so long as men think the soul immortal. The branch cannot wither so long as this root exists to nourish it. But when it dies, the branch of course dies; and with it all the bitter fruits it brings forth will be destroyed.
Is it said, May not men be punished after the resurrection from the dead? To this I answer,—if the Bible teaches this, let us believe it. Let the passages which are supposed to teach it, be carefully and candidly considered. But, after all the care and candour I can bring to this subject, I frankly confess, it is not in my power to find this doctrine taught in the Bible.
It frequently speaks of the hope of the resurrection of the dead, but never of any man’s fear of it. It teaches that the dead shall be raised incorruptible, but never teaches that men will be sinners after this period. On the contrary, it says they shall be equal unto the angels of God which are in heaven. But it does not say, any of them shall be equal unto the devils which are in hell. What the Bible teaches, let us believe. But what it does not teach, permit me to leave for those who desire to be wise above what is written.
APPENDIX
CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES OPPOSED THE DOCTRINE OF ENDLESS MISERY.
ON p. 310, under the head of Objection XVI., Mr. Balfour considers the following argument against Universalism: The doctrine of endless misery was believed in the days of Christ and the Apostles; and if they rejected it, they certainly would have contradicted it; and as they did not, it is fair to infer that they believed it. We think Mr. B. right in the idea that Christ did not employ himself in expressly contradicting the false opinions of his day.
His method of teaching was entirely different from that. He dealt more in positives than negatives; he aimed to place before the mind the sublime truths of his religion, knowing that in due time they would eradicate error, and mould all hearts into his image. But while Jesus did not employ himself in contradicting every false notion of his times; while he did not say, for instance, to the fatalist, your theory is false; while he did not arraign the Essenes and other errorists, his course was such as to show them the falsity of their views,—that there was a Divinity which shaped the ends of human existence, and that there was a higher conception of life than repudiating the laws of our nature, withdrawing from all objects of sense, and giving the mind solely to the contemplation of Deity. Merely to contradict did not comport with his dignity, or with the great ends he encompassed in every word which he uttered, and in every act which he performed. By attending the marriage-feast in Cana, and converting water into wine, he not only showed that he was not an Essene, but gave a lesson full of comprehensive instruction. In saying, therefore, that it was not compatible with his character and method of teaching to descend to mere contradictions, I do not mean to be understood as admitting that he did not oppose both directly and indirectly many existing errors. And I hold, that, according to his usual method of teaching, he opposed the doctrine of endless misery.
I will proceed by considering two points in the objection, to which I assent. 1. I admit that the doctrine of endless misery was prevalent in the time of Christ and the Apostles. The Pharisees believed it, and doomed to its fearful tortures the whole Gentile world. The heathen believed it, and used it as an instrument of mighty power.
The doctrine held a high place in nearly all creeds. 2. I admit, that if Jesus and the Apostles did not oppose it, we may fairly infer that they believed it. This conclusion cannot be denied; especially when we consider the awful nature of the doctrine, and the peculiarly false character it ascribes to God. I make this statement frankly, and without any reservation. The question, therefore, what course did they pursue, is one of great moment. There are three modes by which this may be ascertained. I. By learning whether they used the popular language employed in their day to express endless misery. II. Whether they directly opposed the doctrine in question. And, III. Whether they taught the opposite doctrine. These modes will enable us to form an accurate judgment in regard to the whole subject. We ask, then,
I. Did Jesus and the Apostles use the language, in speaking of punishment, commonly employed in their day by those who believed in endless misery? The reader will see the bearing of this question, if he considers that terms become common property among those who advocate a common opinion. If we go back, for instance, fifty http://www.ThreeAngels.com.auyears, when the prevailing theology taught that hell was a place of literal fire and brimstone, we find all the clergy using the same terms in speaking of the place; and now, that few, if any, believe in a hell of fire, you seldom hear the words fire and brimstone, employed in reference to hell; and when you do, it is in a way which shows that they are used in a figurative sense. The world of woe is now supposed to be one of darkness, where the soul is banished from God, and tormented by the reproaches of conscience; and the word hell, in its popular acceptation, denotes this place. This is its common, its received acceptation. Eternal and everlasting are words used to express the endless duration of hell; this is their popular meaning. Thus we see words have a common use among those who concur in belief. An appeal to the classics would fully establish this point.
Such being the fact, it is important to know, 1. What were the common words, in the time of Christ, used to express endless misery? 2. Did Christ and the Apostles ever use them? Let it be remembered that we admit the general prevalence, in the time of which we are speaking, of the doctrine in question. By referring to the writings of that period, we learn, first, that Gehenna was not used in any of them in speaking of hell.
