1850.] Contemporary History. 461 question as definitely as he intends to answer it, impressing the certainty of the event without defining the time; and then, from the 29th verse he proceeds to answer the second question proposed. He then proceeds, from Matt. 24: 37 to 25: 30, to give various warnings and instructions and practical exhortations equally applicable to both events, -the destruction of Jerusalem and the day of judgment and finally closes the whole with a solemn and impressive description of the principal scenes of the last great day. Matt. 25: 31-46. In all this he says not one word to determine whether those two events would be contemporaneous or not; he studiously avoids giving any hint either to correct or confirm their error on that topic; on the contrary he emphatically assures them that they knew nothing about the time, that he should tell them nothing about the time; nay, that if he should undertake to tell them the time, he would be altogether exceeding his commission and his powers as the Messiah, the Son of God. Mark 13: 32. How, then, I ask again, were the disciples to know anything about the time? How could they know that the day of Judgment would not immediately follow the destruction of Jerusalem? How could they know anything at all about the matter, except this, that they knew nothing? The light of contemporary history is necessary for the understanding of these and the other eschatological passages of the New Testament, because some contend that the Hebrews and early Christians had no idea of a future state of retribution, and no word even to indicate a place of future punishment. If this were truly so, some of the expressions of Jesus in this discourse, and in other places, must have sounded very strangely to them; but as they could not imagine him to be speaking of things which had no existence and of which they had no conception, they would probably endeavor to give his words some exposition which would make them apply to circumstances destined to take place in this world. But if, on the contrary, the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments, of eternal retributions, were as fully established among them as it has been among Christians since, if they had definite and well known expressions to indicate the place of future punishment, then, most unquestionably, they must have understood our Saviour's discourses, which we have quoted as eschatological, as referring to a future state; and he, knowing the attitude of their minds on this subject, must have intended, in these words, to convey to them ideas of the future state. Of this, certainly, there can be no reasonable doubt on the mind of any one who examines these discourses of our Lord as they are recorded in the Gospels. Let us then examine the statements of the proper writers on this 66 subject; and first, of Josephus, a Hebrew, a Pharisee, and for some portion of his life a contemporary of the apostles. The passages which I shall quote from this writer may be found in his Antiquities XVIII. 1. 3, and the Jewish War II. 8. 11, 14. III. 8. 5. In giving an account of the opinions of his own sect, the Pharisees, Josephus says: They also believe that souls have an immortal vigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards and punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again." They also say "that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment"— while the Sadducees “take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and the rewards of Hades." On this subject we know that the followers of Christ took ground with the Pharisees and against the Sadducees. See Acts 23: 6-9. Josephus also expresses it as his own opinion that "for bad souls there is a dark and tempestuous den full of never-ceasing punishments.” He says: "The vehement inclinations of bad men to vice are restrained by the fear and expectation they are in, that though they should lie concealed in this life, they would suffer immortal punishment after their death." Again, "the soul is ever immortal." "The souls of those whose hands have acted madly against themselves, are reserved in the darkest place in Hades." In these extracts I have used the old translation of Whiston as being the one in general use, and though clumsy, faithful and accurate. Let any one who chooses consult the original. Human language cannot be stronger, more perfectly unequivocal as to the opinions of the Hebrews in the time of Christ and the apostles. The Sadducees were but a small sect, they were the infidels, the freethinkers of the time; and their opinions never greatly influ enced the popular belief; and in respect to the point we are now discussing, their existence is of no importance whatever. The other Jewish writers fully corroborate the testimony of Josephus in this regard; as is well known to all who are familiar with the Talmud. Paulus (Comment. III. 499) gives us the following extract from the Tanchuma. “Thy righteousness is as the mountains of the Lord, Ps. 36: 7. Why are the mountains compared to it? Answer: They have no end; and so also the retribution of the rewards of the just in the future time will have no end. Thy judgments are a great deep. Why is the great deep compared to them? Answer: Because no one is able to search it through; and so also no one is able to search through the punishment of the wicked in the future time." Here the reward of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked in the future state 1850.] Meaning of Gehenna. 463 are placed on precisely the same ground as to intensity and duration, just as they are in our Saviour's discourse, according to the obvious, literal import of the words in Matt. 25: 46. Such being the prevailing impression on the public mind at the time of the delivery of our Saviour's discourses, his language on this subject could not possibly have been otherwise understood by his hearers than in its plain, obvious, literal sense. Precisely the same ideas on this subject we accordingly find prevalent among all the early Christians. Clement, the companion of Paul (Phil. 4: 3), in an epistle to the Corinthians (2 Cor. 3: 12-16) expresses himself as follows: "Thus speaks the prophet concerning those who keep not their seal (Isa. 66: 24); their worm shall not die and their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be for a spectacle unto all flesh.' Let us therefore repent while we are yet upon the earth; for we are as clay in the hands of the artificer. For as the potter, if he make a vessel and it be turned amiss in his hands, or broken, again he forms it anew; but if he have gone so far as to throw it into the furnace of fire, he can