THE MEANING OF THE WORD [ɛέvva, AS USED BY THE WRITERS

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

The word reévva has not unfrequently been a subject of controversy. In our common version of the New Testament it is translated "Hell." When it is connected with the words ToŨ Tupos, it is translated "hell fire," and is usually understood to signify "the place where the wicked are to be punished after death." Some writers, however, have affirmed, not only that this is not the meaning of the word, but that there is no place anywhere spoken of in the Scriptures in which the wicked are to be punished after death. As a mistake on this subject may lead to most dreadful disappointment, it is important to give the subject a candid investigation.

little

It is easy to ascertain the literal meaning of the word Tɛévva. Concerning this, I know of no serious controversy. It literally and properly signifies "the valley of Hinnom," which lies south of Jerusalem, well watered, and in ancient times, most verdant and delightfully shaded with trees. It was here that the idolatrous Israelites established the worship of Moloch, under the form of a brazen image, having the face of a bull. To this imaginary god, they offered up their own children, causing them to be consumed in a furnace of fire, into which they were dropped from the arms of the idol. After the captivity, the Jews, regarding this place with abhorrence, on account of these abominations, made it the depository of every species of filth, including the putrid carcasses of animals, and the dead bodies of malefactors. To prevent the pestilence which such a corrupt mass might occasion, if left to putrify, constant fires were maintained in the valley, in order to consume the whole. Hence the place acquired the appellation "Tɛévva ToŨ Tupos, a Gehenna of fire." By an easy metaphor, the Jews, whose notions of external purity naturally led them to regard such a place with the greatest abhorrence, transferred this name to the infernal fires, or to that part of Hades or Sheol, in which they supposed that demons, and the souls of wicked men were punished in eternal fire. Hades, they represented to themselves, as a vast subterranean cavern, divided into two apartments. Of these, one was the upper region of the place, and was called Paradise; the other was beneath, and constituted the abyss of Gehenna. This seems to be the Gehenna of which our Saviour not unfrequently speaks. That it must mean this, or the literal valley of Hinnom, is certain. That it does not mean the literal valley of Hinnom, I shall now endeavor to show, from the connexion in which the word Fɛévva is used.

We find this word first used in Matt. v. 22, " Ye have heard that it has been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill, shall be in danger of the judgement, (i. e. of condemnation,) But I say to you, whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgement :-" Surely not the judgement of the Jewish court merely; for the Jews did not recognize anger as a crime, unless manifested by acts of violence. God alone is able to judge the feelings of the heart. The meaning then must be, exposed to the judgement of God." But whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the Council, or Sanhedrim," i. e. of a still severer judgement from God. The Jewish Council, or Sanhedrim, inflicted the severest punishments which the laws permitted. "But whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of Teέvva ToŨ Tuрos, of the fire of Gehenna." Not, surely, of being literally burnt in the valley of Hinnom; for the Jews inflicted no such punishment for speaking the word in question. We must conclude, therefore, that Gehenna here means the place where God will punish the wicked after death.

The next passage is in Mark ix. 43, 44, "It is better for thee to go into life maimed, than, having two hands, to go into Gehenna, into the fire that never shall be quenched; where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." The word life, in this place, as well as in many others, plainly signifies a state or place of happiness. It signifies happiness in heaven-in the kingdom of God. The word Gehenna, is the opposite or antithesis of the word life. Hence, according to one of the acknowledged and most plain laws of interpreting language, if life signifies happiness after death, Gehenna must signify suffering after death. We may fairly conclude, then, that the Gehenna here spoken of is that of the infernal world. That it is so, is rendered doubly certain by the language in immediate connexion,-" into the fire that never shall be quenched." The fire of the valley of Hinnom has long since been quenched. But Christ says that the fire, of which he speaks, shall never be quenched. "Their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

Another conclusive argument for the meaning which we defend may be found in Luke xii. 4, 5, "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, who after he has killed, has power to cast into Gehenna." Had not the persecutors of the disciples power, both to kill the body, and to cast into the valley of Hinnom? What then is that more dreadful place of punishment, into which the soul is to be cast, after the body is killed, if not the Gehenna of the infernal world?

But if any one is still disposed to doubt, the parallel passage in Matt. x. 28, is, if possible, even more conclusive. "Fear not them which 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 Gehenna." Surely, the soul is not to be destroyed in the literal valley of Hinnom! If this passage does not speak of a place, where the wicked are to be punished after death, then no dependance can be placed on language.

