Gehenna - Literal or Figurative?

[steve7150]

And thus I believe Jesus' threat was readily understood, where I doubt it would have been if He had in mind the actual valley of Hinnom. I suspect those who heard the threat immediately made that connection to the common rabbinic teaching.






I don't think anyone is claiming gehenna is not symbolic, the question is, does "destruction" remain eternal or does the God who tells us to forgive our brother 70x7 times never give sinners another chance after death. For example if we call our brother "raca" does it make sense for that person to be eternally separated from God?
Re rabbinic teaching they codified it in the Talmud and eternal hell is not a mainstream Rabbinc belief although they knew Gehenna was a place or condition to be afraid of.

[steve]

Daniel,

The expression "of whole cloth" was not a typo. It is a rather common figure of speech. I would have hoped its meaning, even to those unfamiliar with it, would be somewhat self-explanatory in the context. You may find multiple online descriptions of its meaning. e.g., http://www.thefreedictionary.com/whole+cloth

Homer,

I also believe that Jesus expected His listeners to know the meaning behind His use of Gehenna. Since He made many outright and unambiguous references to the coming judgment on Israel and the destruction of Jerusalem, I think those who had "ears to hear" would readily connect this with His allusion to Jeremiah's threats.

As for not making sense of verses like the one you cited, I think you miss the point of what I am understanding to be communicated here. Jesus was talking about gehenna and the destruction of Jerusalem, not as an act of Roman volition, but as God's judgment upon the rebellious and apostate city and society. The people of Jesus' generation (as He often mentioned) were facing the immanent judgment of God (in the form of a Roman invasion and conquest), from which He was calling out a remnant, who would escape it. "Gehenna" was a suitable (and precedented in the Old Testament) image for that judgment, since the corpses of those judged, in many cases, would be "thrown into gehenna."

If we ask, "Why would anyone care what became of their bodies after they were dead?" my answer is that the bodies that were cast into gehenna, by definition, were those of people who died under God's judgment (just as anyone "hanged on a tree"—which was generally done to the corpse of some person of ill-repute—were considered "cursed"). The fate of the person whose body was so dispensed with was the unenviable state of one who had died on bad terms with God. That this state would have terrifying repercussions in a later resurrection would go without saying.

[RickC]

Greetings,

Offhand I can think of a few "beliefs" (I'll call them) that developed during the Intertestamental Period (ca. 200BCE-150CE) and/or even earlier:
1) Bodily Resurrection
2) Satanology - a more developed doctrine of Satan (or the devil)
3) "Gehenna" - as a place of holding for the dead, and as a place of punishment for the wicked

No one speaks in a vacuum. And we have no record of anyone asking Jesus what gehenna is. Also, the rabbis and different Jewish texts and groups had conflicting ideas about what would happen in gehenna. I take it for granted that who Jesus spoke to about gehenna knew what he was talking about, generally. As a rabbi in his own right, Jesus had his own special halakah ("body of teaching"). So what he presented on this theme was his doctrine, what he thought about gehenna. He never gave hints that anyone would ever leave it, once there (as other rabbis and schools taught). For Jesus, it was a place of death and destruction, and he didn't elaborate further.

I've heard lots of talks on the Olivet Discourse and "hell" (from Brother Steve and others). Two were by Joe Morecraft III (3rd) on sermonaudio (a postmill guy).
At the beginning of his first (of a two sermon series):
Destruction of Jerusalem -
Morecraft quotes Matthew Henry re: the Olivet Discourse in which Henry said (not exact wording), "The Temple's destruction was a miniature final judgment day." In other words: "Gehenna was fulfilled in 70CE. And it will happen again as a 'double-fulfillment' at the last day (final judgment)," according to Henry, Morecraft, and lots of other 'evangelicals'.

Like Steve mentioned, I just don't see this 'double-fulfilment' clearly portrayed in scripture. In fact, a primary verse that I've used to support my "mostly conditional immortality beliefs" (the position I lean most strongly toward), which is Matt 10:28; I now do not know if it refers to final judgment. Before I had thought it did. But now, I wonder if it references 70CE alone.

So, at this point, I'm relying on other passages that most likely refer to the final judgment, and am second-thinking "gehenna" texts.

Just some thoughts.
Thanks!

P.S. Morecraft's two sermons are definitely worth hearing, though I don't agree with his postmill, and he sounds somewhat "dominion theology." Lots of historical information.

