Gehenna - Literal or Figurative?

[steve]

The moral teaching of the Sermon on the Mount applies at all times, to all generations. But the fact remains that Jesus was talking to a particular audience of a particular generation, so that a number of His allusions and references were framed in scenarios that were especially applicable to them, and not for everybody of all time.

An uncontroversial example of this would be His comment about "when you bring your gift to the altar...", which clearly presupposed that His original listeners regularly offered animal sacrifices at the Jewish temple (and no later generation ever did so). This doesn't mean that the statement carries no valuable information about God's priorities or His requirements for our lives today. I find the teaching contained in the statement extremely relevant. However, when I read it, I realize that Jesus was presenting a universal principle within a scenario specifically relevant to His own generation.

Like all real people, when Jesus spoke, He addressed the people who were actually listening to Him at the time—not some anticipated audience of another time and place. His frequent references to “this generation” make this clear.

There are many examples of this. For example:

1. His statement, “I have not come but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” is easily recognized as a time-sensitive comment, applicable only to the few years of His public ministry.

2. His instructions to the rich, young ruler, about selling all he had were personal to that man, not to everybody. However, we probably will all admit that there might be others to whom the same command would be appropriate, and Jesus' follow-up comment about the difficulty of rich men entering the Kingdom is, no doubt, universally true.

3. Jesus’ message in the synagogue at Nazareth (Luke 4:20-23) was definitely directed to his immediate audience, though, in it, He made what seems like an axiomatic universal observation (v.24).

This seems especially to apply to His time-sensitive statements about the fact that His listeners faced a choice of entering the Kingdom He was offering, then and there, or else of suffering a horrible judgment that would occur in "this generation." Certainly, His threat, “If you do not repent, you shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3, 5), in the context, is directed to those in these very circumstances. He said they would die "likewise" (that is, "in the same manner") as those who had died by the Roman sword (v.1) and by collapsing walls and towers (v.4). The very same kind of death could be expected for those Jews who, instead of repenting, and becoming believers, remained obstinate in their rejection and suffered "likewise" in AD 70. To recognize this fact does not mean that there is no relevance of these words to people of every age. Every human being will experience his own private "AD 70" (i.e., will die under God's judgment, as those in Jerusalem in AD 70 did)—unless they repent, get right with God and enter His Kingdom.

Similarly, when Jesus spoke the Sermon on the Mount, the comments He made about the danger of gehenna were specific references to the things His generation was facing. It does not mean, however, that, for every generation afterward, God had no problems with men calling each other "Raca" or "fool" (Matt.5:22).

The need to pluck out the eye or cut off the hand that "causes you to sin," no doubt, is a reference to anything that would prevent someone from embracing the life of discipleship—and thus the essence of the danger is in their refusal to enter Christ's Kingdom. At that time, any of Jesus' listeners who would refuse to come into His Kingdom were courting the prospect of dying in that holocaust and having their corpses thrown, along with the rest, into the Valley of Hinnom (gehenna). The judgment for other people might take another form, but is ultimately equally to be avoided.

Jesus was calling the remnant of Israel to get into the "lifeboat" of His Kingdom, and to abandon a leaking and badly-lilting "ship" that was about to be torpedoed. Every inhabitant of Israel who heard Jesus speak was facing the option of being saved from the wrath that was coming, or else of succumbing to that immanent wrath—which, for them, would finally mean the casting of their corpses into gehenna.

There really can be no doubt that gehenna was the final repository of dishonorable "corpses." Jeremiah had said gehenna would be overflowing with the huge number of corpses that would be the result of the Babylonian invasion (Jer.7:32-33). Isaiah also mentioned the corpses in the undying flames (Isaiah 66:24), which Jesus equated with gehenna in Mark 9:43-48.

That is, gehenna, in scripture, is nowhere said to be occupied by damned spirits, nor even resurrected sinners. Gehenna is the place where corpses are burned.

In His statements mentioning gehenna, Jesus always warned against certain choices or sins that would put His listeners in danger of being thrown there. The things He warned against are still just as bad as they were in His day, and as much to be avoided, even if the judgment that will come upon those living at different times and places does not involve their corpses being cast into the Valley of Hinnom. To die on bad terms with God is undesirable, regardless in what generation one lives. To lose your "body and your soul" because you died on bad terms with God, is to be avoided whether it occurs in gehenna (as with some in Jesus' day—Matt.10:28), or elsewhere.

