Page images
[ocr errors]

“after that have no more that they can do," expresses, what Matthew meant 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. Ist, 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, Chap. v. 29, 30. and in Chap. xviii. 9, once. To be destroyed, or to be cast into Gehenna then, mean 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 or 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 thing. 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 Math. x. 28. above. 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, be does not mention soul or body. I be thought man had an immortal soul, and if br soul. Maribet meant this, it was a great omission in Luke not to mention it, if God was to destror, or kill the immoral 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 Math. x. 23, 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 Math. x. 28, but give no countenance to the opinion. Do these texts say the soul is immortal ? No. Do they say the soul or body are 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 xii. 1–3. The Apostles were above the fear of man, in fufilling 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 punishment was a much severer punishment, than that inflicted by men, who died without mercy under the law of Moses. The like had never been before, nor should its like ever be again. In this our Lord's disciples might

[ocr errors]

be involved, for nothing but fidelity to him and obedience to his instructions, could save them from it. 5th, Is it 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, by destroying both soul and body in Gehenna, more can be meant, than—"the damnation of hell Gehenna”. Math. xxiii. 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 shewn from the context, it evidently meant the temporal punishment coming on the Jewish nation. Who can suppose, our Lord threatened his own disciples, with a worse punishment than the unbelieving Jews ?

James ïi. 6, “and the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth 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 wretchedness. 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, as we have seen above. 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.

[ocr errors]

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 se

-56 vere terms in which the worship of Moloch is every where denounced in the scriptures. Nor can we_wonder that the place itself should have been called Tophet, i. e. abomination, detestation (from tup to vomit with loathing.)”. Such a place of perfect wretchedness was Gehenna, that he and others ailedge, 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 evils arising from an improper use of the tongue; and to draw an illustration from the valley of Hinnom, was both natural and proper, as 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. Ist, 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, he must speak of it 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

was the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

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. But, it requires the prejudice of education, that Gehenna means hell, the world of woè, and a great stretch of construction to make them apply to this view of Gehenna.

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 teaches such a world of woe. Where is

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »