Ge·hen´na的曆史背景（zz）：是耶路撒冷城外的欣嫩穀（valley of Hinnom）
。這裏是耶路撒冷人傾卸，焚化廢物的地方。人把動物的屍體扔進穀中燒掉,還加上硫磺助燃。罪犯處決之後，屍體也會被人扔進去，因為人們覺得罪犯不配有體麵的葬禮而葬在紀念墓裏。屍體如果落在火裏，就會燒掉；如果落在穀中的岩脊上，腐肉就會長滿蛆蟲。蛆蟲不把屍體吃得隻剩骸骨，就不死不滅。從來沒有人把活著的動物或人投進欣嫩穀裏活生生地焚燒折磨。所以，如果說這個地方象征人看不見的境域，人的靈魂在其中被實際的火永遠折磨，被不死的蟲子永遠侵蝕，就未免無中生有了。
經文考古
羅馬書6：23：“罪的工價是死”，羅馬書6：7：”人死了，就不用擔負罪責。”
耶利米書7：31“[叛道的猶太人]又在欣嫩子穀的陀斐特建築丘壇，用火
焚燒兒女，這樣的事我從沒吩咐過，心裏連想也沒有想過。”
傳道書9：5，10“活人知道自己必死，死人卻毫無知覺。。。。。凡你的手能做的事，都要盡力去做；因為在你要進的墳墓，沒有工作，沒有計劃，沒有知識，沒有智慧。”
詩篇146：4：“人一斷氣，就歸回地土；他的思想，當天就消滅。”
創世紀3：19：“你必汗流滿麵才有食物吃，直到你歸了土，因為你是出於土的。你既是塵土，就要歸回塵土。”
以上這些經文和地獄的概念背道而馳，如果不認為聖經錯誤的話，隻有地獄這個概念是不正確的了。古巴比倫人和亞述人倒是相信“陰曹地府。。。。。。是一個令人不寒而栗的地方，由孔武有力，強橫凶暴的諸神，邪靈管轄。”一般教會的地獄永火觀念源自古埃及的宗教信仰。
那麽聖經裏談到的“火”是什麽意思呢？火象征徹底毀滅。猶大書7節：“此外，所多瑪，蛾摩拉和周圍的城鎮也像他們一樣肆意行淫，耽於變態的肉欲，就受永火的刑罰，成了我們的鑒戒。” 創世紀19：24講了硫磺和火從天而降，滅了所多瑪，蛾摩拉兩個城市。這兩個城市早就無處可循了，哪裏有永火在那裏燒？所以火應該是象征意義。還可以參考馬太福音25：41，46，13：30。啟示錄20：14“死亡和墳墓都被摔到火湖裏去。這個火湖象征第二種死亡。”火湖也是個象征。不過最難理解的應該是路加福音16：19-31，而要證明地獄的存在，這節經文也是最好的證明。耶穌對群眾說話用比喻（馬太福音13：34），但是有些比喻經書上給了解釋，有些沒有，比如路加福音16：19-31，那就看個教派的本事了。The New Interpreter’s Bible 應該算是主流教派的比較具有權威的解釋了。但是我看完以後，沒太弄明白講的是什麽。現摘錄16：19-26如下
Luke 16:19-21 The parable of the rich man and Lazarus can be seen as a drama
in three acts. In the first act, the rich appear to be rich, and the poor
appear to be poor. The first act, however, is a tableau .The characters are
introduced, and their way of life is described, but nothing happens. There
is no interaction between the rich man and Lazarus……. The measure of the
man’s wealth is illustrated by his conspicuous consumption—his dress and
his diet…... The rich man lived in a house with gates— ……..The story
will quickly make clear, however, that the glitter of the rich man’s life
was superficial and transient. It had nothing to do with the eternal glory
that surrounds the Lord.” Luke 16:20-21 “The next verse introduces Lazarus
,……Lazarus dies of starvation and disease at the rich man’s gate. The
first act ends after we have met the two characters. It is a tableau;
neither character speaks to the other. Their lives seem to be entirely
separate, divided by a table and a gate”16:22”In the second act, the rich
become poor and the poor become rich. …..Dare we ask why Lazarus died? Did
he die of starvation while a few feet away the rich man was having one of
his daily feast?…….Unexpectedly, we are told that the rich man has died
also. Again, do we dare ask why? Did he die of overeating while Lazarus
starved? Did the excess food, which the rich man could have given to Lazarus
, hasten his own death?…….16:23-31 The third act is by far the longest
and most developed. ……16:23 The bosom of Abraham was regarded as the place
of highest bliss. According to Jewish legends of the martyrdom of the
mother and her seven sons(2 Maccabees 7), the martyrs were brought to the
bosom of Abraham. Interpreters are divided on the issue of whether both the
rich man and Lazarus were in Hades (following the older concept of Hades as
the place of the dead, both righteous and wicked) or whether only the rich
man is in Hades while Lazarus is in paradise(cf.23:43). Hades was regarded
as the place where the dead awaited the final judgment, and by the first
century it was thought to be divided into various regions according to
people’s moral state: …… To many who heard the parable, this turn of
events would have come as a surprise, for it was believed that blessings in
this life were a sign of God’s favor, while illness, poverty, and hardship
were signs of God’s displeasure. A just God would not do otherwise. How
could a beggar go to heaven? We are not told that Lazarus was a righteous
