Gehenna - Literal or Figurative?

[steve]

Jerry,

I have some counter-thoughts about the quotation you cited. You felt the writer's points were self-evident. I am not arguing that the man's points are self-evidently wrong, but they certainly are not self-evidently true, and they, like your remarks, strike me as coming from a limited familiarity with the issues that make his statements more controversial than he knows. Let me respond to him in segments:

There is little doubt that contextually αιωνιον means "eternal," "endless," or "forever..."

He is choosing these English words (among a larger possible list of plausible options) to translate aionios (he says) because of "contextual" considerations. If he were to go merely by lexical considerations, instead, he would have to admit that "endless" and "eternal" are not the only concepts (and possibly not the best-attested ones) that the Greeks associated with aionios. However, in selecting among multiple translational alternatives,context definitely matters. Therefore, I am interested in knowing whether the context of these passages really does yield "little doubt" that these meanings are intended...

...since the state contemplated in Gehenna in the sayings of Jesus is contrasted with "entrance into life," or being in the kingdom of God, which shall endure forever, or eternally.

It is true that the kingdom of God is endless. But does this necessitate that the alternative to entering it must be of equal duration? Suppose we were to say, "The twin babies did not share the same fate at birth. One was born healthy and lived a long life; the other was still-born and never experienced life in this world." We have described to opposites—live birth and still-birth. Yet, it is not obvious that the healthy baby's long enjoyment of life was of the same duration as the conscious experience of the baby who was deprived of such a life.

It is a point to be investigated further (not here—at least not by me) whether being deprived of an eternal privilege must result in eternal conscious knowledge of that deprivation. It is at least possible to envisage a hypothetical scenario in which one group of people were granted eternal life, and another group did not receive life, and perished as a result, without importing the unnecessary detail that those who did not enjoy eternal life must experience an equally eternal misery.

Support for the dichotomy that dictates, "Either it must be eternal joy or eternal torment" might conceivably be drawn from scripture, but not from logic. Yet it is just such flawed logic (i.e., a false dilemma) that informs the statement that there can be "little doubt" of this man's conclusions.

The New Testament views "entrance into life" or the kingdom of God as entering "the age to come" (αιων μέλλον), the new and everlasting creation representing the final order of things. Thus a strong case can be made in support of the view that suffering in Gehenna will be endless or everlasting.

There are too many unfounded assumptions here. For example:

There is the assumption here that all people of all times are facing two alternatives: gehenna or salvation. But the fact that this was so for the original hearers does not, in itself, tell us whether the same would be true for later readers. Assuming that gehenna is the ultimate fate of unbelievers of all times is begging the current question under discussion. In other words, this identification is the very point at issue. If gehenna is a reference to the judgment of Jerusalem, in AD 70, then it was only for those people at that time that the failure to be saved would land them in that particular crucible. It might still be true that all people who reject Christ must face a horrendous judgment in a lake of fire, but that would not have any necessary bearing on statements about "gehenna" (which would not be the same subject as that of the "lake of fire").

There is the assumption that "gehenna" and "entering the kingdom" are being presented in these passages as strictly post-mortem options, rather than immediate and impending options for the original hearers. The assumption seems to be being made that "entering the kingdom" is what happens after the judgment day, when, in fact, entering the kingdom is what every person is called to do the moment they hear the gospel. Jesus' listeners were on the threshold of passing immediately into Christ's kingdom (by accepting Him), or else being cast into gehenna (by rejecting Him and facing, instead, the grusome holocaust of AD 70. This last statement is clearly true, regardless how we come down in the present inquiry. What is at issue here is whether the statements concerning gehenna are a reference to this immediate and near-term crisis, or whether they refer to a post-mortem condition that will prevail in the New Earth.

[Homer]

Steve and l2j,

What I was referring to was Steve's comments on the Narrow Path program, May 18, about the middle of the program, which appeared to be a strong argument for annihilation. Steve responded to "Dave" as follows:

"...if the immortality of the soul were a true doctrine, the wages of sin would never be death because immortal things can't die. Then why would it be said that the wages of sin is death or perishing or being destroyed...."

If Steve, by immortality, means unending existence, then if universalism is true everyone is immortal, for the lost are preserved in hell until they repent and go to be with the Lord. On the other hand, in commenting on the meaning of the Greek word athanasia, translated "immortality", Strong's Greek Dictionary says:

In the NT athanasia expresses more than deathlessness, it suggests the quality of life enjoyed because for the believer what is mortal is to be "swallowed up of life"...(2 Cor. 5:4)

And the quote from Strong's may be what l2j was getting at when he wrote:

I don't follow why it is necessary to think that because an unbeliever is allowed to experience some form of existence after death that we should infer that this means he is immortal--only God possesses immortality. There seems to me to be an obvious difference between possessing life through the Immortal One, which believers do/will enjoy and merely existing in a state of unbelief, all the while, perhaps, suffering greatly.

