The Greek word gehenna, translated "hell" in the KJV, is found twelve times in the scriptures, eleven of them from the lips of Jesus, with ten of those as threats of being "cast into", "destroyed", or "damned". I have long believed the traditional understanding of gehenna as figurative of the final place for the wicked. It is said that this is incorrect, that the literal Valley of Hinnom is what is meant when hell is used in these places. So I have been examining the use of the word to relate what Jesus said and I am finding it very difficult to make sense of the passages if nothing more than being cast into a valley outside Jerusalem is meant.
Consider the following passage:
Matthew 23:32-33 (New King James Version)
32. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. 33. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?
Jesus here threatens people with "condemnation of hell". The question appears to be rhetorical, with the answer being "they will not escape". But when would those to whom the threat was addressed meet this fate? Surely not in the destruction of Jerusalem, which was yet some 37 years in the future. Given that research indicates that the average lifespan at the time was 45 years, most of those who heard his threat would have died natural deaths prior to this event. But if gehenna is figurative of a final judgement, Jesus' statement makes perfect sense to me; otherwise His threat seems to be a rather hollow one.
In my study of this matter, I have found that gehenna as a metaphor for the place of judgement for the wicked was common at the time of Jesus, going back to approximately 200BC, and appears to be the sense in which Jesus used the term, which would have been readily undestood by His hearers.
Gehenna - Literal or Figurative?
Re: Gehenna - Literal or Figurative?
Maybe, but I am not so sure.
It is, of course, the case that the rabbis, a couple of centuries before Christ, began to use the word Gehenna as a metaphor for the final place of judgment for the wicked. However, since they could not have gotten this idea from anything revealed in the Old Testament, they either got it by direct inspiration (during a period when God was not inspiring any prophets), or else they got the idea from the cultural influences around them (Egyptian and Greek, primarily)—or else they just made it up out of their own imaginations
Jeremiah (7:31 and ch.19) spoke of the actual Valley of Hinnom (Gr. Gehenna), using it as an emblem of the horrendous fates of the Jerusalemites in his day, who, he suggested, could look forward to being cast into the Valley of Hinnom, if they remained unrepentant—that is, they would be slaughtered by the Babylonians at the capture of Jerusalem. These oracles are thought, by R.K. Harrison, the great evangelical Old Testament scholar, to date from about 608 BC. This would be 24 years before the fulfillment in 586 BC, during which interval many of his listeners would no doubt have died without experiencing the threatened judgment.
The question for us, in trying to determine Jesus' meaning when using the term is: Would Jesus more likely use an established Old Testamernt image the way the Old Testament used it, or the way the rabbis in the second century BC had begun to use it? Each must make his own judgment on that point.
I think Jesus' words to the Pharisees were addressed to them as a class, not as individuals. It is clear that not every Pharisee was guilty of the hypocrisy of which He accused the group, nor would they all necessarily suffer the threatened condemnation in Gehenna. Like Jeremiah's words, I think Jesus' threats were to apostate Judaism as a whole, represented among His listeners in certain individuals like the Pharisees. Even if we speculate that the average person lived 45 years, there is no escaping the fact that Jesus expected some of the adults living in His day to see the events of AD70, and placed the destruction of Jerusalem within the boundaries of His own generation (Matt.23:33-36; 24:34).
It is, of course, the case that the rabbis, a couple of centuries before Christ, began to use the word Gehenna as a metaphor for the final place of judgment for the wicked. However, since they could not have gotten this idea from anything revealed in the Old Testament, they either got it by direct inspiration (during a period when God was not inspiring any prophets), or else they got the idea from the cultural influences around them (Egyptian and Greek, primarily)—or else they just made it up out of their own imaginations
Jeremiah (7:31 and ch.19) spoke of the actual Valley of Hinnom (Gr. Gehenna), using it as an emblem of the horrendous fates of the Jerusalemites in his day, who, he suggested, could look forward to being cast into the Valley of Hinnom, if they remained unrepentant—that is, they would be slaughtered by the Babylonians at the capture of Jerusalem. These oracles are thought, by R.K. Harrison, the great evangelical Old Testament scholar, to date from about 608 BC. This would be 24 years before the fulfillment in 586 BC, during which interval many of his listeners would no doubt have died without experiencing the threatened judgment.
