Gehenna and the Rabbis
Gehenna and the Rabbis
Steve, you had a caller ask about the doctrine of hell and you mentioned that the early Rabbis (pre-Christ) used the word "Gehenna" to refer to endless torment or "hell." I had never heard this but I know you are in the process of writing a book on the subject and I'm curious to know how those of Jesus' day (and before) interpreted the word Gehenna. Like you, I'd always taken the word to refer to the literal Valley of Hinnom that is often used by the prophets - and Jesus - to indicate judgement on a city, not an individual soul after death. Could you shed more light on this, please?
Re: Gehenna and the Rabbis
Yes, the rabbinic literature gives many examples of the rabbis innovating a peculiar use of the word gehenna to mean a place of either temporary or endless punishment for the wicked after the last judgment. Some authorities believe the rabbis adopted this concept (as a replacement for the sheol taught in the Old Testament) from the Zoroastrians, due to the influence of their Persian overlords.
There was not unanimity among the rabbis as to the ultimate fate of the wicked. Some thought that sinners who had not led others into sin would go to gehenna for only twelve months, as a purging experience, after which they would go to the throne of God (Babylonian Talmud RH64). Thus, "[a]ll that descend into Gehenna shall come up again, with the exception of three classes of men: those who have committed adultery, or shamed their neighbors, or vilified them (B. M. 58b)" (Jewish Encyclopedia.com).
Others thought that the outcome, after a time in gehenna would be annihilation (R. H. 17a; comp. Shab. 33b).
The totally wicked would burn there forever in torment (Judith xvi. 17).
There is little reason to credit any of these views with divine inspiration, since they have no basis in the Old Testament, and were developed during the intertestamental period, as I said, probably from the influence of the Zoroastrians.
The rabbis also seemed to equate this "gehenna" concept with tartarus—which, of course, is not consistent with the Bible's use of that word, in 2 Peter 2:4.
When deciding what the term meant in the teaching of Jesus, we have a difficult choice to make. On the one hand, it may be argued that Jesus used it the same way the rabbis did, because that is how his contemporary listeners would have understood the term (from their exposure to rabbinic teaching). On the other hand, Jeremiah (a writer whom Jesus recognized as inspired) had used the term to describe the destruction of Jerusalem and the place where the victims' corpses would be thrown (7:32-34). This usage find correlative support in the earlier prophet Isaiah (66:24), where the corpses of those killed in the destruction of Jerusalem are deposited in the unquenchable fire (a term Jesus applied to gehenna)—though many, obviously, would not agree with me in this interpretation of Isaiah 66.
So did Jesus approvingly adopt and perpetuate the uninspired ideas of the rabbis about gehenna, or the views of the inspired prophets? The latter seems more likely to me, though scholars of the traditional camp prefer to assert the former.
There was not unanimity among the rabbis as to the ultimate fate of the wicked. Some thought that sinners who had not led others into sin would go to gehenna for only twelve months, as a purging experience, after which they would go to the throne of God (Babylonian Talmud RH64). Thus, "[a]ll that descend into Gehenna shall come up again, with the exception of three classes of men: those who have committed adultery, or shamed their neighbors, or vilified them (B. M. 58b)" (Jewish Encyclopedia.com).
Others thought that the outcome, after a time in gehenna would be annihilation (R. H. 17a; comp. Shab. 33b).
The totally wicked would burn there forever in torment (Judith xvi. 17).
There is little reason to credit any of these views with divine inspiration, since they have no basis in the Old Testament, and were developed during the intertestamental period, as I said, probably from the influence of the Zoroastrians.
The rabbis also seemed to equate this "gehenna" concept with tartarus—which, of course, is not consistent with the Bible's use of that word, in 2 Peter 2:4.
When deciding what the term meant in the teaching of Jesus, we have a difficult choice to make. On the one hand, it may be argued that Jesus used it the same way the rabbis did, because that is how his contemporary listeners would have understood the term (from their exposure to rabbinic teaching). On the other hand, Jeremiah (a writer whom Jesus recognized as inspired) had used the term to describe the destruction of Jerusalem and the place where the victims' corpses would be thrown (7:32-34). This usage find correlative support in the earlier prophet Isaiah (66:24), where the corpses of those killed in the destruction of Jerusalem are deposited in the unquenchable fire (a term Jesus applied to gehenna)—though many, obviously, would not agree with me in this interpretation of Isaiah 66.
