Gehenna.
|
I was conversing with someone via e-mail about gehenna, and here is his response to me:
What do you think of his argument and how would you counter it? |
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Comments
Re: Gehenna.
The fact that the word ‘gehenna’ is used in later Jewish apocalyptic and rabbinic writings is of limited significance. It is, of course, possible that they reflect earlier traditions that would have been alive in the first part of the first century. According to Jeremias the earliest Rabbinic reference is in T. Sanh. 13.3, though it is always questionable whether these represent genuinely early traditions:
The School of Shammai say: There are three classes; one for EVERLASTING LIFE, another for SHAME AND EVERLASTING CONTEMPT who are accounted wholly wicked, and a third class who go down to Gehenna, where they scream and again come up and receive healing, as it is written: AND I WILL BRING THE THIRD PART THROUGH THE FIRE, AND WILL REFINE THEM AS SILVER IS REFINED, AND WILL TRY THEM AS GOLD IS TRIED; AND THEY SHALL CALL ON MY NAME AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD.
But the question is whether there is good reason to think that Jesus’ use of the term presupposes the same literary and theological context. There is little in the Gospels to suggest that he spoke and thought like the Rabbis (or the later apocalypticists) and much to suggest that he spoke and thought and acted like the Old Testament prophets.
So my argument would be that Jeremiah 7:30-33; 19:1-13 provides the most relevant interpretive context for Jesus’ notion of a judgment of gehenna. Just as the words in the temple about making it a ‘den of robbers’ are intended to recall Jeremiah’s warning that God will destroy the temple because of the sin of the people (Jer. 7:8-15), so Jesus deliberately invokes Jeremiah’s appalling vision of the dead thrown into the valley of Hinnom during the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem. He does so because he believes that Israel is on a path that will sooner or later lead to the military destruction of Jerusalem.
I have just posted some comments on Luke 12:4-5; Matthew 10:28 is discussed here.
Why is having one’s corpse be cast into that valley any more terrible than being unceremoniously cast anywhere else? Something more seems to be going on.
Yes, something more is going on. The point about the corpse being thrown into the valley is that it symbolizes God’s devastating judgment on his people. It is not simply death and lack of burial that is at issue here; it is the horror of God’s rejection of his people.
Since everybody dies—and in ancient times that was often at a young age—the disaster of AD 70 seems inadequate to explain the severity of Jesus’ warnings about avoiding Gehenna—that it is better to pluck out one’s eye or cut off one’s hand than to be cast into Gehenna (Matt 5:29-30). This is especially so in that most of his audience would be dead before AD 70 some forty years later.
I think this simply misunderstands the force of the prophetic witness. The primary concern is not with the fate of any particular individual (that is our modern, post-enlightenment perspective) but with the fate of the holy city, the place of God’s dwelling, and of the nation. The warnings are directed against the ‘evil and adulterous generation’ that rejects the Way of hope and survival, and whose behaviour will within a generation bring the destruction of war upon itself. It seems to me that the jeopardy that Israel was in fully accounts for the severity of Jesus’ language. Not only Jesus but also Josephus described the war as a time of unprecedented suffering for Israel: ‘the misfortunes of all nations since the world began fall short of those of the Jews’ (War Proem 4; cf. Matt. 24:21-22). Wouldn’t it be worth losing an eye or a hand to avoid that outcome?
On the face of it James 3:6 is a more general statement and may reflect a different conceptuality. But James, nevertheless, writing from Jerusalem presumably, foresees a coming judgment on the wealthy and corrupt that his readers will in some sense have to endure (5:1-11; cf. 1:2-4, 12). It doesn’t seem to me too difficult to locate James’ eschatology within the prophetic narrative of judgment and renewal that shaped Jesus’ teaching. If the tongue is set on fire by Gehenna, it is because it promotes the wickedness and conflict that will eventually bring judgment upon Israel.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: Gehenna.