The question for us, in trying to determine Jesus' meaning when using the term is: Would Jesus more likely use an established Old Testamernt image the way the Old Testament used it, or the way the rabbis in the second century BC had begun to use it? Each must make his own judgment on that point.
I think Jesus' words to the Pharisees were addressed to them as a class, not as individuals. It is clear that not every Pharisee was guilty of the hypocrisy of which He accused the group, nor would they all necessarily suffer the threatened condemnation in Gehenna. Like Jeremiah's words, I think Jesus' threats were to apostate Judaism as a whole, represented among His listeners in certain individuals like the Pharisees. Even if we speculate that the average person lived 45 years, there is no escaping the fact that Jesus expected some of the adults living in His day to see the events of AD70, and placed the destruction of Jerusalem within the boundaries of His own generation (Matt.23:33-36; 24:34).
-
DanielGracely
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:43 pm
Re: Gehenna - Literal or Figurative?
I agree that Jesus' words to the Pharisees were directed to them as a class, not to them as individuals. But further, I personally don’t see this question about Gehenna as necessarily an either/or one between literal or metaphorical meaning. That is, why can't it be both? Indeed, the more I study Scripture the more I see possibilities of polyvalent meaning. And it seems to me a polyvalent interpretation is appropriate in the matter of Gehenna, and that Jesus was referring (1) literally, to the rebellious Jerusalemites being cast into the valley of Gehenna in 70 A.D., and (2) metaphorically, to unbelievers being cast into the Lake of Fire in the final judgment.Steve wrote:
The question for us, in trying to determine Jesus' meaning when using the term is: Would Jesus more likely use an established Old Testamernt image the way the Old Testamernt used it, or the way the rabbis in the second century BC had begun to use it? Each must make his own judgment on that point.
I think Jesus' words to the Pharisees were addressed to them as a class, not as individuals. It is clear that not every Pharisee was guilty of the hypocrisy of which He accused the group, nor would they all necessarily suffer the threatened condemnation in Gehenna. Like Jeremiah's words, I think Jesus' threats were to apostate Judaism as a whole, represented among His listeners in certain individuals like the Pharisees....
I’m not an expert in eschatology, but from what little I’ve heard and learned about certain preterists (from Hanegraaf mostly), possibilities for polyvalent interpretations seem to be pretty well off their radar. Yet imagine, e.g., if the book of Hebrews had never talked about Levi paying tithes while yet in the loins of Abraham, but then someone, for the very first time in history, wrote about that idea on The Narrow Path. Wouldn’t we all think he was a little nuts? “C’mon!” we might say. “Even Ishmael was yet in Abraham’s loins at that point, too! And almost certainly Ishmael never paid tithes, a man like a wild donkey, a man whose hand was against every man’s, and every man’s hand against his! So aren’t you being a little selective!”
Certainly, then, if such an example of Levi paying tithes while yet in Abraham’s loins exists at a polyvalent level of meaning, many such polyvalent meanings in Scripture must exist that remain unexplored. Yet doubtless someone will say, “But we must never go beyond the examples Scripture itself gives us.” Really? Why? For I have found that even Ps. 51:5 at a polyvalent level of meaning may be understood to be a prophecy about the bringing forth of the sin offering,* Christ, which, as history subsequently proved, was fulfilled in the event prompting the famous “Ecce Homo” statement uttered by Pilate, a thousand years after David wrote the psalm.
So imo the death-knell objection of critics against polyvalent meanings robs us of a richer understanding of Scripture.
This is the main problem I have with non-traditional interpretations of Gehenna/hell, and of preterism. It seems that layered possibilities of meaning have been lost. For Hanegraaf it must be (if the reader, according to Hanegraaf, is to read the Scripture for all it's worth) prophetic hyperbole that the moon could be turned to blood. But wouldn't we all have thought it equally ridiculous to speak of the Nile River’s turning to blood, had the Scriptures never told us about it? Or is God able only to turn water into blood, but not dust?