Then again, Steve's rhetorical question regarding the wages of sin is death or perishing or being destroyed is pertinent to the universalist system, and at least as strong of an argument against universalism as it is against eternal punishment. Indeed, in the universalist system no one is destroyed or perishes; they are only "corrected".

It must be terribly difficult to wish for something to be true and have to continually employ exegetical gymnastics to avoid the rather obvious. A good example is the long argument concerning what is meant by aionios in Matthew 25. If the vast majority of lexicons are correct as to the meaning of the word, then this passage alone is fatal to universalism. And the best that can be done with it for the universalist and all their labor is to cast doubt on the traditional view. Nothing can be done with the passage to prove universalism is true or the traditional or CI view false.

[steve]

That is quite true. That is why I keep saying that I doubt I will ever be able to choose between the alternatives. Both alternatives to the traditional view have abundant positive scriptural support, but both must do something reasonable with the positive scriptural support that the other presents.

It seems that the arguments for conditional immortality and annihilation mostly focus on texts about the punishment itself, whereas the arguments for universal reconciliation focus more upon the texts about the character and purposes of God. The latter view can accommodate all of the punishment texts—so long as they are not taken to involve annihilation or eternal torment—and can still affirm that God's stated purposes will prevail beyond the horizon of the judgment.

Homer, when you talk about the lexical meanings of aionios, it seems that you have not read all of the examples given in previous posts by those who have shown that aionios is used of many non-everlasting phenomena. I do not claim any expertise in Greek language, but I can see as easily as the next guy that an adjective that can be used to describe a prison term of a few years, or the period of time during which tabernacle lamps must remain lit, etc., can not be said to always carry the meaning "endless."

I have also argued, elsewhere, that, even assuming the meaning of "eternal" for aionios, I would have no problem seeing the adjective used of anything (e.g., fire, punishment, wrath, life, etc.) that proceeds from the eternal God—as with the "eternal fire" that consumed Sodom (Jude 7), or the "eternal destruction" that proceeds "from the presence of the Lord" (2 Thess.1:9). These things are eternal in that their origins are in the eternal God—regardless how long they may last in history or human experience. There just seems to be too much legitimate flexibility in how this Greek word is used to allow us any certainty about ambiguous cases.

[Paidion]

If Steve, by immortality, means unending existence, then if universalism is true everyone is immortal, for the lost are preserved in hell until they repent and go to be with the Lord.

This statement appears to beg the question with the phrase, "for the lost are preserved in hell until they repent and go to be with the Lord." For it seems to assume that everyone has an immortal soul. In that case, everyone is immortal whether universal reconcilition is true or false.

However, many people, including myself, do not believe that man is naturally immortal. Rather we believe that when a person dies, he is dead ---- ceases to exist. And he will remain dead until God raised him from death. That is the point at which he may become immortal:

Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. I Corinthians 15:51-53

Morover, it is not necessary to assume that the lost, in the second resurrection after the millenium, will be raised immortal. They may be raised as mortals and preserved until they are given immortality after their repentance. Some of the early Christians believed that Enoch and Elijah did not die a physical death, but were preserved as mortals, and will return to earth as the two witnesses described in Revelation, and will die for the first time as described there. Then they will be raised to life in three days.

Conclusion: Man does not need to be immortal in order to experience post-mortem reconciliation to God.

[steve]

I think, Homer, your point may be that, if everyone were to come to Christ—either pre- or post-mortem—then everyone de facto will experience immortality. Thus we have universal immortality of human beings.

However, conditional immortality, as a position, only affirms that immortality is not man's natural state, but must (and can) be obtained only upon the condition of faith in Christ. The position does not make predictions about what percentage of the human population may avail themselves of the opportunity. Nor does the view, necessarily, address whether this immortality might or might not be obtained upon the same conditions after one has experienced physical death.

Evangelical universalists believe that there will not be salvation (i.e., immortality) for anyone outside of Christ. In this, they are on the same page, exactly, with others who affirm conditional immortality. The only way that one who believes in conditional immortality could object to evangelical universalism would be if he/she could be certain that post-mortem repentance is an impossibility, and that the percentage of those who will turn to Christ must be lower than 100%.

[look2jesus]

Hello Paidion,

I'm not tracking with you here.

This statement appears to beg the question with the phrase, "for the lost are preserved in hell until they repent and go to be with the Lord." For it seems to assume that everyone has an immortal soul. In that case, everyone is immortal whether universal reconcilition is true or false.