man or that he was a believer, ………” 16:24 Three exchanges between the
rich man and Abraham follow. Lazarus, who never asked for anything on earth,
never says anything. Abraham now speaks for the beggar who has no voice. In
the first exchange, the rich man asks “Father Abraham” to send Lazarus to
dip his finger in water to cool his tongue. The request is typical
hyperbole. By addressing Abraham as “Father,” he may imply that he should
be recognized as a “son of Abraham” also (see 13:16,19:9). Because he
knows Lazarus’s name, we may wish to assume that the rich man had known of
Lazarus’s plight and had done nothing. But is that worse than if he had not
even known of the suffering of the beggar at his gate? Either way, the rich
man still regards Lazarus as being available to serve his personal needs—
“Send Lazarus.” 16:25-26 Abraham responds, acknowledging the rich man with
the address “child.” Being a child of Abraham, therefore, is no guarantee
that one will dwell with Abraham in paradise. The chiastic sequence in
Abraham’s response again serves to connect the lives and rewards of the
rich man and Lazarus: ”Remember…you…good things, and Lazarus…evil things
; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony.” Remembering can
either be part of one’s torment, as here, or part of one’s salvation, as
in 24:6,8. In life the beggar got only cast off goods and was treated
shamefully. Now the men’s fates are reversed, fulfilling the beatitudes of
Luke6:20-26.”Now”……the rich man is in torment and Lazarus is in paradise
. Clarence Jordan, who retold the parables and other parts of the NT in the
idiom of the American Old South, interpreted Abraham’s answer insightfully:
” Lazarus ain’t gonna run no mo’yo’ errands, rich man.” The chasm that
now separates the rich man and Lazarus confirms the finality of the
judgment on the rich man . A similar vision of the place of the dead is
described in 4 Ezra7:36:”Then the pit of torment shall appear, and opposite
it shall be the place of rest; and the furnace of Hell shall be disclosed,
and opposite it the paradise of delight.” Once there was no chasm but
indifference and apathy. The rich man could have come to Lazarus at any time
. Now, however, the chasm that separates them prevents Lazarus from
responding to the rich man’s torment with compassion and removes any
possibility that the rich man might escape his torment. The rich man has
shut himself off from Lazarus, and now no one can reach him.
以下是耶和華見證人的解釋。我可以接受他們的解釋，但是在沒有地獄概念的基礎上
THE “RICH MAN” AND “LAZARUS” IDENTIFIED
Examine the context. To whom was Jesus talking? At Luke 16:14 we are told:
“Now the Pharisees, who were money lovers, were listening to all these
things, and they began to sneer at him.”
Since Jesus spoke in the hearing of the Pharisees, was he relating an actual
case or was he simply using an illustration? Concerning Jesus’ method of
teaching the crowds, we read: “Indeed, without an illustration he would not
speak to them.” (Matthew 13:34) Accordingly, the account about the rich
man and Lazarus must be an illustration.
This illustration was evidently directed to the Pharisees. As a class they
were like the rich man. They loved money, as well as prominence and
flattering titles. Jesus said of them: “All the works they do they do to be
viewed by men; for they broaden the scripture-containing cases that they
wear as safeguards, and enlarge the fringes of their garments. They like the
most prominent place at evening meals and the front seats in the synagogues
, and the greetings in the marketplaces and to be called Rabbi by men.”—
Matthew 23:5-7.
