« AnteriorContinuar »
tion with their friends after death, only referred to Dan. xii. 2. is perhaps the most plausible that their bodies mingling in the dust together, and had
no reference to their spirits after death. Admitting this to be true, permit me to ask, can any proof be adduced, that their spirits were separated from each other after death? As I am unable to adduce any
arated, to produce evidence of this from the Old Tesan my reasons here, would be aside from the tament. I shall give it all due consideration. At
any rate, if the Old Testament is silent on the subject it ill becomes us to assert that such was the case. Its Very silence is to me an indication that no such idea
wbat surprising that no person ventured to express it.
je Old Testament, where a prophet of the Los to have been the case, whether the persons were good er sent to any people to warn them agais or bad. An instance to the contrary, cannot be proI misery in a place called hell? Yea, I go w duced, where a person ever expressed himself, as if nd ask, if any man can produce a single is he expected after death 10 be separated, and separat
where a false prophet ever endeavoured red from his friends forever. But it is well known, gain to himself, by the doctrine of eternal at that persons in our day, not only expect to be separatI do not find thai either true or false prophesed from many of their friends forever, but even say, under that dispensation, or that this doctri' that they shall give their hearty amen to their everown and believed by a single individual. # lasting condemnation. Yes, it is even said, that the ere not threatened with such a punishment
, s happiness of those in heaven is to be greatly enhancere ever congratulated as being saved from ked, by their looking down on those in eternal tor. ras never held up to deter men from sin whik ments
, in seeing the smoke of it ascend forever and nt of God, so it was never urged on believer ever. This was once the current popular divinity, ulate them to gratitude and obedience. I and though not yet altogether out of use, yet I am e then, that this doctrine could be believed! bappy to say, the more thinking and sober-minded. remain silent on the subject? If no revelatio reject it. en about it, how could men avoid such a pur
be asked, is it true, ibat persons under ? If a revelation was given, how is it at the Old Testament expected to be associated with
for, that it is not mentioned by one of the their deceased friends after death? I do not recollect. stament writers? If it is mentioned by any a single instance to the contrary, and shall here, in a under any other name than Sheol, I am i proof of the assertion, refer to Jahn's Biblical Archæ-of it; nor is this even pretended by those who ology, p. 234 the doctrine. I am fully aware that there
, 7o this it may probably be objected, that associaor three passages commonly quoted. For ex: adduced:-"and many of them that sleepi of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting some to shame and everlasting contempt all say of this text here, is
, that were I fully ed that the doctrine of eternal misery was proof, I request those who
say that they were so sepnever could quote this passage in support of it
. investigation. Another fact deserving our notice, is, that the
speaking of their dead friends, never speak y were to be separated from them after death,
was entertained in those days. If it was, it is some ys as associated with them. This appears
And if it is not expressed by any of the Old Testament writers, how is it known that such an idea was entertained by them.
One thing we think must be admitted by all who have read the Old Testament with attention. It is this: good people in those days, do not appear 10 have had the fears and anxieties of mind which haunt men's minds now, about their children, their relations, their neighbours, and a great part of mankind, as all going to a place of endless misery. You may read the Old Testament, until your eyes grow dim with age, before you find any ihing like this there. How is this silence to be accounted for, if the doctrine of endless misery was known and believed? If by Sheol they understood the same as men do now by the word hell, is it possible, that good people in those days could feel so easy on such a subject ? Whatever ideas they attached to this word we think it is certain, they did not mean by it a place of endless misery:
The question is likely then to be asked, seeing that Sheol or hell does not mean a place of eternal mis. ery,-what does it mean? What is the idea the Old Testament writers affixed to this word ? From the remarks: already made; we think something has been gaid in answer to this question.-By Sheol, seems evidently to be meant, what Job calls, chap. XX8, 33,“ The house appointed for all the living." And it is the same to which Solomon alludes, when he says, Eccles. 1i. 20.-"all go to one place.” 'The question still returns, What place is this? What place it is, may be learned further from the following passages. In 2 Sam. xii. 23. where David is speaking of his dead child, he says," I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” This, it may be said, only provokes the question-where was his child? In heaven, most people would answer, and some have quoted this text to prove the salvation of all infants. Nothing more, I
tions, their neighbours, and a great part of mankin days could feel so easy on such a subject? Whatere From what place then did Saul wish the woman to ideas they attached to this word we think it is cerebring Samuel? I answer, from Sheol, the same place they did not mean by it a place of endless misery to which Jacob said he would go down mourning to Shcol or hell does not mean a place of eternal es
was not left. If Saul and his sons went to hell, a marks already made, we think something hast Samuel was in heaven, Saul and his sons were there Testament writers affixed to this word ? From the there before him. And it is equally certain, that if said in answer to this question.-By Sheol, sense
soon after with him. But what appears simply to be “ The house appointed for all the living." And it is the dead, and the issue of the battle proved, that Saul same to which Solomon alludes, when he says, Ecoles
and his sons were with Samuel, and with all the dead uji. 20.-all go to one place." The question who had gone before them. As to the woman's har. returns, What place is this? What place it is, mark
ing power to bring Samuel from Sheol, we do not be
lieve any such thing. learned further from the following passages. In 28 xü. 23, where David is speaking of his dead child
impostor, but this is not the place for assigning our he says, “I shall go to him, but he shall not rele reasons, or entering further into this part of the histo me." This, it may be said, only provokes theory tory of Saul. We have merely referred to it as show tion-where was his child! In heaven, most pering what were the popular opinions in those day's on would answer, and some have quoted this text b 44 AN INQUIRY INTO
THE WORD SHEOL.