[DanielGracely]

Context: The thread at top is about possible double meanings, e.g. Gehenna as the Lake of Fire. In the quote below, Steve writes in response to my quote about Levi paying tithes while yet in the loins of Abraham, which I claimed was polyvalent in meaning. I had tired to express (if not as clearly as I might have) the view that the Old Testament story’s primary meaning was of Abraham paying tithes, but that the N.T. shows an additional meaning implied by figurative illustration, namely, that all who pay tithes to a priest who is without days and without mother and father properly show another to be greater than themselves.

[Steve:](emphasis mine)
There is no double meaning that I can see in Abraham paying tithes to Melchisedek. The writer simply recounts a historical event, and draws from it the natural implication that Melchisedek was thereby acknowledged to be greater than Abraham (and, by extension, to all who were in Abraham at the time, including the Levitical priests). He makes no other point than this from the story.

I find it pretty incredible, Steve, that you really think that Abraham’s descendents were actually in Abraham’s loins before they were born. I feel the matter ought to be too obvious to state, but for the record, let me say that persons yet to be born in the future do not exist in the present, and therefore cannot presently be doing anything. Such a bizarre idea that non-persons can presently be doing things is not merely non-sensical, but non-normative to the way Scripture generally describes what persons are and are not. To suppose that Levi was actually IN Abraham's loins is to attack the most fundamental concepts of personal being, the proper separation of one personal being from another, etc. In a word, it attacks the very nature of reality, including the relation of an ancestor to descendents not yet born. For example, when David hid himself in the cave, are we to suppose all those descendents he would come to beget were in his loins and hid in the cave as well? Or, because Abraham believed and it was counted unto him as righteousness, did therefore all the ‘descendents’ in Abraham believe, too, since they were in Abraham? The problems raised by the notion that all descendents do in their ancestors what their ancestors do, is by the witness of Scripture itself a thing too ridiculous to consider.

But perhaps someone will object. “But that is the plain reading. And since Scripture states it we must believe it.” But I say such an argument would, by special pleading, seek to exempt a particular verb (the paying of tithes) and a particular subject (Abraham) to the general rule of Being and Natural Reality, such that descendents who don’t yet exist can be said to presently act. Very well, then. Let us extend that notion to Jesus’ statement that He was a door. After all, Jesus said he was a door, and that is the plainest reading of Scripture. And so here, too, we must exempt a particular verb (being a door) and a particular subject (Jesus) from the way Being and Natural Reality are normatively defined in Scripture, in order to be faithful to “the plainest reading.”

Well, I hope I have shown that to interpret a particular verse or phrase that is both non-sensical and non-normative of Scripture is to make it of private interpretation. In fact, to believe that the Levitical priesthood actually existed in Abraham at the time the latter paid tithes, is to obliterate any possible definition of separation of being between the ancestor and his descendents.

So then, I find that there IS one more than one meaning in the story of Abraham paying tithes, i.e., the typological one mentioned in the New Testament. Here we are told of those descendents of Abraham who, hundreds of years later, likewise paid tithes to one greater than themselves as did their ancestor. That the story of Abraham paying tithes is typological can also be seen in the metaphorical figure of Melchisedek, a priest mentioned without reference to genealogy, and so figuratively seen as Christ, the perfect Priest, one without mother or father or of [countable] days. That Melchisedek was not a theophany of Christ (one argument that, were it a theophany, might argue for the “plain reading” of Levi being in Abraham’s loins) is seen in that he was the King of Jerusalem, and therefore a person in situ among the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

And so I stand by my earlier comments about polyvalent meaning and interpretations, though perhaps there is a better term for what I am trying to express. Let me also add that not all polyvalent meanings are typological, but I think to explore this further would take us too far afield from this thread.

[steve]

I agree that we should not take this thread off in another direction, but, for the record, the Bible does not ever say that Melchisedek was the "king of Jerusalem" (a Canaanite, pagan city at that time). It says he was "king of Salem." Though it is common for scholars to say that Salem should be understood as the Jebusite capital of Jerusalem, the writer of Hebrews flatly disagrees. He speaks directly to the interpretation of that point:

"[Melchisedek was] also king of Salem, meaning 'king of peace'" (Heb.7:2). Thus, on scriptural authority, "Salem" (or Shalom) doesn't mean "Jerusalem." It means "peace."