And so I try not to dismiss claims for polyvalent meanings too readily. In fact, I once came across a statement about the either/ or approach in an old, eschatological pamphlet (whose author and title escape me) that made more sense to me than any other statement I've read on eschatology. If I remember it correctly, the author pointed out that even as ancient readers of the Old Testament were often confused because of the two intended aspects of (what turned out to be) the First Coming of the Anointed One, which seemed on the surface to contradict each other—that of the Suffering Messiah, and that of the Reigning Messiah—so too, do readers seem confused by the N.T. because they feel forced to choose between Rapture or No Rapture, when, in fact (argues the author), there is a two-fold aspect of the Second Coming of Christ, i.e., the Rapture, and the Return of Christ to the Earth. In other words, the pattern in the N.T. is found in the Old.
As I read more comments on The Narrow Path, I realize pre-trib/pre-mil is apparently not in vogue here. And I don't consider myself a great defender of that view, though I think I agree with it. But I feel at least compelled to repeat that the more I study Scripture, the more polyvalent meanings seem apropos for certain passages. And I think Gehenna/hell is one of them.
Daniel Gracely
*note: in Hebrew the word for "sin" and "sin offering" is the same.
Re: Gehenna - Literal or Figurative?
Hi Daniel,
I do not deny that there are some biblical prophecies which have double fulfillments—but certainly not all prophecies do, and we cannot manufacture such things whenever we could use them to fit a given paradigm that we like. I think that we would need a good reason to postulate additional meanings to the obvious or primary interpretation of a passage.
There is no double meaning that I can see in Abraham paying tithes to Melchisedek. The writer simply recounts a historical event, and draws from it the natural implication that Melchisedek was thereby acknowledged to be greater than Abraham (and, by extension, to all who were in Abraham at the time, including the Levitical priests). He makes no other point than this from the story.
His observation is no more remarkable than if one would say that the removal of the Spirit from Saul and the placement of the same upon David indicated God's choice that the kingship would pass from Saul's house to that of David, and that the Messiah would thus come from David, rather than Saul. The writer draws what he considers to be obvious and indisputable implications from the event, as we might draw correct implications from any biblical story, where they exist.
It would be okay with me if the prophecies that had a fulfillment in AD70 were to have an additional fulfillment in the end times. I simply do not find any biblical case to be made for postulating such secondary fulfillments. I am not prepared to make them up out of whole cloth. This may be the reason that you find few preterists suggesting additional fulfillments.
The case is a little different with Gehenna. There actually was an established rabbinic use of the term which applied it to an afterlife judgment of sinners. Therefore, one possibility is that Jesus used the term in that familiar manner in speaking to His hearers. This is reasonable, until we begin to ask the relevant question: "If Jesus agreed with the rabbinic ideas about hell, where did the rabbis get their insight into the truth of the matter 200 years before He came and spoke on it, when the Old Testament never presented that concept?" I do not mind if somebody comes up with a good answer, but, at this point, it presents an obstacle to my accepting the thesis that rabbinical views (of seemingly human origin) anticipated or informed those of Jesus. I would not have the same objection to Old Testament usage informing that of Jesus.
I do not deny that there are some biblical prophecies which have double fulfillments—but certainly not all prophecies do, and we cannot manufacture such things whenever we could use them to fit a given paradigm that we like. I think that we would need a good reason to postulate additional meanings to the obvious or primary interpretation of a passage.
There is no double meaning that I can see in Abraham paying tithes to Melchisedek. The writer simply recounts a historical event, and draws from it the natural implication that Melchisedek was thereby acknowledged to be greater than Abraham (and, by extension, to all who were in Abraham at the time, including the Levitical priests). He makes no other point than this from the story.
His observation is no more remarkable than if one would say that the removal of the Spirit from Saul and the placement of the same upon David indicated God's choice that the kingship would pass from Saul's house to that of David, and that the Messiah would thus come from David, rather than Saul. The writer draws what he considers to be obvious and indisputable implications from the event, as we might draw correct implications from any biblical story, where they exist.
It would be okay with me if the prophecies that had a fulfillment in AD70 were to have an additional fulfillment in the end times. I simply do not find any biblical case to be made for postulating such secondary fulfillments. I am not prepared to make them up out of whole cloth. This may be the reason that you find few preterists suggesting additional fulfillments.