It is not in the Apocryphal books, not in the works of Philo, not in the works of Josephus, the only works of the period we are considering. As in these productions much is said about hell, it is certain that Gehenna had not then become a popular term to denote the place. Second. It is equally clear, from the works to which we have referred, that the word aionios, rendered eternal and everlasting, was not employed to express the endless duration of misery. Philo, in his glowing descriptions of the awfulness and perpetuity of punishment, does not employ it. Josephus frequently uses it, but not in the sense of which we are speaking; and it is not until the beginning of the fifth century that the word is adduced to prove endless misery.
Third. While Gehenna and aionios, in the time of Christ, were not used to denote the eternity of punishment by its believers, they had common terms to express it. Aidios was the favourite word with Philo, though he used others denoting immortal, interminable. He spoke of the wicked as enduring aidios, endless punishment; as being doomed to thanaton athanaton, death immortal, and as suffering ateleuteton, endless death. According to Josephus, the prison of the damned was aidios eir gmos, an endless prison; and the retribution of the damned was aidios timoria, an eternal, or endless retribution. He says, speaking of the Essenes, “They believed that the souls of the bad are sent to a dark, tempestuous cavern, full of (adialeiptos timoria) uninterrupted vengeance.”
Here we have the common phraseology used in the time of Christ in speaking of the fate of the wicked; the language in which the acknowledged believers in endless misery expressed themselves on the subject; the terms appropriated by common usage to describe the doom of the lost.
This brings us to our second inquiry, namely, Did Christ use any of these terms? If he did, it is just to infer that he believed with Philo and Josephus; that as he employed the current language of his age in speaking of punishment, he held the current opinion upon it; but, if he did not, we must conclude that he had no faith in that opinion. What, then, is the fact? We answer: he did not use these terms; we look in vain for them in his conversations with the disciples, and in his discourses to them and the Jews. How are we to account for this, if the doctrine of endless suffering is true? On all other topics, Jesus adopted the common terms of his times, so far as he agreed with the generally received opinions. He was simple in his language, and spoke to the understanding of those he addressed; and, therefore, he used common terms in their common signification. And yet, when he spoke of punishment, he studiously avoided the terms in general use among those who believed it endless: not only so, one of the words (Gehenna) which he employed in speaking of punishment, is not found in the writings of the believers in endless woe, and the other word (aionios), supposed to have been used by him to denote the eternity of suffering, they use in a limited sense, and apply to temporal shame and misery.
These facts must, in the judgment of every candid person, prove conclusively that Jesus gave no countenance to the received doctrine respecting the eternity of punishment. The advocates of endless misery have argued that Gehenna in the age of the Saviour was generally understood to mean a place of endless woe, and, therefore, he must have been understood to teach by it the existence of such a place. We admit that the inference is a fair one from the premise; but we deny the premise. [See our Introductory Essay to this volume.] We now take the position of our opponents, and say, as Christ did not use the language employed by the believers in endless misery, he could not have been understood as teaching the doctrine.
But it will be said, though Christ does not use the language of those who taught endless punishment, Jude does; and, therefore, our argument loses all its force. We reply, it is true that Jude uses one of the several words they employ; and we have no objection to admitting that it as clearly expresses endless as any one of them. He says (v. 6), “reserved in (aidios) everlasting chains under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day.” By referring to our Appendix to Part I. of Mr. Balfour’s Second Inquiry, it will be seen that this is a quotation from the Book http://www.ThreeAngels.com.auof Enoch, used by Jude without endorsement, as an illustration. If the reader objects, and says, by quoting it as an illustration, he adopted it as true, we answer: the chains, whatever they may have been, or however enduring in nature, are not said to bind the angels forever. “Hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” The time of their confinement in the chains is limited; and, therefore, Macknight says: “Hath kept them ever since in everlasting chains of confinement under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day.” He supposes that they are to be retained in a prison till the day of judgment, when they are to be consigned to hell! Aidios, therefore, is used by Jude, not to denote the eternity of their punishment, but the duration of the chains which held them till the day of their final doom. While this is the natural construction of the language, and therefore can be no proof of endless suffering, I am confident that Jude quoted it merely to illustrate, on the authority of a received tradition, the certainty that God would punish the false teachers of whom he was speaking.
