gehenna and mind/body dualism

[jeremiah]

Hello steve,

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.

I agree that "name" and "reputation" are essentially the same ideas. But to move from "soul" to "identity" and then arrive at "name" looks like equivocation by way of confusion of catorgories. I also agree "soul" is referring to the whole of a person's self. But while identity in the above quote appears a nice transitional form to one's reputation, 1 Peter 3:20 just says that eight souls were saved. I still can't see how soul begets name. Peter is retelling a story about how eight people were saved from the flood. Those people had names and reputations, but these were a specific consequence of being souls, not synonymous with them.

While nephesh and psuche are used throughout the scriptures in a flexible way, I think their usage retains a specificity of pertaining to life. Never do they lose their relationship to either being a living creature or having the capacity to be so. What you're suggesting seems like: if two people walk up to a road and see tread marks left from a car's tires, and one asks the other, "What is that on the road?" Then the other answers, "That is a car." A name or reputation is something a soul may acquire among other souls, and after his death it still be retained by them or others. While moderns may say something like, "she lives on in our memory," or "in our hearts," regarding her reputation and name, I don't recall the scriptures ever using "soul" in this way.

Will you demonstrate where you find such an exchangeability between "soul" and "name/reputation" elsewhere in scripture?

Grace and peace be with you.

[steve]

Hi Jeremiah,

I did not suggest that "reputation" would be a good translation of psuche. What I wrote was: "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." I also said I agreed with what Rich had written, that the destruction of "soul and body" was a mere idiom for total destruction.

But in what way is the destruction of which Jesus warns worse than the mere destruction of the body (with which He contrasts it)? Why mention "soul and body" (that is, "total destruction") if it adds nothing to the mere experience of physically dying. My suggestion was that the "totalness" of the destruction goes beyond physical death in that it is death in infamy. I mentioned that two Old Testament passages, which I take to be describing the same thing, use words like "shame" and "everlasting contempt."

I was not arguing for a one-to-one correspondence between the words "soul" and "reputation"—nor that "reputation" is another word for "soul." I was saying that "soul and body" was an idiom, and that the use of the idiom must be justified by something additional to the mere destruction of the body. What is so "total" about the fate Jesus is warning against? It may be that He is referring to the eternal contempt and infamy associated with coming to that particular end.

[Homer]

Steve,

Earlier you wrote:

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

Of course eyes, hands, and feet do not cause a person to sin, but they are representative of something. In his book "The New Testament World - Insights from Cultural Anthropology" Bruce Malina explains that "eyes-heart" relate to emotion fused thought, "mouth-ears" to self-expressive thought, and "hands-feet" to purposeful activity.

An example from Malina is the text in dispute:

You have heard it said you shall not commit adultery [hands-feet]. But I say to you that every one that looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart [eyes-heart]. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better to lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

It is about one's innermost self and outward activity; purposeful and personal sin. Nothing to do with national sin and destruction of Jerusalem.

[steve]

Hi Homer,

I am reading here a man's assertion. I am not seeing an argument.

[jeremiah]

Hello Steve,

I did not suggest that "reputation" would be a good translation of psuche.

I know you didn't. I was trying to be careful with my wording, taking that for granted.

But in what way is the destruction of which Jesus warns worse than the mere destruction of the body (with which He contrasts it)?... My suggestion was that the "totalness" of the destruction goes beyond physical death in that it is death in infamy. I mentioned that two Old Testament passages, which I take to be describing the same thing, use words like "shame" and "everlasting contempt."

It's this death in infamy connection that I don't think can be demonstrated. I disagree, yet think i follow your thinking on Dan 12 and Isaiah 66, just not why it would be legitimate to consider the destuction of"soul and body" a cross reference to being an abhorrence to all flesh, or being raised to everlasting contempt. Wouldn't you need to show that the other uses of this phrase (soul and body) mean to communicate something other than a totality of the whole person? (i.e., "death in infamy")

...Why mention "soul and body" (that is, "total destruction") if it adds nothing to the mere experience of physically dying....

How would one be certain this is the proper line of questioning? Why wonder beyond total destruction of the person? Whether it be as a conditionalist, or a reconciliationist, or indeed a traditionalist, might understand such destruction.

Grace and peace to you Steve.

[steve]

Hi Jeremiah,

You wrote:

Wouldn't you need to show that the other uses of this phrase (soul and body) mean to communicate something other than a totality of the whole person? (i.e., "death in infamy")

The problem we have is in the fewness of occurrences of this phrase in scripture, from which to draw some normative meaning. As Rich pointed out earlier in this thread, the phrase occurs only two times outside the passage that we are considering. It seems, also, that the phrase does not have the same meaning in these two places. The first certainly does not speak of "total destruction," but, in all likelihood, something more like "total grief":

Have mercy on me, O LORD, for I am in trouble; My eye wastes away with grief, Yes, my soul and my body! (Psalms 31:9 NKJV)

The only other occurrence is that in which the wiping out of an entire army or society is referred to:

And it will consume the glory of [Assyria's] forest and of his fruitful field, Both soul and body; And they will be as when a sick man wastes away. (Isaiah 10:18 NKJV)

Interestingly, this sends mixed signals. On one hand, it does not seem to describe a rapid or sudden destruction, because it is likened to the wasting away of a sick man, which is usually a gradual process of deterioration of health. On the other hand, the burning spoken of is said to occur "in one day." Go figure!