So did Jesus approvingly adopt and perpetuate the uninspired ideas of the rabbis about gehenna, or the views of the inspired prophets? The latter seems more likely to me, though scholars of the traditional camp prefer to assert the former.
-
kaufmannphillips
- Posts: 585
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm
Re: Gehenna and the Rabbis
Hi, folks,
A few notes here:
(1) It may be preferable to refer to "Persian religious thought," rather than "Zoroastrianism." During the time in question, there may have been multiple religious streams in play, including the Magian strain and persistent currents from (Indo-)Iranian paganism. These may or may not have been part of Zoroastrianism proper by the time of potential influence on Jewish religious thought. So if Jews were influenced by Persian ideas in this department, it may have been from Zoroastrian or non-Zoroastrian or para-Zoroastrian sources.
(2) It is not clear that the rabbinic tradition proper had begun so far back as the Persian period. Rabbinic literature makes nearly no reference to teachers before the Maccabean era, ca. 150 years after Alexander the Great toppled the Persian empire. This does not mean that the rabbinic tradition could not have been influenced from Persian quarters, but it is feasible that Persian influence on Jewish religious thought took place considerably before the emergence of the rabbinic tradition proper.
(3) In terms of the mode of influence, it may not be limited to the Persian overlords. Though some influence would likely have come from Jews being in service amongst the halls and estates of power, other influence may have come through trade and proximal habitation, with the conversation that naturally occurs in daily life when average curious persons encounter one another and share ideas. When it comes to mythic elements, religious innovation is as likely or more likely to come from the grass roots as/than from the top down.
(4) To various extents, it is touchy to reference rabbinic literature in relation to Second Temple Jewish thought, including that of Jesus and the earliest church. The Babylonian Talmud, which has been referenced here, was compiled in the fourth/fifth centuries CE, with ongoing work lasting until perhaps about 700 CE. This allows a lot of time for development of thought and perspective; we may consider varying concepts of "hell" in Western thought over the last 300 years. All of the rabbinic literature referenced here is from the BT, except for Judith, and so far as I am aware, there is no explicit reference to Gehenna in Judith.
A few notes here:
(1) It may be preferable to refer to "Persian religious thought," rather than "Zoroastrianism." During the time in question, there may have been multiple religious streams in play, including the Magian strain and persistent currents from (Indo-)Iranian paganism. These may or may not have been part of Zoroastrianism proper by the time of potential influence on Jewish religious thought. So if Jews were influenced by Persian ideas in this department, it may have been from Zoroastrian or non-Zoroastrian or para-Zoroastrian sources.
(2) It is not clear that the rabbinic tradition proper had begun so far back as the Persian period. Rabbinic literature makes nearly no reference to teachers before the Maccabean era, ca. 150 years after Alexander the Great toppled the Persian empire. This does not mean that the rabbinic tradition could not have been influenced from Persian quarters, but it is feasible that Persian influence on Jewish religious thought took place considerably before the emergence of the rabbinic tradition proper.
(3) In terms of the mode of influence, it may not be limited to the Persian overlords. Though some influence would likely have come from Jews being in service amongst the halls and estates of power, other influence may have come through trade and proximal habitation, with the conversation that naturally occurs in daily life when average curious persons encounter one another and share ideas. When it comes to mythic elements, religious innovation is as likely or more likely to come from the grass roots as/than from the top down.
(4) To various extents, it is touchy to reference rabbinic literature in relation to Second Temple Jewish thought, including that of Jesus and the earliest church. The Babylonian Talmud, which has been referenced here, was compiled in the fourth/fifth centuries CE, with ongoing work lasting until perhaps about 700 CE. This allows a lot of time for development of thought and perspective; we may consider varying concepts of "hell" in Western thought over the last 300 years. All of the rabbinic literature referenced here is from the BT, except for Judith, and so far as I am aware, there is no explicit reference to Gehenna in Judith.
Re: Gehenna and the Rabbis
Emmet, are you saying there is no Rabbinic tradition from the 2nd Temple period or that you don't trust them as the B.T. was compiled much later? I'm not so much interested in the Persian period since the meaning could've been altered considerably by the time it came to be used by Jesus, or those interpreting his words into Greek. What do you make of the Judith reference that Steve quoted about eternal torment?