The Pharisees looked down on others, especially on tax collectors, harlots
and others having the reputation of being sinners. (Luke 18:11, 12) On one
occasion when officers, sent to arrest Jesus, came back empty-handed because
of having been impressed by his teaching, the Pharisees spoke up: “You
have not been misled also, have you? Not one of the rulers or of the
Pharisees has put faith in him, has he? But this crowd that does not know
the Law are accursed people.”—John 7:47-49.
Hence, in the parable the beggar Lazarus well represents those humble
persons whom the Pharisees despised but who repented and became followers of
Jesus Christ. Jesus showed that these despised sinners, upon repenting,
would gain a position of divine favor, whereas the Pharisees and other
prominent religious leaders as a class would lose out. He said: “Truly I
say to you that the tax collectors and the harlots are going ahead of you
into the kingdom of God. For John came to you in a way of righteousness, but
you did not believe him. However, the tax collectors and the harlots
believed him, and you, although you saw this, did not feel regret afterwards
so as to believe him.”—Matthew 21:31, 32.
DEATH OF THE “RICH MAN” AND OF “LAZARUS”
What, then, is signified by the death of the “rich man” and of “Lazarus”
? We do not need to conclude that it refers to actual death. As used in the
Bible, death can also represent a great change in the condition of
individuals. For example: Persons pursuing a course of life contrary to God
’s will are spoken of as being ‘dead in trespasses and sins.’ But when
they come into an approved standing before God as disciples of Jesus Christ
they are referred to as coming “alive.” (Ephesians 2:1, 5; Colossians 2:13
) At the same time such living persons become “dead” to sin. We read: “
Reckon yourselves to be dead indeed with reference to sin but living with
reference to God by Christ Jesus.”—Romans 6:11.
Since both the “rich man” and “Lazarus” of Jesus’ parable are clearly
symbolic, logically their deaths are also symbolic. But in what sense do
they die?
The key to answering this question lies in what Jesus said just before
introducing the illustration: “Everyone that divorces his wife and marries
another commits adultery, and he that marries a woman divorced from a
husband commits adultery.” (Luke 16:18) This statement may appear to be
completely unrelated to the illustration. But this is not the case.
By reason of the Mosaic law the nation of Israel was in a covenant
relationship with God and therefore could be spoken of as being a wife to
him. At Jeremiah 3:14, for example, God refers to the nation as an
unfaithful wife: “‘Return, O you renegade sons,’ is the utterance of
Jehovah. ‘For I myself have become the husbandly owner of you people.’”
Then, with the coming of Jesus, an opportunity was extended to the Jews to
become part of his “bride.” That is why John the Baptist said to his
disciples: “You yourselves bear me witness that I said, I am not the Christ
, but, I have been sent forth in advance of that one. He that has the bride
is the bridegroom. However, the friend of the bridegroom, when he stands and
hears him, has a great deal of joy on account of the voice of the
bridegroom. Therefore this joy of mine has been made full. That one [Jesus]
must go on increasing, but I must go on decreasing.”—John 3:28-30.
In order to become part of Christ’s “bride,” the Jews had to be released
from the Law that made them, figuratively speaking, a wife to God. Without
such release, they could not come into a wifely relationship with Christ, as
that would be an adulterous relationship. The words of Romans 7:1-6 confirm
this:
“Can it be that you do not know, brothers, (for I am speaking to those who
know law,) that the Law is master over a man as long as he lives? For
instance, a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is alive;
but if her husband dies, she is discharged from the law of her husband. So,
then, while her husband is living, she would be styled an adulteress if she
became another man’s. But if her husband dies, she is free from his law, so
that she is not an adulteress if she becomes another man’s.
“So, my brothers, you also were made dead to the Law through the body of
the Christ, that you might become another’s, the one’s who was raised up
from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. . . . Now we have been
discharged from the Law, because we have died to that by which we were being
held fast, that we might be slaves in a new sense by the spirit, and not in
the old sense by the written code.”
While the death of Jesus Christ was the basis for releasing the Jews from
the Law, even before his death repentant ones could come into a favored
position with God as disciples of his Son. The message and work of John the
Baptist and of Jesus Christ opened the door for the Jews to seize the
opportunity to gain divine favor and put themselves in line for a heavenly
inheritance as members of Christ’s bride. As Jesus himself expressed it: “
From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of the heavens is
the goal toward which men press, and those pressing forward are seizing it.