These remarks will be confirmed by considering that this is the only text in which aidios occurs in connection with punishment; and is the only instance in all the New Testament where a term employed by the believers in endless misery, in expressing it, is used. When this fact is considered, together with the fact that Jude gives this language, not as his own, but as a quotation, we think that but little, if any, weight can be attached to the text in question. Besides, it should be remembered that the proof of endless misery is thus reduced to one passage of Scripture, and that one in the book of Jude! If faint praise is sometimes the worst damnation a man can have, may we not say that such faint proof of endless suffering is the severest condemnation it can receive?
II. It is time that we pass to consider the instances where Jesus and the Apostles directly opposed the doctrine of endless misery. These are found in those cases where they were brought in contact with their opposers.
1. In Matthew 22: 24—28, the Sadducees proposed the following inquiry to the Saviour: “Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.” Before giving the Saviour’s reply, it may be well to state the reason for their making this inquiry. The conceptions which the Pharisees had of the future state were of a gross character; they supposed it to be a place of sensual pleasure, like the Mohammedan heaven, rather than one of spiritual delight. The Sadducees, who denied a future existence, and the existence of angels and spirits, supposing that Christ taught the same resurrection in which the Pharisees believed, saw an insuperable objection to it; for if the ties of marriage were binding in heaven as they are on earth, the woman they had mentioned would have seven husbands. Hence their inquiry—“Whose wife of the seven shall she be?” But we have not yet stated all the errors to be met.
The Pharisees believed that the resurrection was the portion of only the good,—the worthy. They held that this part of the dead would be raised, and enjoy endless bliss; while the unworthy would not be raised, but be kept in an eternal prison. With these points in mind, let us attend to the Saviour’s reply:—“Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But, as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”—Vs. 29—32. This meets all the errors involved in the case.
First. Jesus replies to the main error of the Sadducees—“Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.” There were many sacred texts which taught a future life. Isaiah said, “In this mountain shall the Lord of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees; of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined. And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the van spread over all nations. He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth; for the Lord hath spoken it.” 25: 6, 7, 8. Hosea said, “O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction.” Hosea 13: 14. Equally plain was the language of God, at the burning bush, “I am the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob.” If he was their God, they must have been alive in the future world, for he cannot be the God of nonentity.
The power of God was equally conclusive in proving a future life. Being materialists, the Sadducees could conceive of no existence separate from flesh and blood. All life, in their opinion, was the result of organization; and consequently, death terminated all being. Man differed from a worm only in form and degree of knowledge. Thus they limited the power of God. He could create only a physical being. To a spirit he could give no http://www.ThreeAngels.com.auexistence. Truly could Jesus say, “Ye do err, not knowing the power of God.” He is a spirit, an infinite spirit, and can give a spiritual existence as well as control matter, and create worlds and systems of worlds. Death is no obstruction in his way, and has no power to remove men from his care. Did he not give to the sun its brightness, and the universe its majesty and might? Who gave death permission to reign? In whose earth is the grave dug? The power of God is almighty.
Thus did Jesus refute the error that we can live only in the flesh. He proceeds, Secondly, to remove the objection of the Sadducees. This was founded on a difficulty growing out of the character of the future existence supposed to be taught. “The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage.” Luke 20: 34. The marriage institution belongs to this world, and has its origin in our earthly nature and condition. Here we are mortal; generation succeeds generation; and had we no descendants, the race would become extinct. In the future world we shall be differently constituted; death there will have no dominion, and there will be no succession of generations. Paul says, “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit in-corruption.” 1 Corinthians 15: 50. To show the character of the existence we shall have, Christ introduces angels, and thus, by a most admirable arrangement of his reply, refutes incidentally the notion of the Sadducees that there are no angels. Hence he says, “But are as the angels of God in heaven.”
Had he simply said, “Are as the angels,” there would have been some chance for saying he did not teach the purity of man in the resurrection, though his purity is implied in the contrast drawn between the two states; but as he says, “angels of God in heaven,” he shows most conclusively, that the resurrection is a state free from all evil. Not only do we learn this from the nature of angels, but from the fact that we shall have none of the characteristics that belong to us as beings in the flesh. Luke says, “We shall be equal unto the angels;” 20: 36; and though this does not imply equality in knowledge or moral development, on our entrance upon this state, it does imply equality in the constitution of our nature and the state we shall occupy; because these are points involved in the main subject of discourse,—for he is showing why we shall not marry and be given in marriage; and, if he means anything, he must mean that the spirit will be entirely separated from everything earthly, and be immortal in a pure state. Therefore, Luke adds, “And are the children of God, being children of the resurrection.” This is remarkable language. To be children of God is to be holy, to have his spirit, be created in his likeness. In the present world, the best of men are children of God only in an imperfect sense. Our love is feeble and cold, our purity mixed with evil.