One thing that both Old Testament passages have in common is their reference to the phenomenon of "wasting away." To speak of the "soul...wasting away," may be the equivalent of the somewhat more common idiom which speaks of the "heart...melt[ing]" which refers to the losing of one's courage (Josh.2:11; 14:8; 2 Sam.17:10; Isa.13:7; 19:1; Ezek.21:7).

I have not sorted out all the possible meanings of the phrase in Matthew 10:28, but the other occurrences certainly do not encourage either a literal interpretation or an idea of a second destruction of the immaterial nature subsequently to physical death.

[Singalphile]

I kind of lost track of who was arguing for what. Those other verses with body/soul are interesting. Seems like it always refers to totality/completeness to me.

Anyway, my question: Does anyone know of any actual historical, recorded connection between gehenna and 70 AD. Maybe in Josephus or something?

Thank you in advance.

[Homer]

Steve,

Supposing you are correct that all references to Gehenna are in regard to 70AD, then it would seem the warnings in regard to such are inapplicable to us. You have mentioned the society at that time was honor/shame based (still the case today), which is decidedly not the case with our western culture. Our past president, in the Clinton/Lewinsky affair, vividly demonstrated that with his behavior. Seeing we have no Gehenna and the honor concept means little to nothing in our society, what's the relevance of Matthew 10:28 to us? Do you see the warnings in Matthew 7:15-27 as also relating to 70AD? What in the text of the sermon would make them the same or different than those earlier warnings in chapter 5 regarding Gehenna, i. e. what do you use to determine whether the sin/punishment is personal or national and peculiar to the Jews?

[steve]

Hi Homer,

You asked:

Seeing we have no Gehenna and the honor concept means little to nothing in our society, what's the relevance of Matthew 18:28 to us?

I looked at Matthew 18:28 and did not find anything relevant to judgment, so I am assuming this was a typo and you are asking about Matthew10:28. Its application to us would be of the same sort as the application to us that might be made to any of hundreds of Old Testament prophecies about the destruction of ancient societies. They tell us that God is a God who judges, and they tell us many of the kinds of behaviors that bring such judgments upon societies. It is not uncommon to hear Christians applying Old Testament judgment prophecies to America (where parallels exist).

More than this, though, is the fact that fulfilled prophecy is a proof of inspiration. When Jesus, for example, said, "All these things will come upon this generation," we find the most precise prediction and fulfillment of any prophecy in the New Testament, and more precise than 99% of Old Testament prophecies. When a prophet predicts disaster, and the disaster comes (especially when it comes within the very timeframe predicted) this is one of the best evidences of the divine origin of that prophet's message that we could ask for.

Do you see the warnings in Matthew 7:15-27 as also relating to 70AD?

In the past I have not, though it is worthy of consideration. The wording is mighty close to that of Luke 13:24-27, which specifically mentions a judgment upon those who have eaten and drunk with Jesus, and in whose streets Jesus preached. Clearly, these people are those of His own generation. Of course, the question is whether He is speaking here of the impending judgment upon them, or a final eschatological judgment which will include all, including them.

what do you use to determine whether the sin/punishment is personal or national and peculiar to the Jews?

I use whatever the context of the cross-references would appear to demand. Sometimes, it seems, we don't have enough to go on so as to allow certainty.

[Homer]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your reply. Having read about the honor/shame concept I am not sure if it holds for the destruction of Jerusalem. The way I understand it, Saddam Hussein would be an example of someone who was punished by execution but nevertheless retained his honor by remaining defiant to the end, as it seems the ancient Jews were. At Masada they never yielded, but committed mass suicide and are considered heroic to this day, not dishonored.

And would the idea of dishonorable burial mean anything in our western culture? Bill Clinton showed in the Lewinsky thing that honor/shame means little in the west. On the other hand Saddam Hussein was reportedly offered the opportunity to go into exile with great wealth and refused, I'm sure because he would have lost honor. In Malina's book he lists the proper responses to a challenge to one's honor as "scorn, disdain, and contempt" which seems to be the response of Hussein right up to his execution, so I am not sure he lost honor in the eyes of his followers.

Regarding Jesus' teachings, the Sermon on the Mount in particular, when you say the threats of Gehenna are about AD70 you are removing the threat of any particular punishment from the crime. When the law of Moses was in force the gentiles were never charged with not following the Law. The penalties were inapplicable to them. God dealt with them in other ways. If the penalties, threats, and warnings in the SOM are inapplicable to us and, like the gentiles during the era of the Law, we are subject to some other fate for our sins, it would seem to lend support to the dispensationalist idea that the SOM was for the Jews and our rule of life is found in the epistles.