Thus, I have the authority of PARKHURST, and (as will be seen by the note below) of CRUDEN,* (and I might quote several others,) that va, literally, signifies the valley of Hinnom; and what evidence has Parkhurst, or any one else, given, that it signifies any thing else? Answer: His mere ipse dixit, and nothing else; and, for this very good reason, no other evidence exists. The most learned have not proved, neither will they ever attempt to prove, that, in the New "The valley of Hinnom, in the Heb. is Gehennom, whence comes the word Gehenna." See Cruden's Concordance, under the article Valley. "It is thought that Tophet was the butchery, or place of slaugh ter at Jerusalem, lying to the south of the city, in the valley of the children of Hinnom. It is also said that a constant fire used to be kept there, for burning the carcases and other filthiness, that was brought thither from the city. Isaiah seems to allude to this custom, of burning dead bodies in Tophet, when, 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.' Isaiah, xxx 33. Others think the name of Tophet is given to the valley of Hinnom, because of the sacrifices that were offered there to the god Moloch, by beat of drum, which in Hebrew is called Toph. It was in this manner that the sacrifices were offered. The statue of Moloch was of brass, hollow within, with its arms extended, and sloping a little forward. They lighted a great fire within the statue, and another before it. They put upon its arms the child they intended to sacrifice, which soon fell into the fire at the foot of the statue, putting forth cries, as may easily be imagined. To stifle the noise of these cries and howlings, they made a rattling of drums and other instruments, that the spectators might not be moved with compassion at the clamors of those miserable victims." Jeremiah upbraids the Israelites with having built temples to Moloch, in the valley of Hinnom, in Tophet, to burn their children there in the fire. Jer. vii. 31. The same prophet shows that Tophet was a polluted and unclean place, where they used to throw the carcases that they refused burial. Jer. vii. 32. xix. 11, 12, 13. King Josiah defiled the place of Tophet, where the temple of Moloch stood, to prevent the cruel sacrifice. 2 Kings, xxiii. 10. (Ibid. Art. Tophet.) Testament, has reference to any other place than the valley of Hinnom. This word is used most frequently by Matthew, who, it is supposed, wrote at Jerusalem, for the benefit of the Hebrew converts. No particular explanation of the word, therefore, was necessary in his gospel. Mark, who, as it is thought by some, wrote at Alexandria, in Egypt, by others, at Rome, in Italy, explains this, as well as many other words, not explained by Matthew. For many words which were very familiar to the people of Judea, would not be so well understood in those distant countries. Hence, the first time he uses the word Jordan, he says the river Jordan-Corban, he adds, that is to say, a gift -with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen hands; explanations which we do not find in Matthew. See Mark, vii. 2, 11. Mat. xv. 2, 5. So when he uses the word Gehenna, he immediately explains it by a passage from Isaiah, lxvi. 24, "where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." See Mark, ix. 43, 48 inclusive. The explanation, therefore, we should consider as the words of the evangelist, and not as the words of Christ; for there is no such explanation in the parallel text in Matthew. See Mat. v. 29. xviii. 8.* Now turn to the passage in Isaiah, and you will see that the words, their worm, evidently alluded to the worms which literally preyed upon "the carcases of the men" that transgressed against the Lord, which became an "abhorring unto all flesh." For an explanation of the fire, also, see the preceding note on page 204. Gehenna is used barely once by Luke, in a parallel text with Matthew, ch. x. 28. "Fear him, * See also Dr. Campbell's Preface to the Gospel according to St. Mark. which, after he hath killed, hath power to cast into Gehenna; yea, I say unto you, fear him." Luke, xii. 5. It is possible that nothing more is meant here than the judicial authority; who, for certain crimes, might, not only refuse the body burial, but also, leave them exposed in the valley of Hinnom. This undoubtedly was the case with many, whether this passage alludes to it or not. But I have no objection in the supposition that this text is to be understood in a higher sense, and that it refers to the sovereignty of God; who has power, as all will admit, to render any being whom he hath made extinct. He who created man, is able to destroy him in every sense in which he exists as man. Were we to contemplate the power of God alone, distinct from his wisdom and goodness, we might indeed tremble for our existence; for in him we live, move, and have our being: and it would be well for us to feel our dependence on him continually, and never forget, that his power is sufficient to destroy both soul and body, not only in Gehenna, but in any other place whatever. But a faith in the power of God, aside from his wisdom and love, is no better than the "faith of devils." For the devils also "believe and tremble."