But when we are children of God, being children of the resurrection, we shall bear a likeness to God of which we now can have no conception; our hearts will be free from every unholy influence, and our virtues shine with a lustre pure as that which irradiates the divine face. Thus Jesus shows that in the resurrection there will be nothing gross, and that it will be a purely spiritual state, “as the angels of God in heaven.” Here, then, we have an answer to the objection of the Sadducees, and a correction of the Pharisaic notion respecting the resurrection state.
Thirdly. Jesus did not stop here. If he had, there would have been reason for suspecting that he favoured the idea of the Pharisees in regard to the number to be raised, and the fate of those not raised; and especially since, according to Luke, he said, “But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage.” But he does not stop with answering the Sadducees; he uses the occasion to refute the error of the Pharisees in regard to the number to be raised.
Here let me repeat, what has been already stated, that, according to the Pharisees, to be raised was to be saved, and not to be raised was to be endlessly lost. Keeping this in mind, with the description Christ has given of the resurrection state, we proceed to inquire how many will be raised. Dr. Macknight gives the following rendering of one important verse in the Scripture we are considering: “But among those who shall be honoured to share in the resurrection and the other world.” This gives the sense exactly. The meaning is—they that shall be accounted worthy to obtain the state of the raised or the blessed, neither marry, nor are given in marriage. But why have we the expression, “they that shall be accounted worthy?” I answer, this is in agreement with the idea of the Pharisees; it is their language; they held that only the worthy, the just would be raised. Did the Saviour agree with them on this point? If he did, he endorsed the eternity of misery; if not, he denied it.
In the text, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. God is not a God of the dead, but of the living,” we have not decisive proof in regard to this; for the patriarchs were worthy. Luke’s record, however, is full and explicit. “Now, that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he calls the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.” 20: 37—38. This is most important language. He says, 1. “Now, that the dead are raised,”—not the worthy, not the just, but the dead. He uses the word in a universal sense, without any http://www.ThreeAngels.com.aurestriction, as Paul does: “Now, if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen. And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ, whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised.” 1 Corinthians 15:12—16. The sense in which the word dead is used is placed beyond all question by the following:
“For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” 1 Corinthians 15: 21, 22. 2. We have another important expression in the language of the Saviour. “For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living; for all live unto him.” Here he does not refer simply to patriarchs, the worthy and the just, but to all the dead; and, with reference to them, Jesus says, for all live unto him. Thus he teaches the resurrection of all the dead in contradistinction from the Pharisees, who held to the resurrection of only the worthy; and hence he denies, directly and positively, the doctrine of endless misery. There is no way to avoid this conclusion, unless we say he taught the resurrection of the just only; but this no sect of the present day believes, for all concur in the belief that the entire world will be raised from the dead. Must not all, then, concur in saying that Christ denied the eternity of misery?
This, it will be said, would be satisfactory, if it were not for the expression, “They that shall be accounted worthy.” Let us ascertain, then, if we can, why the Saviour used this language. He had before him two errors which he wished to correct. First. That, in the resurrection, mankind will marry as they do here. Second. That none will be raised except the virtuous; that the resurrection is dependent on good works,—a doctrine nowhere taught in the New Testament. In answering the Sadducees, he keeps these two errors in view. He answers one first, and then proceeds to the other; and, in answering the first, he is very careful to say nothing to turn the mind from the point under consideration. Hence he speaks as though he believed that only the good would be raised.
They that shall be accounted worthy to be raised neither marry nor are given in marriage. As much as though he had said, we will first show that the Pharisees are wrong in teaching that there is anything earthly in the resurrection state; and when we have settled that, we will show who will be raised.
Here is the only reason why he said, “they that shall be accounted worthy;” it was adapting his language to the circumstances in the case. We all pursue the same course daily. If I were arguing the question respecting the salvation of all men, I would allow nothing to come in which did not bear directly on the point under consideration. And I might, in keeping out everything foreign, seem to endorse what I did not. This is all the Saviour does. He does not say only the worthy shall be raised. His language is “But they which shall be accounted worthy;” and, in using it, he speaks after the manner of the Pharisees. We find him pursuing the same course in regard to other matters. Thus, when he was charged with casting out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of devils, he said, “If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out?”
Now, he knew that they did not cast them out; but in his reasoning he admitted it for the sake of the argument. To deny that they cast them out was not essential to the point he was enforcing. So in the case before us. He wished first to show what would be the condition of those raised; and, in doing this, he speaks as though the Pharisaic idea was right, and that only the worthy would be raised.
