gehenna and mind/body dualism

[jeremiah]

good evening y'all,

this question is for any who disbelieve gehenna to be used in the new testament as a metaphor to describe the same eschatological end as the lake of fire. and this while also believing themselves to have a soul or spirit that somehow separates from their body at death, and continues to somehow exist beyond death.

since gehenna is the word translated hell here,

matthew 10:28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

if gehenna is being used as the literal valley of hinnom and/or the 70 ad judgment of jerusalem, how then do you understand the "both soul and body" part here? doesn't such a view of gehenna then undermine otherwise accepted ideas regarding a soul by substance dualists? how does a soul get destroyed in the 70 ad destruction, or rather in a smoldering heap in the valley of hinnom?

i realize it might just be me misrepresenting what such a view of gehenna entails, but that's why i posted this, any thoughts?

grace and peace...

[steve7150]

if gehenna is being used as the literal valley of hinnom and/or the 70 ad judgment of jerusalem, how then do you understand the "both soul and body" part here? doesn't such a view of gehenna then undermine otherwise accepted ideas regarding a soul by substance dualists? how does a soul get destroyed in the 70 ad destruction, or rather in a smoldering heap in the valley of hinnom?









I think Steve G answered Homer about this and said he takes this to mean complete destruction. To me if it said "spirit and body" i might take it differently but my understanding is that the soul is our mind and thoughts which i take as still part of our physical being, so "complete destruction" makes sense to me. Plus Jesus is talking to Pharisees i believe, and in the OT which is their bible, there is little if anything said about a person beyond his physicality.

[RICHinCHRIST]

These are the only times the phrase "soul and body" are used in the whole Bible. Interestingly, Isaiah was prophesying about a judgment to come upon Assyria in 701 BC where The Lord sent a plague and a fire (isa 10:16) to destroy their "soul and body"(fulfillment in isa 37:36). so I think total destruction is the idea here, not literally their souls also being judged. So was Jesus more likely to use the phrase like Isaiah, or refer to Gehenna like Jeremiah, or did he use both terms like a dualist traditionalist or annihilationist?

Listen to the New Living Translation on Isaiah 10:18-- "The Lord will consume Assyria's glory like a fire consumes a forest in a fruitful land; it will waste away like sick people in a plague". Soul and body is not even mentioned. The translators must have understood the expression to mean something altogether different than a soul being judged after death. unfortunately, they are not consistent with that train of thought in Matthew 10:28. But I think Jesus was familiar with this phrase from Isaiah and was borrowing it to describe the judgment of Gehenna at AD70.

[steve]

Hi Guys,

I agree with Rich, and have a chapter in my new book discussing this point.

It is true that "soul and body" seems to mean "completely" (interesting the order here, rather than "body and soul," which would be chronological, if this was talking about a postmortem destruction of the soul). It is also clear that this "complete" destruction is contrasted with the killing of the body alone.

I believe that a judgment beyond death could well be implied in the statement, but it does not specifically refer to such. To lose only your body, while dying faithful to God (which is what Jesus is referring to when He talks about having people kill your body) is no tragedy. All people will die, and to die faithful is what it means to be an overcomer (Rev.12:11). This is good. In fact, it is an honor.

However, to die in the holocaust of AD 70 is no mere death. It is death under the judgment of God. There are, no doubt, postmortem ramifications, but this needn't be the meaning of the "soul" being destroyed in Matthew 10:28. Such a death is a most dishonorable end, and results in eternal shame and contempt (Dan.12:2; Isa.66:24). In an honor/shame-based culture, this would mean more than even the threat of some kind of physical pain experienced as punishment.

In the threat of having "soul and body" destroyed, the word "soul" would probably be associated more with one's reputation than with his non-material aspect. If a Jew in Jesus' day would die as a martyr for Jesus, his body would be destroyed (temporarily), but his memory would be eternally honored before God and the godly. If he would reject Christ, and suffer in the judgment of Jerusalem, his name and reputation would go down in infamy, destroyed for all time. This, I believe, is the threat in view.

[Homer]

so I think total destruction is the idea here, not literally their souls also being judged.

Matthew 10:28, New King James Version (NKJV)
28. And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

If destroying body and soul in hell (gehenna; whatever that means to you) is something more than death of the physical body, which men can do, but is not post resurrection judgement, what is it beyond physical death that should be feared?

I would suggest reading the entire passage, chapter 10, and consider what Jesus is saying. Then perhaps you will see the answer. He is sending the disciples out, warning them of persecution. They may be scourged or even killed, but if they endure to the end they will be saved. Saved from sin? No, this salvation is post death - what is it they are saved from? I will give you a hint, a freebie. It is he_l. Then note that Jesus tells them that if they turn away and deny Him He will deny them before His Father in heaven - that is what will result in something worse than what men can do.