no more bring any remedy to it; so we, while we are in this world, should repent with our whole heart for whatsoever evil we have done in the flesh, while we have yet the time of repentance, that we may be saved by the Lord. For after we shall have departed out of this world, we shall no longer be able either to confess our sins or to repent in the other." Language cannot be made to express more clearly the idea of eternal punishment in a future world, than it is done in this passage of Clement. It is true the N. Testament expresses the same sentiment in language equally plain; but we are required by some to modify the meaning of the language of the N. Testament, to turn it aside from its plain literal import on account of what they allege to be contemporary adverse opinions! But how is it when we show that the contemporary opinions are precisely the same as those expressed by the language of the N. Testament understood in its obvious, literal sense? Certainly we have double proof that Christ and his apostles clearly taught the doctrine of endless retribution in a future state. But it is said the N. Testament has no word to indicate the place of future punishment, (and if it had not, would that prove there is no future punishment?) that the word Gehenna, for example, the term most frequently used, is derived from the Hebrew Geh-hinnom, and means the same thing, namely, a valley on the south side of Jerusalem, where children were once offered in sacrifice to Moloch, and which subsequently became the receptacle for burning the offal and sweepings of the city. 2 Kings 23: 10. 16: 3, 4. 1 Kings 2:7. Critics of the highest eminence, and on this subject entirely disinterested, have denied this etymology altogether, and assigned to the word a very different origin, as for example Paulus in his Commentar I. 673. But allowing that the Greek word yeɛrva is derived from the Hebrew words; does that prove that the two phrases denote the same thing? that Gehenna is the vale of Hinnom? Is the etymology of a word always a sure guide to its meaning? Does a derived word always indicate the same idea as its primitive? Very far from itoften just the reverse, as every student of languages knows. Our English word constable comes from the Latin comes stabuli, count or superintendent of the stable; but does that prove that all our constables are necessarily hostlers? Our English esquire is from the French escuyer, and that again from the Latin scutum, a shield, and that from the Greek oxvros a hide, of which shields were originally made; but does that prove that our justices of the peace are all tanners? The English word lady is from the Saxon hlafdig, which comes from a word meaning a loaf of bread; but does that prove that ladies are loaves of bread? The argument in all these cases is the same, and as good in any one of the cases as in any of the others. It is use which determines the meaning of a word, and not etymology; and contemporary history gives ample testimony to the usage, in the times of Christ and the apostles, in respect to the word Gehenna, as also Tagragos, and other words employed to express the same idea. And first, as to Jewish usage: "Says Rabbi Eliezer, seven things were created before the world was created; these are, the law (Prov. 8: 22), Gehenna, (Isa. 30: 33), paradise (Gen. 2: 8), the throne of glory, the (heavenly) temple, penitence, and the name of the Messiah" (Paulus, Comment. III. 495). If the Jews meant by Gehenna a valley in the neighborhood of Jerusalem, we may well ask, how would that be created before the world was created? The testimony as to Christian usage is no less explicit. Justin Martyr, a native of Palestine, and born not far from the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, says expressly: "Gehenna is the place where those who have lived unjustly shall be punished." (Apol. ad Anton. p. 66.) Bretschneider's N. T. Lexicon, art. 7έerva. For numerous examples of the same kind, examine the copious collections made by Wetstein in his Nov. Test. I. 513, 514; and also Kuinoel's Comment. I. 683. RESULT. According, then, to all the sources of information which we have or can have, for the determining of the meaning of the words, namely, 1850.] First Objection. 465 their literal import, the context, and the contemporary history, our Saviour everywhere, in his eschatological discourses, speaks of the day of judgment and the eternal retribution in the future world, and not of the destruction of Jerusalem in this world; and this is very emphatically true in respect to the passage more immediately under consideration, Matt. 24: 29-31. This destruction of Jerusalem is a very convenient resort, a kind of universal tertium quid to a certain class of expositors. Whatever in the New Testament would make them afraid, if properly understood, they call it destruction of Jerusalem, and so let it pass. The interpretation of the passages in question, it seems to me, is settled, if positive proof can settle anything. OBJECTIONS. We will now proceed to consider the objections which are urged with most plausibility against our interpretation of Matt. 24: 29–31. They are the three following: 1. Christ speaks to the disciples as if they themselves would witness the transactions which he describes, Matt. 24: 33. Lk. 21: 28. 2. He places the judgment in immediate proximity to the destruction of Jerusalem, Matt. 24: 29. 3. He says that generation should not pass away till the accomplishment of his predictions, Matt. 24: 34. Objection 1st. Christ speaks to the disciples as if they themselves would witness the transactions which he describes. Matt. 24: 33. Lk. 21: 28. Throughout this address, and in his eschatological discourses generally, Christ so selects his phraseology as to give his hearers no means of inferring anything in regard to the time of the judgment. On this point he intended to keep them ignorant, and he made repeated and open declarations of this intention. Whether it would be in their own day, or some subsequent period, they knew not; though they rather supposed it might be in their own day, and Christ said nothing either to confirm or correct this impression. That the disciples were fully aware of their own ignorance in this respect is manifest from the fact that they repeated their question to him just before his ascension (Acts 1: 7), but with no better satisfaction than before, for his reply was: It is not for you to know the times or the seasons thus peremptorily cutting them off from all hope of knowing. In view of all these facts, can any one suppose that Jesus intended to intimate in Matt. 24: 33 and Lk. 21: 28, that his twelve apostles would |