Hell is often said to be a place. Take The Divine Comedy as just one very well known example. In it, Dante elaborates in poetic detail about hell as a place. More recently, in another example, in an apparently scandalous interview between Doug Pagitt and Todd Friel on the Way of the Master radio show, Friel asked Doug: “Where is hell, Doug?”
The presumption inherent to Friel‘s question and Dante‘s book, of course, is that hell is a place. That hell is a place is an interpretation that has achieved a kind of unquestioned, commonsense status among many Bible believers.
What does Jesus say about “hell?”
To preface my discussion, Jesus doesn’t seem to talk about “hell” as a place. Rather, he describes “hell” as a kind of relationship that one has with oneself, their neighbors and with God. Cultivating neighborly relations among people, disciplining one’s body and harmonizing one’s preaching and practice, and fearfully trusting in God are key ways of keeping oneself out of “hell.”
Analysis
Take Matthew 5:21-30 as an example (see also Matthew 18:8-10; Mark 9:42-47).
21 "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,[c]’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
23 "Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.
25 "Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.[d]
27 "You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’[e] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
Jesus says two kinds of actions put someone “in danger of the fire of hell.” One is to call a “brother” a “fool” and the other is to “lustfully” look at “a women.” The acts of speaking and looking, of relating to others, is how “your whole body” risks “hell.” Hell isn’t so much a place, as a way of being in relation to other people. Thus, one can “go into hell” by entering their “whole body” into a certain kind of relation with those around them—such as an adulterous relationship. One keeps their “whole body” out of “hell” by maintaining sound relations with people first and then with God. And maintaining this kind of relation takes self-discipline and control over the “whole body,” from the movement of the “eyes” to the movement of the “hand.”
For another instance, take Matthew 10:27-30 (see also Luke 12:3-6).
27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny[d]? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
“Hell,” Jesus says here, is an effect of or dependent on “the will of your Father.” Without that “will,” neither a sparrow “will fall to the ground” nor can a “soul” be destroyed. Thus, “hell” is a way that God relates to or acts toward animals and humans alike.
In Jesus’ words here, God’s relationship to humans seems to be taunt with trusting uncertainty. At one and the same time, believers are told to “be afraid” of God who can “destroy” our “soul” and “don’t be afraid” because “you are worth more than many sparrows.” In other words, Jesus is saying that in relation to God, people are to show fearful deference to God and to trust in “your” worth bestowed by God. To be “in hell,” then, is to be in a certain kind of relationship with “your Father,” to lack fearful deference toward “the One” and to loose trust in your individual worth in God’s eyes.
A third example can be seen in chapter 23 of the Gospel of Matthew. The whole chapter should be read to give the references to “hell” greater context. Jesus is calling out the Pharisees in what is popularly called the “Seven Woes.” In v. 3 Jesus says that the Pharisees place burdens on the shoulders of others, while they “do not practice what they preach.” In other words, Jesus’ beef with them is that they do not relate their words and bodies to God and to others in a harmonious way. Their words are going in one direction and their bodies in another. This relational tension is destructive, as Jesus says in v. 15:
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
By “son of hell,” Jesus is saying that the relational tension the Pharisees “make” in the “single convert” spoils his bond with God. A sound connection with God, to be a son of heaven, entails harmony between one’s words and deeds. Harmony in relating with oneself, with others and with God are key to keeping out of “hell.” A person such as a Pharisee or convert that is “condemned to hell” (v. 33) is condemned to a worldly life disconnected from oneself, one’s neighbors and God.
Finally, in Luke (16:19-31), we have the story of Lazarus and the rich man. In this account, Jesus does seem to suggest that “hell” is a place that the rich man is in, just as Lazarus and Abraham are in a different place. But look more closely. Jesus is saying that the worldly relationship between the beggar Lazarus and between the rich man will be inverted in the forevermore. Lazarus and Abraham are “far away” from the rich man. Or said differently, Lazarus and Abraham are close to God and the rich man is disconnected from God by “a great chasm.” Strong relations with God are immanent to heaven and disconnection from God is immanent to “hell.”
Concluding discussion
As I read Jesus’ remarks on “hell,” I see him emphasize over and again that “hell” is a relationship. “Hell,” as far as Jesus word’s are concerned, is not a place. “Hell” can be seen as being relationally distant and disconnected from self, neighbors and God—to lack a sound and harmonious relationship with them is to be “in danger of the fire of hell,” which destructively effects the “whole body” and “soul.”
* All references to the Holy Bible are from the New International Version.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
I disagree. “Hell” (translated from the Greek geenna) parallels with “judgment” and “council.” Jesus is explaining actions have concrete consequences. If one is angry with his brother, he is in danger of judgment; if one insults his brother, he is in danger to the council; and if one says “fool,” he is in danger of being tossed into the fiery valley of Hinnom. The consequences are not the depraved states these actions sometimes produce, however—no, Jesus is not going to let his audience off that easy—it is the judgments those actions provoke. Naturally, in modern society, if you murder someone, you will face trial, most likely conviction, and end up in jail or even face death, so also in Jesus’ mind his audience will pay for their actions.