After he had corrected the idea in regard to man’s condition in the resurrection, and got fairly before the mind the great truth that he would be immortal and holy and a child of God, Jesus proceeds to correct the second error, or to show the number to be raised. Hence he says, “Now that the dead are raised”—not a part—not the worthy, but the dead. Why did he speak thus, if only the worthy were to be raised?
Thus Christ taught the resurrection of all the dead; and, in doing that, he directly opposed the doctrine of endless misery. So he must have been understood, for resurrection was synonymous with salvation. 2. The attention of the reader is now invited to another instance in which the doctrine of endless misery was opposed. In the Acts of the Apostles (24), we find Paul arraigned, among other things, for heresy. The Jews employed Tertullus, a Roman lawyer, to plead their cause against him. The case was tried before Felix, the Roman governor. After Paul had finished his exordium, he said, “But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets; and have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.” Acts 24: 14, 15. In the same speech he says again, “Touching the resurrection of the dead, I am called in question of you this day.” v. 21.
Josephus is explicit in saying that the Pharisees limited the resurrection to the just; and this, we have seen, was their doctrine, from Christ’s reply to the Sadducees. Why, therefore, Paul should have said, “which they themselves also allow,” we may not be able fully to explain. It has been suggested that there were some present who differed from the general opinion on the subject, and that he pointed to them in this remark, with a view to help his cause from their admission, and, perhaps, with the hope of producing a contention among them, as he did when on trial before the Sanhedrim. Acts 23: 6—8. It is not material, however, in regard to this; it is enough to know that, contrary to the general doctrine of the Pharisees, he advocated the resurrection of all the dead,— the just and the unjust,—or, as Barnes says, “of the righteous and the wicked; that is, of all the race.” Here, so far as this subject was concerned, was the point in dispute. That there was to be a resurrection, the Pharisees believed. The only question, therefore, was in regard to the number to be raised. The great body of the Pharisees said only the just would be raised; but Paul said both the just and the unjust would be raised.
There is no controversy in regard to the condition when raised. The Pharisees said those in the resurrection were happy, eternally blessed, and all others were eternally cursed. Paul enters no protest against the idea that the resurrection state was one of bliss: but he does enter a protest against the idea that all would not enjoy it; that the unjust were not worthy of being raised, but would be left to suffer in an endless prison. This he denies positively, unequivocally; and, on the testimony of the prophets and on the promises of God, he has hope in the resurrection of all men,—the just and the unjust. See how careful he is to specify the two classes into which the Pharisees divided the world, and how particular he is to say that his hope embraces both. How exactly this accords with the following in regard to the basis and extent of Christian hope: “For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, saying, Surely, blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.
For men verily swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters into that within the vale, whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made a high priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.” Hebrews 6: 13—20. Equally does it agree with the following: “The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit in-corruption.
Behold, I show you a mystery: we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed; in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump (for the trumpet shall sound); and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on in-corruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So, when this corruptible shall have put on in-corruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which gives us the victory, through our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Corinthians 15: 47—57. What could more fully teach than this does the great error of the Pharisees in saying the resurrection will not be universal? The just and the unjust shall be raised; none shall be left in an eternal prison. How directly is the doctrine of endless misery here opposed!
III. There remains one other topic for consideration; and, in discussing it, we cannot, perhaps, pursue a more satisfactory course, than by calling attention to the object of Christ’s mission, his fitness for his work, the accounts given of his final success, and the charges preferred against him and his apostles.
1. In regard to the object of his mission we may say, First, that he did not come to change God and render him more kind. John 3: 16,17; 1 John 4: 10. Secondly, that he did not come to repair some unexpected evil, to rectify some mistake in the divine plan. Isaiah 40: 13, 14. Thirdly, that he did not come to do a work not fully known to the divine mind. Acts 15: 18; Hebrews 4: 13; Isaiah 46: 10. If these propositions are true, Christ in his mission is simply a co-worker with God; his agent employed to execute that which he desires.
Not only so, the work to be done is in agreement with a perfect plan formed in the beginning, and formed in infinite wisdom and benevolence. This plan presupposes that no evil can arise superior to the divine control, or which Christ will be incompetent to remove. It presupposes, also, that there are no conditions in the plan of God, or penalties attached to his law, which will be obstructions in his way. If these inferences are legitimate, it follows, first, that the common doctrine of conditions cannot be true; for, according to that, thousands are cut off http://www.ThreeAngels.com.auannually whom Christ has no means of reaching. It follows, secondly, that the penalty of the law cannot be endless misery, for such a penalty is an infinite obstruction in his way. It follows, thirdly, that there can be no place of endless woe; for such a place can have no existence unless God designed it in the beginning, and he could not design that, and also design the endless happiness of all.