I'd be curious to hear your own personal thoughts on the usage of "gehenna" durnig the 2nd Temple Period. The word was obviously in use during that time so what do you think a first century Jewish audience would've taken it to mean?
I'd be curious to hear your own personal thoughts on the usage of "gehenna" durnig the 2nd Temple Period. The word was obviously in use during that time so what do you think a first century Jewish audience would've taken it to mean?
Re: Gehenna and the Rabbis
Greetings,
I am stunned that folks still wonder if YHVH God speaks in terms and language understandable to those whom HE deems worthy of His Self revelation.....as in Christ to the second temple era Jews. He came unto his own and spoke not in their own language? Nonsense.
Maran Y'shua haNatzraya (Our Lord: Jesus of Nazareth) Spoke as a man of His time........so to say he did not know rabbinic notions verses Truth is goofy. He said what He meant....and if it agreed with the rabbis....very well....not all of Judaism was false.......what a consept!
Gehinnom Valley existed outside Jerusalem and was once a grove in which paganized Isrealites worshipped false gods. It was cursed and became a garbage dump in Hasmonaean times (i.e. Maccabaean era: 132 - 20 BCE). I do not know if it was used as such in the time of Christ........but doubt it.
The Lake of Fire (i.e. a body of fire) was used of Gehinnom. So it is understood ever since as a reference to the Second Death in Judiasm and Christianity....which comes from Judaism. So do not fear man who can kill your bodies and do nothing more, but fear God (i.e. which is the source of Wisdom) Who can destroy your soul and body in Gehinnom."
To me...anyone who rejects Hebrew cosmology etc. from Judaism is at his root antisemite.....Jesus is the King of the Jews! Salvation is of thJews...theGospel is Jewish....the content is Jewish....and the consepts are antive to that Nation. To alienate the Gospel, Messiah and the New covenant revelation from it's culture is to lead to error........like Germany did and so amny others isnce 135 CE>
Rev, Ken
I am stunned that folks still wonder if YHVH God speaks in terms and language understandable to those whom HE deems worthy of His Self revelation.....as in Christ to the second temple era Jews. He came unto his own and spoke not in their own language? Nonsense.
Maran Y'shua haNatzraya (Our Lord: Jesus of Nazareth) Spoke as a man of His time........so to say he did not know rabbinic notions verses Truth is goofy. He said what He meant....and if it agreed with the rabbis....very well....not all of Judaism was false.......what a consept!
Gehinnom Valley existed outside Jerusalem and was once a grove in which paganized Isrealites worshipped false gods. It was cursed and became a garbage dump in Hasmonaean times (i.e. Maccabaean era: 132 - 20 BCE). I do not know if it was used as such in the time of Christ........but doubt it.
The Lake of Fire (i.e. a body of fire) was used of Gehinnom. So it is understood ever since as a reference to the Second Death in Judiasm and Christianity....which comes from Judaism. So do not fear man who can kill your bodies and do nothing more, but fear God (i.e. which is the source of Wisdom) Who can destroy your soul and body in Gehinnom."
To me...anyone who rejects Hebrew cosmology etc. from Judaism is at his root antisemite.....Jesus is the King of the Jews! Salvation is of thJews...theGospel is Jewish....the content is Jewish....and the consepts are antive to that Nation. To alienate the Gospel, Messiah and the New covenant revelation from it's culture is to lead to error........like Germany did and so amny others isnce 135 CE>
Rev, Ken
-
kaufmannphillips
- Posts: 585
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm
Re: Gehenna and the Rabbis
Hi, JC,Jason wrote:
Emmet, are you saying there is no Rabbinic tradition from the 2nd Temple period or that you don't trust them as the B.T. was compiled much later? I'm not so much interested in the Persian period since the meaning could've been altered considerably by the time it came to be used by Jesus, or those interpreting his words into Greek. What do you make of the Judith reference that Steve quoted about eternal torment?
I'd be curious to hear your own personal thoughts on the usage of "gehenna" durnig the 2nd Temple Period. The word was obviously in use during that time so what do you think a first century Jewish audience would've taken it to mean?