As for interpreting what exactly Jesus means by geenna, it is debatable; but it is clear he is evoking images of judgment. I find it more likely that Jesus imagines the catastrophe to come upon Israel forty years later, when quite literally thousands of Jews were thrown into the valleys (Hinnom included) to rot. If not, he was at most imagining a future post-resurrection judgment similar to what John depicts in his Apocalypse.
This should probably be interpreted within a Jewish, Old Testament context as well. The valley of Hinnom was originally a place of sacrifice where Ahaz, for example, offered his children to the false god Baal through flames (2Ch 28:3), thus evoking God’s judgment. How exactly the Pharisees and their converts are comparable to sacrificed children is not exactly clear to me. Maybe Jesus implied that the Pharisees were bringing the judgment of Gehenna upon themselves.
Quote:
Jesus uses a different Greek word in this account, hades, and it seems to adopt its wider Greco-Roman meaning rather than its (especially early) Jewish meaning.
I personally relate this parable with the coming reversal of fortune: the wealthy of Israel are to face judgment and exclusion from God’s New Covenant whereas the poor and even the Gentiles are to enter into a renewed community where God’s Spirit personally dwells, all foreshadowing the renewed Earth the people of God inherit and the wicked are denied after resurrection. Although, as N.T. Wright points out, this parable points to a belief in life after death in the first century. Since this the specific details of the content of this parable is quite unique to the New Testament, I think it needs to be taken with a grain of salt, though.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
What exactly do you disagree about?
I’m not trying to get at what Jesus meant so much as what he said about “hell.” I think the notion that we can get at Jesus’ meanings is fruitless. All we have is what he said and did.
How do you determine that a passage should be interpreted within the context of the Hebrew Bible? In other words: What standard says this text should be interpreted in terms of the Hebrew Bible and this text should not?
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
Jesus was a Jewish prophet and geenna has its origins in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
I’m still not sure what you disagree with. What about what I wrote do you disagree with?
Do you disagree with my interpretation of Jesus’ usage of the word “hell”? Using the Gospels, what interpretation of Jesus’ use of “hell” would you suggest? Let us compare what the scripture says.
Jesus was a Jewish prophet and geena may well have had its origins in the Hebrew language. Yet the New International Version of the Holy Bible renders it the word “hell.” My concern is with how Jesus talked about “hell,” as the Gospels put it. Why? Because that is also how most believers talk about it today. They say “hell.” As in: “You are going to hell for believing X.” As best I can tell, Jesus wasn’t talking about beliefs or places, but about how we act toward ourselves, our neighbors and our God.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
Yes. It was your interpretation I disagreed with.
Just because most Bibles translate geenna “hell” doesn’t make it right. Hades, for example, was once translated “hell” by the KJV but is now carried over directly as “Hades” in most modern translations. Unfortunately, most translations continue to render geenna “hell.” With the logic of that translation, though, hierosoluma could be translated “heaven.”
Jesus was talking about a place because Gehenna is a place. Whether Jesus imagined the wicked being thrown into this valley forty years later, in our future, or both, is what is up for debate, in my opinion.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
Just because most Bibles translate geenna “hell” doesn’t make it right. Hades,
for example, was once translated “hell” by the KJV but is now carried
over directly as “Hades” in most modern translations. Unfortunately,
most translations continue to render geenna “hell.” With the logic of that translation, though, hierosoluma could be translated “heaven.”
I didn’t claim the translation was "right." I said that "hell" is what many Bible believers use today and it is also what the NIV renders—those are the empirical facts of the matter that I’m working with.
As for your disagreement over the translation of the word "hell," I think that you should take that up with NIV publishers and translators. I don’t speak Hebrew or Greek. Do you?
Jesus was talking about a place because Gehenna is
a place. Whether Jesus imagined the wicked being thrown into this
valley forty years later, in our future, or both, is what is up for
debate, in my opinion.
And your textual evidence to support that is….
Again, my concern is with the words of Jesus in the Gospels. Show me some textual evidence that supports your interpretation of Jesus’ use of "hell." Thus far, you have told me that you "disagree" with my interpretation, which is fine, but you’ve shown me little evidence to support your "opinion."
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
So you are trying to reinterpret what Jesus is saying through the lens of your reevaluation of the modern definition of hell?
Geenna is the name of a physical place (on Earth).
You mean, the words of Jesus in the Gospels from a 21st century perspective?
Geenna is derived from the Hebrew ge and Hinnom. The Greek word refers to the “valley of Hinnom.” What more evidence do you want?
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
So you are trying to reinterpret what Jesus is saying through the lens of your reevaluation of the modern definition of hell?
What?
Geenna is the name of a physical place (on Earth).
