ページの画像
PDF
ePub

says, in his edition of "Calmet, "-"Eternal, Eternity. These words often signify a very long time; and, therefore, must not always be understood literally; so we find eternal mountains,' to denote their antiquity, Gen. xlix. 26; Deut. xxxiii. 15. God promises to David an eternal kingdom and posterity; that is, his. and his son's empire will be of long duration."

Cruden, whose orthodoxy was never doubted, says, in his "Concordance," on the word eternal; "The words eternal, everlasting, forever, are sometimes taken. for a long time, and are not always to be understood strictly; for example, it is said, Gen. xvii. 8. 'I'will give to thee and to thy seed, the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession.' And in chap. xiii. 15, I will give it to thee and to thy seed forever; that is, for a long space of time. And in Gen. xlix. 36, we find everlasting hills, so called, to denote their antiquity, •stability, and duration; and this expression is used to show the long continuance and durableness of Joseph's blessing. God promises a throne to David, an eternal kingdom, a posterity that will never be extinguished; that is, that his and his son's empire, will be of very long duration, 2 Sam. vii. 16. 1 Chron. xvii. 14. Thus, thou shalt be our guide, from this time forth, even forever; that is, during our whole life. And in many other places of Scripture, and in particular where the word forever is applied to the Jewish rites and privileges, it commonly signifies no more than during the standing of that commonwealth, or until the coming of the Messiah."

Hear Whitby, also, on this point. "Nor is there any thing more common and familiar in Scripture, than to represent a thorough and irreparable destruction, whose effects and signs shall be still remaining, by the •word airios, which we render eternal; ***** and this specially is threatened where the destruction of a nation or people is likened to the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah." Com. on Jude 7.

The Greek word aivios, rendered everlasting, is de

rived from wior, and must receive its signification from it. Now that air does not signify eternity, is, evident, because it is used in the plural number. It would be manifestly improper to speak of eternities; but we fall into the same impropriety when we make air or aluvios, signify, of themselves, endless duration. And not only is air used in the plural number, but words are added to extend its signification, even when numberless aives are spoken of. Thus, Exod. xv. 10, literally rendered, is, "The Lord shall reign from air to αἰών AND FARTHER.” "And they that turn many to righteousness shall shine as the stars through the aloves, or ages, AND FARTHER." Dan. xii. 3. And we will walk in the name of Jehovah our God, through the air, and beyond it." Micah iv. 5. As the word everlasting is then used in the sacred Scriptures, in a large variety of instances, to signify limited duration, we say that, when applied to punishment, it ought, above every other case, to bear that sense. Jehovah hath said, that he "will not cast off forever; that though he cause grief, yet will he have compassion, according to the multitude of his mercies; for he doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men." Lam. iii. 31-33. This sentiment is utterly repugnant to the doctrine of interminable punishment; and requires that the word everlasting, in the very few instances, in which it is applied to punishment, should be understood in a limited sense, as it must be understood in most of the instances where it occurs.

66 No

Speaking to the Jews of the divine chastisements, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews says, chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous; nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby." Heb. xii. 11. If this chastisement were strictly endless, how could it afterward yield the peaceable fruit of righteousness? Is there any afterward to eternity? Moreover, that the fire, Matt. xxv. 41, and punishment, ver. 46, are not to be understood

as endless in their duration, is evident from this circum-. stance. The parable in which they occur was spoken of Jews; and the New Testament writers teach explicitly the salvation of the whole Jewish nation. . Šee · Rom. xi. 25, 26, and Heb. viii. 8 – 1·1.

The only objection which we can suppose may rest upon the mind of the reader is this: the same word is · applied to life which is applied to punishment. It is rendered in one case" everlasting," in the other, "eternal"; but it is the same word in both instances. If it does not signify endless duration when applied to punishment, how can it when applied to life? On the other hand, if this life is to be enjoyed in the future state, why is not the punishment also to be suffered there?

.