45 And if it is not expressed by any of the Old Te conceive, is meant, nor could be rationally inferred ment writers, how is it known thăt such an idea 5 from this text than this--that his child was in the entertained by them.
state of the dead or in Sheol, and David, impressed One thing we think must be admitted by all my with a sense of his own mortality intimates, that he have read the Old Testament with attention . I would soon follow him to the same place.
So Jacob this: good people in those days, do not apper speaks of himself in a similar way in reference to his have had the fears and anxieties of mind which has son Joseph. But further, we find in 1 Sam. xxviii
. 19. men's minds now, about their children, their fe Samuel thus speaks to Saul, “ tomorrow shalt thou
" as all going to a place of endless misery. You can be asked, “When Saul desired the woman to bring read the Old Testament, until your eyes gros coup Samuel
, was it from heaven he expected him to with age, before you find any thing like this the come? Surely not ; for in this case Samuel would How is this silence to be accounted for, if the dorit bave been brought down, not up. Was it then from of endless misery was known and believed 11 bell
, the place of eternal misery, he expected him to Sheol they understood the same as men do now
come? This cannot be admitted, for neither Saul, nor the word hell, is it possible
, that good people in the idently to be meant, what Job calls, chap.
theant is this -Samuel was in sheol, or the state of
We believe that she was an -? ',
the subject before us.
prove the salvation of all infants. Nothing mone
We are aware, that it may be objected to the above investigation, that future existence was as little known under the Old Testament, as the doctrine of endless misery; and therefore we might just as well deny future existence, as endless misery, from the mere silence of the Old Testament writers. To this I would answer that we do not believe that future existence was altogether unknown under the Old Testament. We cannot, here, however, give our reasons for think these ing so. But admitting it true, the objector has then **** to prove that endless misery in hell was brought to be light by the Gospel. But is this any where declared to in the New Testament? That the ancient Jews had some knowledge of a future state of existence we refer to to Jahn's Biblical Archæology, Section 314.
deemed conclusive. We have also adduced the testimony of Dr. Campbell, and other critics, that this is not, in a single instance, the sense of the word Sheol
It is allowed by consent of all critics and commenlators, that I have ever seen, that Hades is the corresponding word in the New Testament, to Sheol in the Old; and that both words are used by the inspired writers to express the same thing. Indeed, the slightest attention to this subject, must convince any In neither Testaments is a place of endless misery expressed by these words. I might then take it for granted, that Hades does not refer to such a place of punishment, any more than Sheol, and save myself the labour of the following investigation about it. But I shall proceed to examine all the places where Hades is used in the New Testament, because some texts in which it occurs, are still considered by many people, as teaching the doctrine of eternal misery. I am truly
sorry to add that even some preachers, who certainly AN INQUIRT INTO THE WORD SHEOL. e aware, that it may be objected to the abor: tion, that future existence was as little knor:
SECTION II. e Old Testament, as the doctrine of endles and therefore we might just as well deu tence, as endless misery, from the mere : he Old Testament writers. To this I would
ALL THE PASSAGES IN WHICH HADES OCCURS, CONhat we do not believe that future existema? gether unknown under the Old Testames 01, here, however, give our reasons for this
WE have seen that the word Sheol in the Old TesBut admitting it true, the objector has the lament
, rendered pit, grape, and hell
, in the common that endless misery in hell was brought a version, was not used by the sacred writers, to exthe Gospel. But is this any where declared press a place of endless misery. This we have atew Testament? That the ancient Jews le compted to establish, not only by an enumeration of owledge of a future state of existence we rett all the texts where it occurs, but by a number of facts s Biblical Archæology, Section 314.
and observations, which on most subjects would be
of the correctness of this statement.
in the Old Testament.