Sivut kuvina

the difficulty. The following remarks may be useful, especially to common readers :--There are two Greek words which are translated hell-Hades and Gehenna. But their precise signification is very different. Hades or Ades, is derived from a and eideo, and means of course, invisible. It is synonymous with the Hebrew Sheol. Hades denotes sometimes the grave, but more commonly the state of the dead, or the region and state of separate spirits after death; whetber that state be a state of happiness or of misery. To the rich man, Luke xvi. 23. Hades was a state of misery. We cannot, however, infer that he was in misery merely because he was in Hades, for Lazarus was there also. But that the rich man was in misery, we infer solely from other circumstances; other expressions—such as being in torments'—'I am tormented in this flame,' &c.-They were both in Hades, i. e. the state or region of departed spirits; but to the one Hades was joy unspeakable to the other, everlasting burnings. But neither Sheol nor Hades have, in themselves considered, any connexion with future punishment, as will be evident to any one who will examine, in the Hebrew Bible and in the Septuagint translation, the following passages, viz. Gen. xlii. 38. Isa. xiv. 9. and xxxviii. io. See also, Rev. xx. 14. But Gehenna denotes properly the place of torment. It is derived from the Hebrew words Ge and Hinnom, i.e. the valley of Hinnom. See Josh. xv. 8. In this valley, otherwise called Tophet, the idolatrous Israelites caused their children to pass through the fire to Moloch. 2 Kings xxiii. 10. &c. From its having been the place of such horrid crimes and abominations and miseries, it came to pass, in process of time, that the word Gehenna was made to signify the future state of sin and punishment. If now the inquiry be, in what sense Christ went to hell, or in other words, what is meant by Acts ii. 27. the verse before us, the reply

is—all that is meant by it is, that he was for a season, not in Gehenna, the place of torment, but in Hades, the state of the dead, or region of departed spirits. And in that state neither his soul nor body was left, but he rose again and triumphed over the grave.”

I have deemed it of some importance to avail myself of such concessions from these authors, to show, that neither Sheol of the Old Testament, nor Hades of the New, means a place of endless punishment. How the last quoted author could say, that Hades was to the rich man, “everlasting burnings," and in the very next sentence add, “but neither Sheol nor Hades have, in themselves considered, any connexion with future punishment," is to me altogether inexplicable. If neither Sheol nor Hades, bas any connexion with future punishment, how could Hades be to the rich man, “everlasting burnings ?” As to the correctness of the opinion that Hades is the “region and state of separate spirits” and “everlasting burnings," see Sections 21 and 3d.

5th, If the doctrine of eternal misery was not revealed under the Old Testament dispensation, it follows, that it, as well as life and immortality, was brought to light by the Gospel. If it be allowed that this doctrine was not revealed under the Mosaic dispensation, it is very evident that persons could not be moved with fear, to avoid a punishment, concerning which they had no information. If it be said, that it was revealed, we wish to be informed in what part of the Old Testament this information is to be found.

It seems then to be a conceded point, that neither Sheol of the Old Testament, nor Hades of the New, so often translated hell, means, as is commonly believed, the place of eternal punishment for the wicked. From the concessions made in the foregoing quotations, most people would deem it proper for me to decline the labour which Dr. Campbell calls end

less, to illustrate by an enumeration of all the passages in both Testaments, that these words do not signify this place of punishment for the wicked. Unwilling however, to take this matter on trust, I have submitied to this endless labour, and shall proceed to bring forward all those passages.

The word Sheol in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, occurs, sixty-four times. It is rendered by our iranslators, three times pit, twenty-nine times grate, and thirty-two times hell.

1st, Let us attend to the texts in which it is translated pit. In Numb. xvi. 30, 33, it occurs twice. Speaking of Korah and his company, they are said to go down, "quick into the pit.” What is said in these two verses, is explained by the earth opening her mouth and swullowing them up. Had Sheol been translated bell here, as in other places, according to the common acceptation of this word, Korah and his company went down alive, soul and body to the place of eternal misery. But this would be contrary to common belief, for it is allowed, that men's bodies do not go there until the resurrection. All that seems to be meant in this account is, that they were swallowed up alive, as whole cities have been by air earthquake, and that without any reference to their eternal condition. This, I presume, is the view most people take of this judgment of God upon those men. Job xvii. 16, is the only other text in which Sheol is rendered pit. It is said, speaking of men,-“they shall go down to the bars of the pit.” What is meant, is explained in the very next words,—“ when our rest together is in the dust.” As it would be a mere waste of time to make any further remarks to show that Sheol translated pit in these texts, does not refer to a place of eternal misery, let us,

2dly, Bring to view all the texts in which this word is translated grave. The first three places then,

in which it occurs, are, Gen. xxxvii. 35.; xlii. 38. and xliv. 29. noticed already by Dr. Campbell in the above quotation. Had Sheol been translated hell in these texts, as it is in many others, Joseph would be represented as in hell, and that his father Jacob expected soon to follow him to the same place. In like manner, it would make Hezekiah say, “] shall go to the gates of hell.” And to declare,“hell cannot praise thee." See Isai, xxxviii. 10, 18. I may just notice here, that, if those good men did not go to hell, it will be difficult to prove from the Old Testament, that Sheol or hell, was understood to inean a place of eternal misery for the wicked. But further, let Sheol be translated hell, instead of grave in the following texts, and we think all will allow, that the idea of a place of future misery, was not attached to this word by the Old Testament writers. Thus translated, it would make Job say, chap. xvii. 13,—“ if I wait, hell is mine house." And to pray, chap. xiv. 13,—“O that thou wouldst hide me in hell." It would also make David say, Psalm lxxxiii. 3,-"My life draweth nigh unto hell." And to com plain, Ps. vi. 5,—“in bell who shall give thee thanks."

To translate Sheol hell, would represent David as

monster in cruelty, in the following passages. Thus, speaking to his son Solomon, and just before his death, he says to him concerning Joab, — let not his hoar head go down to hell in peace.” And concerning Shimei, he adds,-“ but his hoar head bring thou down to hell with blood.” See 1 Kings, ii. 6, 9. No fault is generally found with David, as to Joab, mentioned in verse 6th, for his crimes justly sub: jected him to death. But David's conduct in regard to Shimei, verse 9th, has been often blamed. The following quotation from the Missionary Magazine, vol. vii. p. 333, removes all difficulty from this passage, which has afforded sport to infidels. It is there


said,—“ David is here represented in our English version as finishing his life with giving a command 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 bebaviour 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 i. 5. The un

• The ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor (the Hebrew is and, signifying and nol) sinners in the congregation of the righteous. Psalm ix. 18.; xxxviii. i.; lxxv. 5. Prov. xxiv. 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 knowest what thou oughtest to do unto bim.) 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 ng support from the corlext. For, how did Solomon understand this charge? Did he kill Shimei in consequence of it? Certainly

« EdellinenJatka »