It is no removal of the difficulty to say, he designed men for happiness on certain conditions; for as he knew who would comply with the conditions, and who would not, he could only design that which comes to pass. It is impossible for God to design an end on conditions which he knows will not be accepted. Therefore, if any are to be endlessly miserable, God purposed it; if there is an endless hell, God designed it, and designed to have it peopled, and ten thousand Saviours like Jesus cannot change the result. Every system of theology which teaches endless misery, ascribes, in some way, the infinitely sad result directly to God, either to his original purpose, or an undue power given to man, or conditions involving infinite consequences, or penalties which place the sinner beyond the reach of help, or the structure of a prison whose gates no power can open. How different the theology of the Bible! According to that, God is supreme, and man finite; and there is a perfect agreement between the end of God’s government and its means; between the agency of the creature and the control of the Creator; between the conditions and penalties of the plan of salvation and the results it is designed to accomplish. With this reasoning in mind, we will proceed to speak of Christ’s mission.
First, he came to save men. “The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.” Luke 19:10. Secondly, he came to save men from sin. “Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.” Matthew 1: 22. Thirdly, he came to save all men. “He gave himself a ransom for all.” 1 Timothy 2:6.
These propositions accord, first, with God’s first promise to the world. “The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head.” Secondly, with his promise to Abraham. In Christ shall all the kingdoms of the earth be blessed. Thirdly, with the divine purpose. “For this purpose was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.” Such was the object of his mission.
How fully is his final success taught!
4. That we do not misunderstand the foregoing testimonies is evident from the opposition encountered by Christ and the Apostles. First. We find him charged with being the friend of publicans and sinners. His reply is given in three parables, the lost sheep, the lost piece of silver, and the prodigal son, in which he shows the worth of the sinner, his own unwearying fidelity, God’s readiness to extend pardon to the worst offender, and the wide difference between the narrow, selfish, vindictive spirit of the partial theology of the Pharisees, and the noble, generous, forgiving spirit of his religion of love and grace. Luke 15. Secondly. Paul says, “We both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe.” 1 Timothy 4: 10. The Jews trusted in God; they trusted in him as the living God; they trusted in him as a Saviour; but they did not trust in him as the Saviour of all men; and because Paul and the other Apostles trusted in him thus, they were persecuted and doomed to reproach. The impartiality of the Gospel, its unrestricted benevolence, was its most obnoxious feature to the narrow-hearted Jew, who seemed to contemplate with pleasure the endless misery of those he called unjust.
Thirdly. Peter encountered the same opposition. Before he had his vision of the sheet, he supposed salvation limited; and he resisted stoutly the instruction given in the vision. He saw “heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet, knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter, kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed that call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.” Acts 10: 11—16.
Here we see how he stood out and clung to his partial notions; but after having been directed three times to eat, he was obliged to yield. Before him was a representation of all men; not only so, all came from heaven, and all returned to heaven. Besides, the sheet was knit at the four corners; it was perfect, holding securely all its contents; and he was commanded not to call that unclean which God had cleansed. In this way he is converted, his faith is enlarged, his eye is opened to behold the boundless extent of grace, and now in every man he sees a brother. His brethren reproved him for his broad views, his expanded spirit, his universal love. But he defended himself by relating his vision, and concluded by saying, “What was I that I could withstand God?”
Thus, in the days of Christ and the Apostles, there was the same contest that there is now; a narrow theology was arrayed against a liberal theology; the advocates of endless misery opposed and denounced the teachers of impartial grace and salvation, so that it is certain that Christ and the Apostles taught a doctrine directly opposed to that of their times. Hence, the objection with which we commenced is fully answered. Christ and the Apostles did not use the common terms of their times, employed by those who believed in endless misery; they directly opposed the doctrine, and they so clearly taught the salvation of all, as to incur, on that account, the especial displeasure of the believers in endless suffering.
DESTRUCTION OF SOUL AND BODY IN HELL
PERHAPS there is no text where the word Gehenna occurs, on which so much reliance is placed by believers in endless misery as the following:
“And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” Matthew 10: 28.
We propose to give two views, which have been advanced by different writers, on these words. In a work entitled “Thirty Sermons,” I find the following:
“Admitting, then, that this passage appertains to a punishment in the future world, it may be asked, what are the difficulties which such a disposition of the passage involves? A few of these I will now state in detail.