* But to proceed : Gehenna is invariably rendered Gehenna, in the Latin Testament; that is, the original word is retained and no good reason can be offered why it should not have been so rendered, in the English, as it comes from the Hebrew Gehinnom, and originally was the name of a place, as much so as either Sodom or Gomorrah. And if our saviour had spoken of the fire of Sodom, in the same sense as he did of the fire of Gehenna, there is no doubt but that *Because God has power to destroy, it does not necessarily follow that he will. He has power "of these stones to raise up children to Abraham;" but we have no account that he ever did,. or that he ever said that he would. See Mat. iii. 9. it would have been rendered HELL, by those who translated our common Bible. For it is the doctrine of the schools, that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are still suffering in the fire of hell. Why? Only because Jude says, they were "set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of Tugos avior, aionian fire." Nevertheless, it is very evident, that no other fire was alluded to than the fire by which those cities were destroyed; which fire, it is said from good authority; "lasted upwards of 2,000 years;" (and of course was burning in the days of the apostles ;) "but is now extinct."* If, therefore, Gehenna had only retained its original meaning in the English Testament, as it does in the Latin, who would have ever thought that it had any allusion to a place of suffering in another world? Only let it have been understood that it alluded to the valley of Hinnom, and the idea would have terminated there, whenever it should have been either read or spoken, as its ne plus ultra; for no further could it have been extended; the same as the mind now terminates on mount Sinai, whenever any one speaks (by way of figure) of the "thunderings of the law." If it can be proved that the word Gehenna was in use, and was understood to represent a state of torment, or suffering after death, before that name was given to Tophet, or that place, whatever it might have been called before; and that this valley was named, (i.e. Gehenna,) in consequence of the wickedness of the people, or the horrid idea of the place; then, it will be admitted, that the word still retains its original meaning, notwithstanding it was "This fire lasted from Abraham's time till after the apostolic age; and was burning in the time of Philo Judæus, the beginning of the second century." Whitby: as quoted by Scarlett in his translation of the New Testament. given as a name to that wicked place. But if this word originally signified, either the place or state of the damned, after death, why is it not so used in the Old Testament? This is a question which cannot be answered. The original meaning of the word, in Hebrew, is, "there they are."* (See Bible Dictionary.) How applicable, then, was the name Hinnom, to that place! "There they are!" There what are? The carcases of those that were refused burial. "For they shall bury in Tophet, till there be no place; and the carcases of this people shall be meat for the fowls of heaven, and for the beasts of the earth; and none shall fray them away." (Jer. vii. 32, 33.) But how could "there they are," mean a place of future torments after death? And this was simply the meaning of the word □ hinnom, before it was given as a name to that place.† Presuming that the reader, by this time, must be satisfied, if satisfaction he can have, that the word Gehenna, rendered hell, in the New Testament, cannot mean a place or state of suffering after death, but only a place (rendered awful and horrid, indeed, by a variety of circumstances, and on that account) called the valley of Hinnom; we shall therefore dismiss this word, and consider one more, which is used but once in all the Bible, and that by Peter, and which is rendered hell in the translation. 2 Peter, ii. 4. "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to ταρταρωσας tartarus-hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment," &c. The word here rendered hell, is tartarus, in the Latin; that is, like Gehenna, the original word is retained, only with a Latin termination; and both this word and Gehenna are also retained in SCARLETT's transla 'Or, "their shrieking." Brown's Dict. See the explanation of Hebrew names in all great Bibles. |