Enarchay,
I’m glad you’ve discovered this site, since you seem to be getting many of your questions answered. Like you, I think Andrew’s historical take on New Testament eschatology has a lot of interpretive power, and makes the NT narrative (particularly the words of Jesus) hang together quite well. I highly recommend you read Andrew’s ‘The Coming of the Son of Man’, which fleshes out the arguments you might have heard here.
At the same time, just because Andrew is smart and persuasive doesn’t make him right. There are other smart and persuasive people (e.g. ‘Kingjames1’, Peter Wilkinson, on this very forum) who disagree (sometimes quite strongly) with him. I have had some very frustrating days reading through certain debates where each party sounded right, though they were often in clear contradiction. And so, in the end, it can’t all be solved by appeals to authority (unless you’re Catholic—but Andrew ain’t the Pope). For me, it comes down to my picture of God (which, of course, has evolved over time, but is stable around certain concepts). The traditional doctrine of eternal post-mortem conscious torment doesn’t seem right to me. And I’d hate to be a wishy washy ‘liberal’ who wags the biblical dog with the philosophical tail, but if God so loved us that he sent his son to save us, then ‘hell’ contradicts the very nature of God.
Even folks who are quite traditional, like CS Lewis, realize that God’s character would prevent him from having an active role in ‘maintaining’ hell (which is why Lewis speculates that hell is locked ‘from the inside’—in spite of the traditional pictures which very much see it as locked from the outside). NT Wright (who has more in common with Andrew than other NT scholars) has comments on both ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’ here. You’ll notice he stays far away from hell as divinely mandated punitive torture (good move!).
At the end of the day, we must be faithful to God, and faithful to Scripture. Nevertheless, when the latter is ambiguous, I find it safer to err on the side of God not being a sadist.
Cheers,
-Daniel-
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: Gehenna.
That’s an excellent question—and it highlights one of the things I enjoy about NT Wright: he takes us back to the biblical text, and tries to show us what it does say, and what it doesn’t say.
While Andrew and Tom (Wright) differ from traditional preterists in that they still see a big something (namely, the final resurrection) as still ‘to come’, that means that the biblical text tells us very little about it (since the texts traditionally taken to point us to this event may have had something more local in mind). The resurrection and the full renewal of all Creation remains as a future hope, but we can’t make decisive pronouncements about what it’ll look like (contra ‘Left Behind’)—though it must of course be understood as the fulfillment of the story up to now, so it does have a general shape.
So to answer your question, I’m not sure what Wright means. It seems to me he’s just highlighting an open-ended piece of the text which traditional interpretations have tended to gloss over (to the best of my knowledge). We don’t have it all figured out. We know that God is good, but we also know that humans are sometimes (frequently?) stupid enough to resist him; but that even then, God doesn’t give up (I personally think something like what’s been called ‘annihilationism’ best fits with the data, but I don’t think it’s an open and shut case).
Brian McLaren does a good job of exploring these themes in his "The Last Word and the Word After That" (you should read it if you haven’t).
Hope that helps.
Cheers,
-Daniel-
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: Gehenna.
I don’t know the details of Wright’s views, since I haven’t yet gotten around to reading his ‘big books’ (though I have read some of his little books). Nevertheless, from some of the articles and sermons at ntwrightpage.com, he believes in the ‘second coming’, but also argues that most of the texts which have been traditionally understood as teaching the doctrine don’t in fact teach it. He too views the language about the ‘coming’ of Christ largely in terms of the vision in Daniel 7 (though I think he and Andrew may differ on their views of Paul’s eschatology), and argues that most of the ‘judgment’ (and therefore ‘gehenna’) language in the gospels refers to judgment on Israel in the prophetic, historical sense—a sense nicely fulfilled in 70AD.
Beyond that, I’m not sure. But New Testament studies have never been more exciting to me than they are these days.
-Daniel-
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page

Contradictions in the Gospels: Problems or Opportunities?
Day One: A Sir Toby's Creation Myth
A Generous Orthdoxy - Brian McLaren
The Lost World of Genesis One - John H. Walton