I know it is said, that this Gehenna has no existence, except in the imagination. But of this how can we be persuaded, after the consideration of such texts as have been cited? We know the language concerning the world of wo is figurative. The language describing the things of the invisible world is generally figurative, throughout the Scriptures. But shall we conclude from this, that none of the things described exist, except in the imagination? The language concerning heaven is highly figurative; but shall we from this decide, that there is no such place as heaven? The language concerning Jehovah himself is figurative; often highly so. For example, he is called "a rock," "a strong tower," "a consuming fire." But shall we on this account declare that Jehovah does not exist? When he is called, "a rock," or "a strong tower," we have no difficulty in understanding that he is the support and defence of those who trust in him. When he is called, "a consuming fire," we readily understand that he is terrible in judgement. Why then is it so difficult to understand the words of the Saviour, "Fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna, in the fire that never shall be quenched." Does not this speak of suffering after death, as dreadful as any that can exist in the imagination? Yet this is the language of inspiration. It has God for its author. And shall He be suspected of misrepresentation? "God is not a man that he should lie; nor the son of man that he should repent: Hath he said, and shall he not do it? Or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" What then, if a man succeed in persuading himself that there is no bottomless pit, the smoke of which ascendeth up forever and ever; will this save him from eternal wo? No;-should all men affirm to the contrary, it still remains true-it will forever remain true that to the wicked, "our God is a consuming fire." It will forever be true, that "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

R.

EXPOSITION.

Mark x. 14, 15. "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter

therein."

Matt. xviii. 3. "Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

It is well known that opposers to evangelical sentiments advocate the native purity of man, and wrest the Scriptures where they can, to support their erroneous views. Among the passages they pervert, are those of our Lord above quoted respecting infants and children. These, it is maintained, teach the native purity of the human heart, and its fitness for heaven, without the sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit. So Unitarians are accustomed to quote them, and so their writers comment upon them.*

My design in this paper will be to vindicate the passages above given against the abuse of them referred to.

66

Of such is the kingdom of God." The phrase 'kingdom of God' may signify, either the kingdom of glory, or the Christian church. The words, of such,' point out a resemblance, either natural or moral. Suppose the resemblance intended be natural, a resemblance in age, in circumstances, in literal infancy; and that by the kingdom of God,' we are to understand the kingdom of glory. According to this interpretation, literal infants are entitled to the kingdom of glory. Still, it does not follow that they are natively pure for they may need, as a qualification for heaven, and dying in infancy they may experience, the sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit, and sprinkling of the blood of Christ. Some, we know, have been sanctified from the womb, which proves that others may be, and need to be, if they are saved.

Or suppose, retaining the idea of a natural resemblance, the words kingdom of God' be understood to signify the Christian church; and consequently that infants have some connexion with the church. This sense restricts the application to the children of pious parents, and goes not a step towards proving the native purity of such children. For their connexion with the church, whatever it may be, is grounded, not at all on the consideration of their own personal character, but on the professed faith and piety of their parents. "Else were your children unclean, but now are

they holy."

*See Kenrick's Reflections on Matt. xix. 14., Whitman's Sermon on Regeneration, p. 31, and Richardson's Sermon on Conversion.

Suppose again, that by the words 'of such,' a sort of moral, and not a natural resemblance, is intended. Suppose our Saviour designed to signify, that in humility, teachableness, affection, confidence-traits which children often exhibit towards their parents, and which the young of other animals about as often exhibit towards their dams-his true disciples, the members of his kingdom, must come to resemble little children. But neither does this supposition, more than the others, teach the native moral purity or holiness of children. For these amiable infantile qualities, which our Saviour may be supposed to set forth as emblems of the spiritual graces of his people, are regarded on all hands as mere natural properties, not at all of the nature of holiness. They are so regarded by Unitarians, who maintain that children are not accountable agents, and not capable of holiness or sin, till they come to years of understanding, and know the difference between good and evil. And in the same light, these qualities of children are regarded by the Orthodox. They are regarded as mere animal affections, not necessarily holy or sinful, and not at all inconsistent with that native moral depravity, which the Scriptures ascribe to our fallen race.

Matt. xviii. 3. "Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

The

We have an expression of the Saviour's sentiments, or feelings, in relation to children, on at least two different occasions. one, was that already considered, in which parents, or friends, brought little children to him for his blessing; the other, that now before us, in which he took a little child, providentially present, and employed him to illustrate an important lesson which he was inculcating on his disciples.

The case was this: On their way to Capernaum, the disciples had debated the subject, who should be the greatest in their Master's kingdom, supposing it to be a temporal one. Whether Jesus overheard them or not, he knew what was in their hearts, and on arriving with them at the house whither they went, he asked them the cause of their dispute. And now, having called the attention of the disciples to the subject of their debate, what, may we suppose, was his object in setting this little child before them? Was it to lecture on the moral state of the child by nature, as the physiologist lectures on the various physical properties and relations of the different animals, plants, and minerals which come under his examination? Was it to instruct them in the nature of Adam's sin, in relation to his posterity? Was it to prove that children are, or are not, affected by it? Was it to show that, though not guilty of his personal sin in eating the forbidden fruit, they are, nevertheless, in some way unclean? Or was it to show that all this is a libel on human nature, and that till we learn to sin by example, we are as holy as angels? Obviously nothing of all this, but rather to teach his