(1) The core of the rabbinic tradition rests with the four/five generations in the wake of 70 CE (though sometimes the tradition will cite an earlier figure). Some of the rabbinic authorities from that period had been alive prior to the destruction of the temple, and the rabbinic tradition did not pop up out of nowhere, so it is rational to imagine that elements of Second Temple period thought are preserved in the rabbinic tradition. Without external evidence, though, it can be hard to determine whether or not a specific element dates to the time of Jesus, and if so, whether it was relatively normative at his time or relatively marginal.
Submitting an analogy: imagine, if you will, that the Church of the Nazarene (founded 1895) is preparing a number of written collections that gather together cherished quotes and opinions and interpretations from their tradition. Now also imagine (fictitiously) that they mostly have present-day oral sources, and very few written records. How would their end result, however carefully done, inform our understanding of American religion in general before the Civil War?
(2) The Babylonian Talmud may preserve elements of Second Temple period thought within its sprawling corpus. However, its relatively late date does afford a lot of time for alienation from the Second Temple milieu.
(3) I suppose that one's construal of the Judith passage will hinge (as in similar discussions?) upon one's construal of eos aionos.
(4) I should do some more research before answering your question how a first-century Jewish audience would construe Gehenna.
(5) For what it's worth, here are some potentially relevant references (direct and indirect):
I Enoch 27 (toto); 48:9; 67:6 ; 98:3
http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudep ... NOCH_1.HTM
Pirkei Avot 1:5; 5.2
http://www.shechem.org/torah/avot.html
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================
Re: Gehenna and the Rabbis
GeHinnom has a historic and Didactic meaning in Hebraic Culture from the time of the First Temple era. There is on Gregg's part a definite rejection of what he considers Jewish error. But Christ spoke to His Jewish People according to their cultural conceptualities. He rejected the "Oral Law" of the Pharasees, which became codified in the Babylonian and Tiberian Mishnas and Talmuds after the Second Temple was destroyed.
However, Christ either corrected or confirmed that which was true. Not all Pharasees nor their beliefs......ask Nikodemas, Joseph of Aramathaea or Paul. There were two Academies in the Pharasee Movement. The School of Shami (Ritual Purists) and that of Hillel the Great (Spiritual Purist). These two Academies were at odds, and Jesus clearly refuted and corrected their traditions and errors. While the School of Hillel (Overseen by Gamaliel the son of Hillel at Christ's time) was favorable to Christ, and Christ's views reflected much of their perspectives...as research has proven. They taught that one should not do to another what one did not wish to be done to themselves.......sound familiar? It should. They held this before Christ was born. They agreed with Christ on his rejection and corrections of the Sadducee, Essene and Shamai errors in doctrine and practice. Gamaliel protected the Nazaraean Way of Judaism by leaving in God's Providence. Paul, a Rabbi who studied under Gamaliel was sought by Christ to reach the Nations and use his rabbinic Skill and Dailectics to preach and defend the Gospel among Jewry in Judaea, Syria and the Eastern World.
Jesus Christ IS A MALE JEW from among His Jewish People....He spoke of GeHinnom as a fact, a well known and understood fact among Jewry. He spoke in accordance to that understood concept and confirmed it with new and greater depth........."Fear not him that can kill the body, but fear Him who can kill the body and soul in GeHinnom's fire." That was spoken of among Jewry long before Christ and still today among Jewry and Christianity. The Lake of Fire is GeHinnom......read the Dead Sea Scrolls. Jesus is fully God and completely a Jewish Man. United forever.
Those who seek to study Scripture apart form the Hebrew/Jewish Culture it was written by, to and for.....those folks will fall into error. Just ask the Ethiopian and Philip. All the authors of every Sacred Text in the Bible were Hebrews/Jews, and they wrote on behalf of the Hebrew God of the Jews. The Bible is not a Library of Greek or Latin History, Poetry, Prophecy and Doctrine. It is a Jewish Library revealing their God and His Deeds among them. We are called Spiritual Israelites...lets try and remember this as we study....for as Jesus Christ Himself told the Samaritan Woman,"Salvation is from the Jews."