[jeremiah]

hello,

rich:

So was Jesus more likely to use the phrase like Isaiah, or refer to Gehenna like Jeremiah, or did he use both terms like a dualist traditionalist or annihilationist?

no brother that's not the question. am i mistaken? i was under the impression that even most christian universalists see gehenna as being used as a metaphor, for precisely what homer just discussed in his post.

steve, i agree with you that jesus is speaking of total destruction of the person, but soul somehow being understood as one's reputation? that i think is the farthest i've ever seen semantic domain stretched. i think you broke it.

grace and peace to y'all.

[steve]

but soul somehow being understood as one's reputation? that i think is the farthest i've ever seen semantic domain stretched.

Really? To my mind, a person's "soul" is best understood as a reference to the whole of a person's self or identity (e.g., 1 Peter 3:20). This is also the way the concept of one's "name" was generally understood. I don't see any difference between a person's "name" and his "reputation." It seems to me these ideas are essentially interchangeable throughout scripture.

[Homer]

Steve,
I am not following your thinking. As I stated, look at the whole context of Matthew 10:28. Jesus warns them about persecution, warns them of the danger of falling away, warns them that if they deny Him He will deny them before the Father in heaven, and we are supposed to think Jesus, who repeatedly chastised the Jews for their excessive desire to be honored by men, would warn them that God would not only bring about their death but would also cause them to lose honor?

I think the problem you have with the failure to see Jesus' figurative use of gehenna as a threat is that you do not see the distinction between warnings regarding individual personal sins and warnings about the multi-generational sins of the Jewish nation. Setting aside Matthew 24, look at what Luke wrote:


Luke 11:47-51, New King James Version (NKJV)

47. Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. 48. In fact, you bear witness that you approve the deeds of your fathers; for they indeed killed them, and you build their tombs. 49. Therefore the wisdom of God also said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and persecute,’ 50. that the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world may be required of this generation, 51. from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation.

Luke informs us that the destruction of 70AD was because of the cumulative sins of many generations of Jews. Now consider the following use of gehenna (hell) by Jesus:

Mark 9:43-47, New King James Version (NKJV)

43. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell (gehenna), into the fire that shall never be quenched— 44. where
‘Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.’

45. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into hell (gehenna), into the fire that shall never be quenched— 46. where

‘Their worm does not die,
And the fire is not quenched.’

47. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell (gehenna) fire—

Here Jesus relates personal sins to the hand that steals, the feet that hasten to do evil, eyes that lust and covet. The threat of Gehenna here is not about 70AD, it is about individual, personal sins, present in every generation in all times and places. Jerusalem was not destroyed because of these sins.Gehenna here is a figure of speech for hell, and is thus correctly translated in our most bibles.

[steve]

Hi Homer,

I am aware of your take on Gehenna. I simply disagree. If you have studied the matter more, or with more of an open mind, than I have, then you probably are correct, and I am incorrect. In my studies, I have attempted to analyze not only all the passages you cite, but also all other references to Gehenna, as well as Jesus' general teaching about the dangers of His times, the Old Testament usage of Gehenna, the rabbinic teachings, and everything else relevant to the subject that I can get my hands on. I have been mistaken before, and could be in this as well. However, the points you bring up have not introduced any reason for me to doubt what I have understood Gehenna to mean.

As for Mark 9, I don't think the mention of the hand or the eye are referring to individual sins, like theft, as you suggest. How, for example, does one's foot cause him to sin (Mark 9:45)? By kicking someone? I believe these examples (hand, foot, eye) are all cases of hyperbole, meaning, "If anything should cause you to 'sin' (that is, to reject God's Kingdom inaugurated by Christ), you would do better to part with that thing than with the Kingdom. Is that thing valuable to you? As valuable as an eye? A hand? A foot? Be rid of it! To enter the Kingdom and avoid Gehenna is worth any sacrifice whatever." In all likelihood, there would never be a reason literally to cut off a hand, foot or eye to avoid sinning. However, the things that one must actually cut off (which may be treasured as much as body parts) would be certain relationships, possessions, habits, ambitions, etc.

I do not expect you to come around and approve of this interpretation. I believe you are pretty invested in your views on this. Be blessed!

[steve7150]

no brother that's not the question. am i mistaken? i was under the impression that even most christian universalists see gehenna as being used as a metaphor, for precisely what homer just discussed in his post.









You may be right but the CU would emphasize what the purpose of gehenna or the lake of fire is, "for everyone will be salted with fire" (Mark 9.49) which defines what happens to folks that end up in gehenns AKA lake of fire. They end up getting purified of sin. It won't be a day at the beach but it has a purpose which may be very difficult but is ultimately beneficial to the sinner, to the saved and most of all beneficial to God because he gets what he wants and deserves, which is every last sheep.