Answer: The same word is, in the same connexion, applied to different things, in other parts of the Scriptures; when, as all acknowledge; one thing is temporal, the other endless. Hab. iii. 6; Rom. xvi. 25, 26, and others.

But the proper answer to the objection, in the case before us, is this: We consider that the life spoken of in Matt: xxv. 46, is not confined to the immortal existence into which the human race are to be raised -after natural death; but is that spiritual life which the believer enjoys in this state. St. John says, 66 We know, that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren." 1 John iii. 14. John knew that he had then already passed from death unto life ; he was then in the enjoyment of spiritual life. Jesus saith, "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that. sent me, hath (he then already possessed) everlasting life; and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life." John v. 24. And the original phrase here is the same which is rendered eternal life in Matt. xxv. 46. We believe that the "everlasting life," in John' v. 24, and the "life eternal," in Matt. xxv. 46, are one and the same thing. This view of the subject completely removes the ob

jection last introduced. For, if the punishment and the life are both allowed by us to be in the same state, the objection loses all its force.

[ocr errors]

Those who wish to examine this subject more fully, are referred to the author's "Illustrations of the Parables," pp. 314-354. See also the first American ed. of "Smith on Divine Government," pp. 217-227. "Winchester's Dialogues," ed. of 1831, pp. 53-61. · Balfour's "Second Inquiry," ed. of 1827, pp. 311340. See also Ballou's "Lecture Sermons," Lecture XVIII. For an examination of the subject of endless punishment, see Universalist Expositor," Vol. I. pp. 55-61; also Vol. II. 325-350. Skinner's Universalism Illustrated and Defended," pp. 196-211. Examine also "Universalist Expositor," Vol. IV. 149.

.XXX. "Woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man, if he had not been born.". Matt. xxvi. 24. Mark xiv. 21.

It has long been asserted by believers in endless misery, that Judas, concerning whom these words were spoken, must be eternally damned. It has been alleged, that he was one of the most wicked of men; and that he deserved no better fate, than to be eternally excluded from the presence of the Lord. It is not expedient to pass rash judgment in this case.

Let us look for a few moments to the history of Judas. He was one of the twelve apostles; and to him, as well as all the rest, power was given to work miracles in attestation of his divine appointment. We are not informed, but that he labored as faithfully as the rest, until the time of the betrayal. Jesus did not except Judas in what he said Matt. xix. 28; though what force is to be allowed to this circumstance the reader must judge, as that passage is involved in some obscurity.

That act of his life which has excited the most attention, was the betraying of his master. See Matt. xxvi. 14-16. 47-50.

There are some things to be said, in extenuation of

.

this crime. It was not done, we should think, through enmity to Jesus, or his cause. It seems reasonable, that Judas did not think that Jesus would be condemned.

He probably thought, that Jesus would be cleared, if tried before the Jewish tribunal. He knew his master's innocence; and perhaps he supposed it would be apparent at the trial, as it certainly was; for even Pilate, the Roman governor, washed his hands, and said, "I am innocent of the blood of this just person.' Matt. xxvii. 24.

[ocr errors]

Again, Judas might have thought, that even if his master were condemned, he could deliver himself from his enemies. He had heard Jesus say, that all power was in his hands; he had seen him work miracles; he had known him to deliver himself from the people; and he could not have entertained a doubt, that Jesus could deliver himself at any time from the power of his enemies. One of the above reasons should be admitted. For when Judas saw that Jesus was condemned, and that he did not deliver himself, he seems to have been struck with the utmost astonishment and remorse, which shortly produced his death. See the account: "Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. ***** And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed and went and hanged himself.” Matt. xxvii. 3-5. Is this the language of an enemy of Christ? Does it not show, that Judas thought Jesus would not be condemned? Did. he not make the most explicit avowal of his own guilt, before the chief priests and elders, and assert, in the strongest manner, the innocence of Christ? He alone of all the twelve, publicly maintained, at that time, the innocence of Christ, for all the rest had "forsook him and fled," Matt. xxvi. 56; and Peter denied him three times, and cursed, and swore that he knew not the man, 69-75.

« 前へ次へ »