“First. The language was addressed to his own disciples in private, on a particular occasion, namely, when they were first chosen, and commissioned to go and proclaim ‘the kingdom of heaven is at hand,’ and to work miracles. It was never repeated to them again; nor was this language ever breathed by our Saviour, nor by any of his apostles, in preaching to others. How is this conduct of theirs to be reconciled with the principles of common honesty, if the text involves the doctrine of endless misery in hell? If such were the case, would not Jesus have http://www.ThreeAngels.com.auplainly stated this same threatening to the common people, and warned them of such a fearful doom? He certainly would, for he was faithful.
“Second. Are the bodies of men to be killed or literally destroyed in a future hell? They are not. Flesh and blood cannot inherit a future state of being. What, then, are we to understand by destroying both soul and body in hell? All must perceive that there is the same certainty that this mortal body shall be destroyed there, that there is that the soul shall. Both were to be destroyed in the same place! Now, as this same mortal body, which men can kill, is not to enter a future world in a condition where it can be killed or even harmed as a body, is it not strong presumption, is it not irrefragable evidence, that this hell is not in another world? Does it not, to say the least, present an insuperable difficulty to the advocate of this sentiment? It does. The objector cannot but see its force.
“Third. Men are able to kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but God is able to kill or destroy them both. Now, what are we to understand by killing the body? If the objector say, it means the extinction of animal life, then certainly the body is incapable of any further sensation, and is consequently free from all suffering and pain. Again,—‘but are not able to kill the soul.’ What does this mean? Dr. Adam Clarke and others give us to understand that they are not able to put the soul out of existence, because it is ‘immaterial.’
Then, if men were able to kill the soul and body both, it would be annihilation, according to the construction put upon it by our opposers. It then follows that to destroy both soul and body in hell must mean their utter extinction, so that neither could be susceptible of sensation, suffering, or pain, any more than the clods that cover the tomb! This is certain; because what men are able to do only partially in the first adjunct of the passage, God is able to do completely in the last adjunct. Hence, to destroy soul and body in the last clause must mean the same as to kill the soul and body in the first clause. The objector will perceive that this conclusion is absolutely irresistible, if he will carefully notice the negative of the first part of the text. After stating, that men kill the body, Christ says, but are NOT able to kill the soul. Here let me ask, Is God able to do what Christ here informs us men can not do, namely, to annihilate soul and body? If the objector says he is not; then I reply that God and men are placed in the same predicament by the objector. But if it be granted that Christ meant to express God’s ability to do that very thing which he clearly stated, and then said men could not do, it follows, of course, that God was able to kill both the soul and body, that is, annihilate them, as such. So, you perceive, that, to allow common opinion its full force, it lays the cold hand of annihilation upon the face of the text; or else charges God with threatening his creatures with a doom he never meant to execute! Proving too much, it proves nothing,—for if man, soul and body, were killed or destroyed, he could not suffer to all eternity,—admitting, at the same time, as they believe, that the soul means the immortal part. Suffering must terminate with such destruction.
After endeavouring to show that Jesus was speaking in the passage of the national destruction of the Jews, the work from which we have quoted says:
“Leaving these, I will select one or two, which now occur to my mind, as having a direct bearing upon the case in hand. Isaiah 10: 16, 17, 18, ‘Therefore shall the Lord, the Lord of hosts, send among his fat ones leanness, and under his glory he shall kindle a burning like the burning of a fire. And the light of Israel shall be for a fire, and his holy one for a flame; and it shall burn and devour his thorns and his briers in one day; and shall consume the glory of his forest, and of his fruitful field, both soul and body; and they shall be as when a standard-bearer faints.’ Here you perceive the prophet declares, that they shall be destroyed ‘soul and body.’ This did not mean their punishment in another world, nor their ‘moral death,’ nor even the natural death of that whole people; but it was a proverbial expression, to denote their entire destruction as a nation. On this passage, Dr. A. Clarke says, ‘The fire of God’s wrath shall destroy them both great and small, it shall consume them from the soul to the flesh, a proverbial expression; soul and body, as we say; it shall consume them entirely and altogether, and the few that escape shall be looked upon as having escaped from the most imminent danger.’ Here Dr. Clarke says, that to destroy or consume them, ‘soul and body,’ is ‘a proverbial expression,’ and that in the Hebrew, it means ‘from the soul to the flesh; ‘yet he grants, that it did not even mean the natural death of all of that people against whom it was spoken. Scott says, that to destroy them soul and body means ‘absolutely and finally.’