It seems a stretch to make Melchisedek a mortal man living in Abraham's time, when the writer of Hebrews, writing 2000 years later, contrasts Melchisedek with "mortal men" (v.8) and declares him to still be living (v.8) and continuing continually in priesthood (v.3). Since, unlike the Aaronic priesthood, that of Melchisedek is "unchangeable" (that is, is not passed down from one man to another), it would be hard to explain how a man in Abraham's day held this priesthood, and Jesus later came to hold it—wouldn't that be a transference from one man to another (vv.23-24)?

[DanielGracely]

[Steve:]
…for the record, the Bible does not ever say that Melchisedek was the "king of Jerusalem" (a Canaanite, pagan city at that time). It says he was "king of Salem." Though it is common for scholars to say that Salem should be understood as the Jebusite capital of Jerusalem, the writer of Hebrews flatly disagrees. He speaks directly to the interpretation of that point:

"[Melchisedek was] also king of Salem, meaning 'king of peace'" (Heb.7:2). Thus, on scriptural authority, "Salem" (or Shalom) doesn't mean "Jerusalem." It means "peace."

Unless one makes Heb. 7:2 of private interpretation, on the Scriptural authority of Gen. 33:18, Salem was a city of Shechem in the land of Canaan, before which Jacob pitched his tent when coming from Padanaram. That the writer of Hebrews goes to the meaning of Salem in its etymological root to strengthen his metaphorical point is no refutation that Salem was not also a city of Shechem in the land of Canaan, nor Melchisedek a mortal human who was king of that city in Abraham's time. Of course, as metaphor, Melchisedek is abstracted to serve the purpose of illustration, and so there is no real transference of a mortal priesthood to the immortal priesthood of Jesus.

BTW according to Strong’s, Hebrew word #8804 (Salem/Shalem) is a “proper locative place” and “most Jewish commentators affirm that it is the same as Jerusalem”. Here are Strong’s h8004’s occurrences in the O.T.

Gen. 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem[8004] brought forth bread and wine: and he [was] the priest of the most high God.

Gen. 33:18 And Jacob came to Shalem[8004], a city of Shechem, which [is] in the land of Canaan, when he came from Padanaram; and pitched his tent before the city..

Ps. 76:1-4: [[To the chief Musician on Neginoth, A Psalm [or] Song of Asaph.]] In Judah [is] God known: his name [is] great in Israel. In Salem[8004] also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion. There brake he the arrows of the bow, the shield, and the sword, and the battle. Selah. Thou [art] more glorious [and] excellent than the mountains of prey.

[steve]

It is well-known that Salem can be, and sometimes is, a short form for Jerusalem. I could have mentioned that in my previous post without changing the fact that the writer of Hebrews disagrees with you (and with most commentators) on its meaning when associated with Melchisedek. Though everybody knows that "Salem" could mean "Jerusalem" in instances where the Bible does not say otherwise, I always prefer biblical (especially New Testament) writers to non-inspired commentators. Other readers may choose otherwise.

Again, it seems incomprehensible that a king of the Jebusites (Canaanites) could be a "priest of El Elyon (the Most High God)"—and this at a time when the Most High God had not yet established any religion, altar or priesthood—and that the same man would remain alive and in occupancy of his priestly office some 2000 years later. The simplest answer is that given in Hebrews. That is, after all, scripture.

[DanielGracely]

I don’t believe the writer of Hebrews disagrees with me for reasons already stated. I suppose we could go point/counter-point for a long time on this one, but I think I have made most of the arguments I wished to. So with the following points I plan on closing out my part on this thread.

First, despite your claim that Melchisedek was king of the Jebusites, I believe the Scripture implies otherwise. Citing Israel Finkelstein in The Bible Unearthed, Wikipedia states (emphasis mine):

Scholars are uncertain, however, whether Melchizedek was himself intended in the Genesis account to be understood as a Jebusite, rather than a member of another group in charge of Jerusalem prior to the Jebusites – Jerusalem is referred to as Salem rather than Jebus in the passages of Genesis describing Melchizedek.

Secondly, as for your belief that the Most High God had not yet established any religion, altar, or priesthood, I think the Scriptures are relatively silent about such things in the period leading up to Abraham, yet not so much so that the Bible fails to tell us (1) of the sacrifices of Job on behalf of his sons, and, (2) at the command of God, his three friends (all who preceded Abraham). Note that to offer sacrifices at the command of God on behalf of another is a divinely ordered priestly function. And Noah, too, offered up sacrifices upon an altar, an activity which, if God did not command, He at least recognized and appreciated:

And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD, and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not against curse the ground any more for man’s sake….[Gen. 8:20ff].