The statement "the lost are preserved" appears to me to not allow the assumption that you are seeing, i.e., that everyone has an immortal soul, because an immortal being doesn't need to be preserved, do they?

However, many people, including myself, do not believe that man is naturally immortal. Rather we believe that when a person dies, he is dead ---- ceases to exist. And he will remain dead until God raised him from death. That is the point at which he may become immortal.

I also do not see it taught in scripture that man is naturally immortal, even concerning Adam, pre-fall. I wondered, however, if you see the passage you quoted (I Corinthians 15:51-53) as pertaining to the righteous only or to both the righteous and the unrighteous. Because,

And he will remain dead until God raised him from death. That is the point at which he may become immortal. [underline mine]

...and then you qouted 1 Cor. 15:51-53. But I think Paul here is limiting his description to believer's only and that there is no question about whether or not they will put on immortality. Perhaps that last statement of yours quoted is related to your view of the resurrection of the wicked, and not to this passage--is that right?

My view is that at the time of the resurrection the saints will be raised "incorruptible" but that the scriptures aren't that clear on the state of the resurrected dead, vis-a-vis, immortality. If that is what you are saying, I agree with you. I was just a little confused.

Homer,

I guess I was tracking with what you said!

l2j

[Singalphile]

I asked the question in the gehenna and mind/body dualism thread, but perhaps this thread is a better place.

The question I asked:

Does anyone know of any actual historical, recorded connection between Gehenna and 70 AD. Maybe in Josephus or something?

Per wikipedia's Gehenna and Tophet pages:

1) The valley's location is disputed and perhaps somewhat difficult to properly study due to past or current heavy population.
2) Human sacrifice is thought to have occurred there, though there doesn't appear to be physical evidence of it.
3) There is not yet any evidence of mass graves. (Children's graves are mentioned specifically, but I assume no mass graves found, else they would be mentioned.)
4) Josephus does not mention the valley (no source cited for this).
5) There is evidence that the southwest shoulder of the valley was a regular burial location with family tombs used from 700 BC into the 1st cent. AD.
6) By AD 70, the area was a "place for cremation of the dead with the arrival of the Tenth Roman Legion, who were the only group known to practice cremation in this region." (no primary source)
7) No literary or archeological evidence of perpetual fires (as for a garbage dump).

I am interested in historical connections between Gehenna and AD 70, so I am most curious about #6. Anybody know about the literary or archeological evidence of that?

[Homer]

I was thinking today of the text of Matthew 10:28, and of how improbable that gehenna was a reference to the Valley outside Jerusalem. I thought I should explain why I think this, but was hesitant to do so, thinking it had already been discussed to death. Then I began reading from the OP to the present and to my surprise could not find where the text was discussed at all. So here are my thoughts:

Matthew 10:28, Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

28. `And be not afraid of those killing the body, and are not able to kill the soul, but fear rather Him who is able both soul and body to destroy in gehenna.

How I see it:

And be not afraid of those killing the body,

Jesus informs them they should have no fear of those who can cause physical death. This could be practically anyone, including the Romans.

and are not able to kill the soul,

If the soul and physical life are inseparable, this does not make sense. It appears to say that persons (including the Romans) can kill physically, but not destroy the soul, which is considered separately.

but fear rather Him (singular) who is able both soul and body to destroy in gehenna.

And who is this "Him"? If is the Roman emperor Titus and "soul" refers to something like "name" or "reputation" which is ruined by being cast into the literal Gehenna, then why the singular "Him", when any number of persons could murder someone and dump the body in Gehenna. Although Titus was the general, he didn't do it himself. And thus there is no contrast between "those" and "Him". And if the "Him" is God, and the Gehenna is literal, that doesn't fit either as previously shown, because people can also do that.

The only thing that makes sense is the "Him" is God and gehenna is correctly translated "hell".

[steve]

If that's the only thing that makes sense to you, go with it.

[Paidion]

I think someone has already quoted and referred to the following verse:

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

Does a forest and field have a "soul" and a "body" in the Platonic sense?
Is "soul and body" not a figure of speech for the "entirety" of the forest and field?
If so, could not "soul and body" also be a figure of speech for God's destruction of the "entire person" in Gehenna?

Man can kill the body only, but not the entire person. For God will raise that person to life again.

However, God can destroy the entire person.

1. The believer in conditional immortality might interpret this as either God not raising the person to life again, or else having raised him, then bringing him to judgment and destroying him.
2. The believer in universal reconciliation might interpret this as God raising the person to life again, and then destroying the evil in the person, and thus the person himself as he WAS, and bringing out the image of God in him as it was meant to be. Why would anyone fear God because of that? Wouldn't that be the best possible treatment for his sin sickness? Yes, it would! However, the destruction of evil in the person may be a very painful process, both physically and psychologically.