”—Matthew 11:12.
Hence, the work and message of John the Baptist and of Jesus Christ began to
lead toward a complete change in the condition of the symbolic “rich man”
and “Lazarus.” Both classes died to their former condition. The repentant
“Lazarus” class came into a position of divine favor, whereas the “rich
man” class came under divine disfavor because of persisting in unrepentance
. At one time the “Lazarus” class had looked to the Pharisees and other
religious leaders of Judaism for spiritual “crumbs.” But Jesus’ imparting
the truth to them filled their spiritual needs. Contrasting the spiritual
feeding provided by Jesus with that of the religious leaders, the Bible
reports: “The crowds were astounded at his way of teaching; for he was
teaching them as a person having authority, and not as their scribes.” (
Matthew 7:28, 29) Truly a complete reversal had taken place. The religious
leaders of Judaism were shown up as having nothing to offer to the “Lazarus
” class.
On the day of Pentecost of the year 33 C.E. the change in conditions was
accomplished. At that time the new covenant replaced the old Law covenant.
Those who had repented and accepted Jesus were then fully released from the
old Law covenant. They died to it. On that day of Pentecost there was also
unmistakable evidence that the disciples of Jesus Christ had been exalted
far above the Pharisees and other prominent religious leaders. Not the
religious leaders of Judaism, but these disciples received God’s spirit,
enabling them to speak about “the magnificent things of God” in the native
languages of people from widely scattered places. (Acts 2:5-11) What a
marvelous manifestation this was of their having God’s blessing and
approval! The “Lazarus” class had indeed come into the favored situation
by becoming the spiritual seed of the Greater Abraham, Jehovah. This was
pictured as the “bosom position.”—Compare John 1:18.
As for the unrepentant Pharisees and other prominent religious leaders, they
were dead to their former position of seeming favor. They were in “Hades.
” Remaining unrepentant, they were separated from the faithful disciples of
Jesus as if by a “great chasm.” This was a “chasm” of God’s
unchangeable, righteous judgment. Of this, we read in Scripture: “Your
judicial decision is a vast watery deep.”—Psalm 36:6.
THE “RICH MAN’S” TORMENT
The “rich man” class was also tormented. How? By the fiery judgment
messages of God being proclaimed by Jesus’ disciples.—Compare Revelation
14:10.
That the religious leaders were tormented by the message proclaimed by Jesus
’ disciples there can be no question. They tried desperately to stop the
proclamation. When the apostles of Jesus Christ made their defense before
the Jewish supreme court composed of prominent religious men, the judges “
felt deeply cut and were wanting to do away with them.” (Acts 5:33) Later,
the disciple Stephen’s defense had a like tormenting effect upon the
members of that court. “They felt cut to their hearts and began to gnash
their teeth at him.”—Acts 7:54.
These religious leaders wanted the disciples of Jesus to come and ‘cool
their tongue.’ They wanted the “Lazarus” class to leave the “bosom
position” of God’s favor and present his message in such a way as not to
cause them discomfort. Similarly, they wanted the “Lazarus” class to water
down God’s message so as not to put their “five brothers,” their
religious allies, in a “place of torment.” Yes, they did not want any of
their associates to be tormented by judgment messages.
But, as indicated by Jesus’ illustration, neither the “rich man” class
nor his religious allies would be freed from the tormenting effects of the
message proclaimed by the “Lazarus” class. The apostles of the Lord Jesus
Christ refused to water down the message. They refused to stop teaching on
the basis of Jesus’ name. Their reply to the Jewish supreme court was: “We
must obey God as ruler rather than men.”—Acts 5:29.
If the religious allies of the “rich man” wanted to escape that torment,
they could do so. They had “Moses and the Prophets,” that is, they had the
inspired Holy Scriptures written by Moses and other ancient prophets. Not
once did those inspired Scriptures point to any literal place of torment
after death, but they did contain all that was necessary to identify Jesus
as the promised Messiah or Christ. (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18, 19; 1 Peter 1:10,
11) Hence, if the “rich man” class and his “five brothers” had paid
attention to “Moses and the Prophets,” they would have accepted Jesus as
the Messiah. That would have brought them in line for divine favor and
shielded them from the tormenting effects of God’s judgment message.
--