[jerry62]

Actually Steve, from what I've gathered on the matter, I find it far more likely that Jesus is referring the fact that Gehenna was a known metonym for eternal or final judgment/destiny of the wicked. While parts of the valley may have continued to be a burial ground, there is no evidence that burning was going on during Jesus' time in the valley, except possibly after the Romans took occupation in AD 70. It doesn't seem evident at all that Jesus' audience would have been familiar with associating fire in the valley along that line, but rather with the metonym that came about as a result of burnings of the children to Molech, and other scriptural references (esp. Isaiah). Considering what was already studied in Enoch/Judith by those at that time, and other sources such as the Sibylline Oracles, Jewish teaching camps at that time (although many different opinions were there), and later Talmudic writings (esp. Mishnah, Eruvin) on the oracle traditions, and early church fathers... this is not a stretch by any means.
I believe people are greatly mistaken who like to differentiate these passages as being totally unrelated from references to eternal contempt in Daniel 12, and the second death in Revelation 19-20-21 (lake of fire/burning sulfer/etc.). Given the context of the NT references, I find it extremely unconvincing that the Gehenna (valley of Hinnom) references were warnings about some temporary or earthly punishment. Can one really think that becoming "twice as much a child of Gehenna" was not referring to the final destiny of the wicked? Think of the context!

On the idea that there is some annihilation after judgment and that the punishment is only temporary, consider Daniel 12:1-3. Eternal is the correct term for us to use. The NT restates these facts. If there were something more, Jesus would have stated so at the end of what we consider as Matthew 25. He doesn't, and neither was Daniel told of anything more. Conditional Immortality is a weak teaching.

Additional considerations on Gehenna: http://bbhchurchconnection.wordpress.co ... bage-dump/

[steve7150]

On the idea that there is some annihilation after judgment and that the punishment is only temporary, consider Daniel 12:1-3. Eternal is the correct term for us to use. The NT restates these facts. If there were something more, Jesus would have stated so at the end of what we consider as Matthew 25. He doesn't, and neither was Daniel told of anything more. Conditional Immortality is a weak teaching.




We have had discussions on hell many times including Gehenna&Hades&the lake of fire and "aion" and "aionios" and other related terms and ultimately it seems that the greek words really are not as clear as we all would like therefore it inevitably boils down to how we view justice and how we view the character of God. We have considered what you mentioned and we have considered what was said or not said about hell in Acts and Paul and Peter's writings and we have differing opinions. BTW i'm not Steve G.

[jerry62]

Owlam (H5769) is not Greek. Regardless, from all I have gathered, the oldest non-english translations (Latin/Jerome, Syriac Peshitta) also use a term equivalent to forever/eternal for Daniel 12 and Matthew. Considering this, and all of the obvious available scriptures with blatant in-your-face contrasts (esp. all over Matthew), there's nothing left but eisegesis, which some individuals love to insert whenever they want to object to this word or that. If in doubt, perhaps Occam's razor will benefit, and we should take Jesus at his word... unless you forgive your brother from your heart, the heavenly Father won't forgive you either. He doesn't say... but maybe later, the Father will change his mind. If you're not qualified to be at the party, you get kicked out.

[Homer]

Occam's razor: "The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."

[steve]

Occam's razor: "The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."

The difficulty is in determining which position is making the most assumptions, as well as which correct assumptions may be inherent in the proper viewpoint.

[schoel]

...and we should take Jesus at his word... unless you forgive your brother from your heart, the heavenly Father won't forgive you either. He doesn't say... but maybe later, the Father will change his mind. If you're not qualified to be at the party, you get kicked out.

Matthew 6:14-15
"For if you forgive others their sins, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, your Father will not forgive you your sins."


If someone refuses to forgive, then later repents of that attitude and forgives, could it be said that the Father would forgive them at that time?
Jesus statement here is stating that during the period that someone refuses to forgive, they cannot expect God to forgive them. When a person repents and forgives, then God is willing to forgive them. It speaks nothing of eternal damnation.

In order to make it say what you are trying to make it say, you would need it to read like:
"For if you forgive others their sins, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, your Father will never forgive you your sins."

[jerry62]

Obviously I was not trying to make it say that, and repentance is always there for the living... it appears to me that once we have to face God after the first death, then would come the judgment at that point, as it is written. (also originally referring more to Matthew 18:35)

[steve7150]

Obviously I was not trying to make it say that, and repentance is always there for the living... it appears to me that once we have to face God after the first death, then would come the judgment at that point, as it is written. (also originally referring more to Matthew 18:35)jerry62






Yes the judgment "krisis" which the english word "crisis" comes from. Often people go through a crisis and end up stronger from it. As far as i'm concerned that's the point of everything , so that in the end when God is all in all we learn from all our experiences to be more like Christ which may take a lot more then this brief lifetime in this present evil age.

[jerry62]

Regardless of the etymology of the word we refer to in English as "crisis", clearly the "krisis" in the scripture does not have the same meaning as 'crisis' does in English language usage today.