The case is a little different with Gehenna. There actually was an established rabbinic use of the term which applied it to an afterlife judgment of sinners. Therefore, one possibility is that Jesus used the term in that familiar manner in speaking to His hearers. This is reasonable, until we begin to ask the relevant question: "If Jesus agreed with the rabbinic ideas about hell, where did the rabbis get their insight into the truth of the matter 200 years before He came and spoke on it, when the Old Testament never presented that concept?" I do not mind if somebody comes up with a good answer, but, at this point, it presents an obstacle to my accepting the thesis that rabbinical views (of seemingly human origin) anticipated or informed those of Jesus. I would not have the same objection to Old Testament usage informing that of Jesus.
Re: Gehenna - Literal or Figurative?
Another possibility is that Jesus merely used the rabbinical understanding that Gehenna related to the judgment of sinners in order to warn the Pharisees about the consequences of their way of life.
It seems that He used a similar device in relating the story of Dives and Lazarus and persons whose spirits went to Hades after death. Whereas the meaning of "Hades" is normally "the grave", where people go after death, the concept of consciousness after death in Hades was apparently believed by His Jewish contemporaries. The Jewish historian Josephus wrote a detailed description of going to Hades in his Discourse in Hades (if, indeed, Josephus wrote "the Discourse"; it is to him that it is attributed). It seems that Jesus used this commonly believed view of the after life to teach the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, that the rich would suffer painful consequences of their riches, whereas the poor would be comforted, and also that even if it were possible for someone to return from the dead, and warn the wicked, they would not believe.
It seems that He used a similar device in relating the story of Dives and Lazarus and persons whose spirits went to Hades after death. Whereas the meaning of "Hades" is normally "the grave", where people go after death, the concept of consciousness after death in Hades was apparently believed by His Jewish contemporaries. The Jewish historian Josephus wrote a detailed description of going to Hades in his Discourse in Hades (if, indeed, Josephus wrote "the Discourse"; it is to him that it is attributed). It seems that Jesus used this commonly believed view of the after life to teach the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, that the rich would suffer painful consequences of their riches, whereas the poor would be comforted, and also that even if it were possible for someone to return from the dead, and warn the wicked, they would not believe.
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: Gehenna - Literal or Figurative?
IMHO since Jesus did not come to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfill it he would have not changed the meanings of words he was quoting from the OT which were inspired. I think "gehenna" would still mean destruction or judgment and hades or sheol would still mean grave and i don't think calling your brother "raca" means eternal hellfire punishment but means subject to judgment.
Re: Gehenna - Literal or Figurative?
Paidion wrote:
You seem to be implying here that Jesus may have used stories that he knew not be literally true in order to make a point. I dont see a problem with that, and I think you may be right about the Lazarus story.
To me, it would be like Jesus using the story of Peter and the Wolf in order to make a point about telling the truth. His use of the story should not be used as evidence that the story is literally true.
TK
Hi Paidion--Another possibility is that Jesus merely used the rabbinical understanding that Gehenna related to the judgment of sinners in order to warn the Pharisees about the consequences of their way of life.
You seem to be implying here that Jesus may have used stories that he knew not be literally true in order to make a point. I dont see a problem with that, and I think you may be right about the Lazarus story.
To me, it would be like Jesus using the story of Peter and the Wolf in order to make a point about telling the truth. His use of the story should not be used as evidence that the story is literally true.
TK
-
DanielGracely
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:43 pm
Re: Gehenna - Literal or Figurative?
Steve,
I hope to reply in some detail before very long. Exhausted from preparing for yard sale this weekend for my in-laws who have moved. In the meantime, can you explain what you meant by:
I hope to reply in some detail before very long. Exhausted from preparing for yard sale this weekend for my in-laws who have moved. In the meantime, can you explain what you meant by:
At first I wondered if there was a typo here. What do you mean by "whole cloth"?I am not prepared to make them up out of whole cloth.
Re: Gehenna - Literal or Figurative?
DanielGracely,
I'm a big fan of garage sales! Where and when is it? Lots of stuff I use regularly I haven't bought in a store in the last twenty years or so.
Homer
I'm a big fan of garage sales! Where and when is it? Lots of stuff I use regularly I haven't bought in a store in the last twenty years or so.
Homer
Re: Gehenna - Literal or Figurative?