So I do not reject the Jewishness of our Messiah, nor the Jewishness of His Apostles, nor the Jewishness of His Good News of the Kingdom of the God of Israel, nor the Jewishness of the Language, Context, Usages, Idioms and Theology. We were known as Nazaraeans of the Way long before Christyani among the Gentiles. We were we understood as apart of Judaism until 135 AD. We defended our Jewishness, whether Hebrew, Syrian, Idumaean, Greek, Italian etc........but after Jews became hated and troublesome revolutionaries between 66 AD to 135 AD we Gentiles felt it better to distance ourselves from our Heritage and seek a distict identity for politicla and social reasons..........thus Antisemitic Churchianity developed as a reaction to our formal rejection as Minim (Heretics) by the Rabbis in 96 AD and our Persecution for being spiritually apart of them too. This Churchianity Psychosis is not Pauline at all, but it has lead to viewing the Messiah, the New Covenant, the Church and the Nazaraean Scriptures (NT) in an alien and de-jewished light....bring on errors in interpretations of all the Scriptures and alienating Christ's Way from Christ's Blood kindred......that is Horrid and is Heretical in Itself.
in Messiah,
rev. Ken Huffman
However, Christ either corrected or confirmed that which was true. Not all Pharasees nor their beliefs......ask Nikodemas, Joseph of Aramathaea or Paul. There were two Academies in the Pharasee Movement. The School of Shami (Ritual Purists) and that of Hillel the Great (Spiritual Purist). These two Academies were at odds, and Jesus clearly refuted and corrected their traditions and errors. While the School of Hillel (Overseen by Gamaliel the son of Hillel at Christ's time) was favorable to Christ, and Christ's views reflected much of their perspectives...as research has proven. They taught that one should not do to another what one did not wish to be done to themselves.......sound familiar? It should. They held this before Christ was born. They agreed with Christ on his rejection and corrections of the Sadducee, Essene and Shamai errors in doctrine and practice. Gamaliel protected the Nazaraean Way of Judaism by leaving in God's Providence. Paul, a Rabbi who studied under Gamaliel was sought by Christ to reach the Nations and use his rabbinic Skill and Dailectics to preach and defend the Gospel among Jewry in Judaea, Syria and the Eastern World.
Jesus Christ IS A MALE JEW from among His Jewish People....He spoke of GeHinnom as a fact, a well known and understood fact among Jewry. He spoke in accordance to that understood concept and confirmed it with new and greater depth........."Fear not him that can kill the body, but fear Him who can kill the body and soul in GeHinnom's fire." That was spoken of among Jewry long before Christ and still today among Jewry and Christianity. The Lake of Fire is GeHinnom......read the Dead Sea Scrolls. Jesus is fully God and completely a Jewish Man. United forever.
Those who seek to study Scripture apart form the Hebrew/Jewish Culture it was written by, to and for.....those folks will fall into error. Just ask the Ethiopian and Philip. All the authors of every Sacred Text in the Bible were Hebrews/Jews, and they wrote on behalf of the Hebrew God of the Jews. The Bible is not a Library of Greek or Latin History, Poetry, Prophecy and Doctrine. It is a Jewish Library revealing their God and His Deeds among them. We are called Spiritual Israelites...lets try and remember this as we study....for as Jesus Christ Himself told the Samaritan Woman,"Salvation is from the Jews."
So I do not reject the Jewishness of our Messiah, nor the Jewishness of His Apostles, nor the Jewishness of His Good News of the Kingdom of the God of Israel, nor the Jewishness of the Language, Context, Usages, Idioms and Theology. We were known as Nazaraeans of the Way long before Christyani among the Gentiles. We were we understood as apart of Judaism until 135 AD. We defended our Jewishness, whether Hebrew, Syrian, Idumaean, Greek, Italian etc........but after Jews became hated and troublesome revolutionaries between 66 AD to 135 AD we Gentiles felt it better to distance ourselves from our Heritage and seek a distict identity for politicla and social reasons..........thus Antisemitic Churchianity developed as a reaction to our formal rejection as Minim (Heretics) by the Rabbis in 96 AD and our Persecution for being spiritually apart of them too. This Churchianity Psychosis is not Pauline at all, but it has lead to viewing the Messiah, the New Covenant, the Church and the Nazaraean Scriptures (NT) in an alien and de-jewished light....bring on errors in interpretations of all the Scriptures and alienating Christ's Way from Christ's Blood kindred......that is Horrid and is Heretical in Itself.
in Messiah,
rev. Ken Huffman