That Job and his four friends were all aware of the supreme, Creator God during an epoch prior to Abraham is attested (in the book of Job). This in turn points back to Noah’s belief in God, and shows that it was embraced and practiced by certain of Noah's descendents. And so it should seem natural for us to suppose that one of these descendents acted as a priestly king in Salem prior to its occupation by the Jebusites.

Finally, Melchizedek is described (in the NASB) as “one whose genealogy is not traced with them [i.e., the Abrahamic / Levitical line]”. This as much as implies that Melchizedek did have a genealogy, only not one traceable through the line which brought him tithes. In other words, to say that X is “one whose genealogy is not traced with them” is far different than saying that X “is without genealogy.” The former phrase shows that the earlier statement about being without mother and father, etc. should be understood as metaphor.

Furthermore, the fact that Genesis records the deaths of the lineage of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc., but not Melchizidek, a figure who appears but briefly in one story about Abraham, is utilized metaphorically by the author of Hebrews. It illustrates One who is without ending of days and still “liveth”. So again, I don’t believe a Christophany is what is in view here, especially when the writer immediately says: “And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes…” Note the phrase, “so to speak.” This is not the language of literal historicity.And so this is not the language that supports the idea that Levi historically paid tithes while in Abraham's loins.

Now, again, with these comments I end my own part on this thread, since I have now laid out the major points I wanted to. I will look for your upcoming response, but I don’t see my way toward continuing to comment at this point. Moreover, if the reasons I have offered so far still do not seem reasonable to you, I doubt that any additional arguments I might offer you would seem any more persuasive.

At any rate, thank you for the conversation.

[steve]

I rest my case with my previous arguments, which have not been answered, thus allowing you the last word.

[Homer]

Hi Steve,

Now back to the original subject. Earlier I had written:

Matthew 5:29 (New King James Version)
29. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell (gehenna).

Now, if the Valley of Hinnom was meant, how would Jesus' statement be understood? Who, having lust of the eye for a woman (the immediate context), would be detected for what was in their hearts, and by whom, God or man? Men could not discern this and if God determined to punish them in the Valley of Hinnom, how would we expect God to motivate the Romans (or anyone else) to do it?

In Jeremiah's prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and slaughter of the people we have a conquerer with their own wicked interest in what they did. And God took credit for it as a judgement on the people.

In Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Mount we have a warning that would be readily understood by his hearers if gehenna is understood as a metaphor, both by those who heard Jesus say it and those today who read it. To me it is like Paul's warning in 1 Corinthians 10 where He uses the story of God's judgement of the Israelites, as they wandered in the desert, as a warning to the Corinthians and us - that we will not make it to the real promised land if we do not remain faithful. Many of the actual events in the Old Testament have a spiritual application in the New Testament. Another example that comes readily to mind is Paul's reference in Galatians 4:21-31 to the real event of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar where Paul makes spiritual application of an historical event.

When I read Jesus' warnings about gehenna, I take what He said as having application to us in most cases. I can understand how His words to the scribes and Pharisees, in Matthew 23, could apply in a restricted sense, and also how a person might easily conclude the threat was about 70AD, but it is not necessary to view it that way. But I will let that passage be; I am most concerned about those statements Jesus made that appear to have universal application, such as in the Sermon on the Mount.

In the SOM Jesus warns of gehenna three times and then concludes His Sermon with other figures of judgement such as the unfruitful tree being cut down and thrown into the fire (gehenna?) and the destruction of the house built on sand. I understand all the warnings to apply to us, just as they did to his hearers. For any who might wish to argue that the warnings in the SOM were national rather than individual, Jesus' statement in Matthew 7:22-23 (Many will say to me on that day.....) seems to refer to an individual judgement where the person faces Christ.

Consider the warning concerning the lust of the eye. No doubt the Jews were guilty of this sin, but so are people of all nations. Why would Jesus threaten the nation with the judgement of AD 70 because they, as all peoples tend to do, commited this sin? Surely it was a sin that they could individually be forgiven of by the sacrificial system in place at the time, as they no doubt had throughout their history. And for us who commit this sin today, how would Jesus' threat in the SOM apply to us? I can easily understand how it would apply in the final judgement, but otherwise I am at a loss to understand how it would apply today. Surely this sin would not bring national judgement on the United States (well, maybe San Francisco) .

Do you see all Jesus' threats of gehenna as national in character? Or could the destruction of Jerusalem have been a figure of our final judgement, as Paul's warning of the fate of the Jews wandering in the desert (1 Corinthians 10) was to the people of his day?

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this.

God bless, Homer