Hi Steve,
I had considered the question, in my study of gehenna, whether Jesus might have "learned" the teaching of gehenna as the place of post death punishment of the wicked and I had rejected that idea as preposterous. I do think however, as others have suggested, Jesus used a common idea to make his threat that he directed to the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23. Today we might do a similar thing if asked by someone how they might go to heaven when they die. There is a common understanding that heaven is "up where God is, where good people go when they die" and we would probably answer their question without getting into teachings about a disembodied interim place, a new heaven and earth, or other details of doctrine. We would treat heaven as a sort of generalization of that future state of bliss, and not confuse the more important question. And thus I believe Jesus' threat was readily understood, where I doubt it would have been if He had in mind the actual valley of Hinnom. I suspect those who heard the threat immediately made that connection to the common rabbinic teaching.
In my study of Jesus use of gehenna I have seen that He always used it as a threat or warning without going into any detail about what the term meant, just as would be expected if He thought his audience would understand what He meant. And it is much easier to believe they understood it to be a reference to the place of future punishment. Consider another example:
Matthew 5:29 (New King James Version)
29. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell (gehenna).
Now, if the Valley of Hinnom was meant, how would Jesus' statement be understood? Who, having lust of the eye for a woman (the immediate context), would be detected for what was in their hearts, and by whom, God or man? Men could not discern this and if God determined to punish them in the Valley of Hinnom, how would we expect God to motivate the Romans (or anyone else) to do it?
In Jeremiah's prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and slaughter of the people we have a conquerer with their own wicked interest in what they did. And God took credit for it as a judgement on the people.
In Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Mount we have a warning that would be readily understood by his hearers if gehenna is understood as a metaphor, both by those who heard Jesus say it and those today who read it. To me it is like Paul's warning in 1 Corinthians 10 where He uses the story of God's judgement of the Israelites, as they wandered in the desert, as a warning to the Corinthians and us - that we will not make it to the real promised land if we do not remain faithful. Many of the actual events in the Old Testament have a spiritual application in the New Testament. Another example that comes readily to mind is Paul's reference in Galatians 4:21-31 to the real event of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar where Paul makes spiritual application of an historical event.
I have concluded that all Jesus' uses of gehenna were figurative; as such they are all easy of comprehension and otherwise, if literal, they are obscure.
I had considered the question, in my study of gehenna, whether Jesus might have "learned" the teaching of gehenna as the place of post death punishment of the wicked and I had rejected that idea as preposterous. I do think however, as others have suggested, Jesus used a common idea to make his threat that he directed to the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23. Today we might do a similar thing if asked by someone how they might go to heaven when they die. There is a common understanding that heaven is "up where God is, where good people go when they die" and we would probably answer their question without getting into teachings about a disembodied interim place, a new heaven and earth, or other details of doctrine. We would treat heaven as a sort of generalization of that future state of bliss, and not confuse the more important question. And thus I believe Jesus' threat was readily understood, where I doubt it would have been if He had in mind the actual valley of Hinnom. I suspect those who heard the threat immediately made that connection to the common rabbinic teaching.
In my study of Jesus use of gehenna I have seen that He always used it as a threat or warning without going into any detail about what the term meant, just as would be expected if He thought his audience would understand what He meant. And it is much easier to believe they understood it to be a reference to the place of future punishment. Consider another example:
Matthew 5:29 (New King James Version)
29. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell (gehenna).
Now, if the Valley of Hinnom was meant, how would Jesus' statement be understood? Who, having lust of the eye for a woman (the immediate context), would be detected for what was in their hearts, and by whom, God or man? Men could not discern this and if God determined to punish them in the Valley of Hinnom, how would we expect God to motivate the Romans (or anyone else) to do it?
In Jeremiah's prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and slaughter of the people we have a conquerer with their own wicked interest in what they did. And God took credit for it as a judgement on the people.
In Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Mount we have a warning that would be readily understood by his hearers if gehenna is understood as a metaphor, both by those who heard Jesus say it and those today who read it. To me it is like Paul's warning in 1 Corinthians 10 where He uses the story of God's judgement of the Israelites, as they wandered in the desert, as a warning to the Corinthians and us - that we will not make it to the real promised land if we do not remain faithful. Many of the actual events in the Old Testament have a spiritual application in the New Testament. Another example that comes readily to mind is Paul's reference in Galatians 4:21-31 to the real event of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar where Paul makes spiritual application of an historical event.
I have concluded that all Jesus' uses of gehenna were figurative; as such they are all easy of comprehension and otherwise, if literal, they are obscure.