“This proverb originated among the Hebrews, and hence we see why our Lord’s disciples perfectly understood him. The expression, destroying soul and body, is equivalent to destroying a nation, ‘root and branch.’ The latter is, in fact, the same proverb in different phraseology. In proof of this I will produce an instance. Malachi 4: 1, ‘For behold the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble, and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.’ Now all commentators, so far as I am acquainted, apply the above passage to that very destruction http://www.ThreeAngels.com.auof the Jews to which I believe the language of Jesus now under consideration applies. And is there not a striking coincidence between the words of Malachi and Jesus?
‘Burning them up root and branch,’ and ‘destroying them soul and body in Gehenna fire,’ I consider as parallel passages. They both refer to the same people, and to the same long predicted and final destruction which God brought upon them, when their national sun went down in blood. On the passage in Malachi (destroying them root and branch), Scott says,—‘it is a proverbial expression for extirpating desolation.’ Dr. Clarke, after stating that it refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, says, ‘the day that cometh shall burn them up.
Either by famine, by sword, or by captivity, all those rebels shall be destroyed. It shall leave them neither root nor branch. A proverbial expression for total destruction.’”
In the Universalist Expositor, volume 2, the following explanation is given:
“If, then, we have correctly fixed the reference in this clause, it was God whom the disciples were to fear; and this, in consideration of his surpassing power. The infinite superiority of his power is illustrated by the remark, that he is able, after he has killed, to cast into Gehenna; that is, to destroy, or utterly exterminate, not only the body, but the soul* also, in those judgments that were expressed by Gehenna, the most terrible and destructive punishment that was known among the Jews. We see no allusion, here, to the idea of endless misery, but rather to that of annihilation. It was a killing of the soul as well as of the body, a destroying of both soul and body; and the literal import at least of the expressions, is, that it was a destruction of the one in the same sense as of the other. This, then, was what God had ‘power’—was ‘able’—to do.
* The word here translated soul, is in the New Testament often tantamount to life, according to our modern phraseology. Often, however, in the New Testament, it appears to signify the soul, the mind; as in the following passages, which are but a few out of the many that might be quoted: Matthew 11: 29. And ye shall find rest unto your souls.—12: 18, in whom my soul is well pleased.—22: 37, thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, etc.—Acts 4: 32, were of one heart and one soul.—14: 2, made their minds evil-affected against the brethren.—14: 22, confirming the souls of the disciples.—Ephesians 6: 6, doing the will of God from the heart.—Philip.1: 27, stand fast in one spirit, with one mind.—Hebrews 6: 19, which hope we have as an anchor of the soul.—12:3, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.—1 Peter 1: 22, seeing ye have purified your souls.—2: 11, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul.—2: 25, the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls, etc., etc.—A clear exposition of the ancient Jewish Psychology would doubtless throw much light on the New Testament use of the word referred to.
“But, granting that the object was to impress the disciples with an engrossing sense of the divine power, yet, why did Christ, for this purpose, remind them that God was able to annihilate, unless he meant to imply some danger that he would actually annihilate them? Why should they fear a power, though it were adequate to this effect, if they themselves were not exposed to its execution? Should this question be asked by the advocates of endless misery, we may return it to them, and ask, on their own ground, Why should Christ remind his disciples that God had power to torment forever, unless he intended to imply that they themselves were in danger of suffering its actual infliction? It is not generally thought that the disciples were exposed to any such danger. So that, in either case, it does not seem to have been the design to intimate that their souls and bodies would be thus destroyed in Gehenna. So far as this point is concerned, we have a parallel instance in John the Baptist’s admonition to the Pharisees and Sadducees: ‘Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father; for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham,’—where John cannot have meant to imply that God would, in any case, raise up children unto Abraham, from those stones; and still, his object in reminding them of God’s power to do this, was, unquestionably, to strike them with a sense of the vanity of their relying on their descent from that patriarch.
That it was the design of Christ, in the passages under consideration, to lead his disciples to reverence the surpassing power of God, which he thus illustrated, and not to make them fear an actual destruction of their souls and bodies in Gehenna, seems evident from the words that immediately follow. For he proceeded to show them that that power was constantly exerted in their behalf—not against them. See the following verses. The divine providence did not overlook even the sparrows; and as for the disciples, it numbered the very hairs of their head. Would it not, then, protect the disciples themselves, who were manifestly of more consequence than many sparrows? ‘Fear ye not, therefore,’ adds he: that is, Fear not your mortal enemies; ye are under the protection of your heavenly Father’s power. (Matthew 10: 29—31. Luke 12: 6, 7.)”