OK. But your textual evidence is…
You mean, the words of Jesus in the Gospels from a 21st century perspective? Yes. Do you not speak from a 21st century perspective too? If not, how do you go about removing yourself from the 21st century? It seems to me that replacing “hell” with geenna doesn’t remove you from a 21st century perspective. You are still in 21st century America looking back, just as I am. We are where we are, which is an empirical fact that is hard to dismiss. Or is it? What more evidence do you want? You repeating geenna doesn’t strike me as textual evidence. First of all, if it is a place, as you say it is, then it is precisely not textual evidence. Geenna as a place would be evidence outside the text. Second, as the NIV translates it, Jesus uses the word “hell” and not geenna. So, again, if you disagree with their translation, I say take it up with them. Third, in the context of the Gospel verses that I examined, there is a lot of evidence out of which a different interpretation could be put together. Use the textual evidence that is in front of you. Actually look at how Jesus is using the word “hell.” What is he doing with it? What does he refer to? Etc.Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
What I mean to say is you are interpreting Jesus anachronistically because you are imposing your culturally diffused understandings (i.e. of hell) unto the text. Modern understandings of “hell” (which the English word calls to mind) are different (at least in part), I’d argue, from Jesus’ understandings of geenna. For example, to understand why Jesus is the Messiah, you first must understand how “Messiah” was defined and what it connoted in the first century. You should not impose your own definitions back unto Jesus’ definitions, know what I mean?
“And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart” (Jer 7:31).
The valley is identified as a place in the texts. Is that not textual evidence?
Since when is the NIV the standard for interpretation? Rotherham’s Emphasized Version and Young’s Literal Translation render geenna “Gehenna.” But we do not need to fallaciously appeal to authority to look at the Greek texts and see the Greek word geenna, the word the authors most likely penned themselves at one point in time, and identify what the word would have meant to the original authors.
I’m sure we will see what we want in the texts, but I think how ever we define Jesus’ use of geenna, it should be limited to a form of judgment, because the word is used to describe the consequences (Mat 10:28; 23:3; Luk 12:53) the wicked were/are to face.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
Are you familiar with a red herring? When I made my post, I asked an explicit question of the text. I asked: What does Jesus say about “hell?” I didn’t ask: What did Jesus say about “geenna”? And with my question, I gave explicit reasons for why I asked it: because it is commonplace for people to use the word “hell.” Until you, I’ve never heard anyone use the word “geenna,” so I would say that the phrase is not commonplace.
You said:
I’m sure we will see what we want in the texts, but I think how ever we define Jesus’ use of geenna, it should be limited to a form of judgment, because the word is used to describe the consequences (Mat 10:28; 23:3; Luk 12:53) the wicked were/are to face.
My point is that “we” are not trying to “define Jesus’ use of geenna.” You are. I’m talking about “hell” as the NIV and most other translations of the Bible render it and the way most people talk about it. What makes your criticism a red herring, I think, is that your criticism isn’t directed at what I actually asked. You’re critiquing me for a question that you asked.
What I mean to say is you are interpreting Jesus anachronistically because you are imposing your culturally diffused understandings (i.e. of hell) unto the text. Modern understandings of “hell” (which the English word calls to mind) are different (at least in part), I’d argue, from Jesus’ understandings of geenna. For example, to understand why Jesus is the Messiah, you first must understand how “Messiah” was defined and what it connoted in the first century. You should not impose your own definitions back unto Jesus’ definitions, know what I mean?
Am I? Or am I reading what is in the Holy Bible? Perhaps the translations of the Bible use anachronistic language—I don’t doubt that. My point is that I’m using the language and words used in the Bible. And when people like Todd Friel of the Way of the Master radio program say the word “hell,” they are also using the words in the Bible. My aim is to clarify what Jesus said about “hell,” as it appears in the Gospels. Again, I say take your charge of anachronism to the translators of the Bible.
The valley is identified as a place in the texts. Is that not textual evidence?
My question is on what Jesus had to say about “hell.” Is that citation from the Gospels? Did Jesus say those words?
Since when is the NIV the standard for interpretation?
I didn’t claim the NIV is “the standard for interpretation.” I said that the NIV is the Bible I used to examine what Jesus had to say about “hell.” We could use other translations. The KJV, NKJV, NRSV, and so on are all there too. I used the NIV because it is a widely read translation and so that particular text and that particular translation is influential in that regard. The KJV would also be a very influential version to look at. Either way, as far as Jesus is concerned, all the translations render the word “hell.” None of them say “geenna,” which is why so many people actually use the word “hell” and basically nobody uses the word “geenna.”
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
Let me get this straight. You are reading “hell” as it is understood in modern times, which on its own is somewhat anachronistic, but then reinterpreting it to mean something that not even modern readers understand “hell” to be. So, in effect, you are interpreting an anachronistic interpretation anachronistically.
Strictly speaking, “hell” means to the average person “eternal torment.” It carries connotations, more specifically, of post-mortem torment, i.e. a state one enters immediately after death. The first problem is the New Testament authors have almost nothing to say about the immediate, post-mortem state of the wicked dead; the second problem is most descriptions of judgment are understood to happen either within ongoing history or after resurrection at the end of history as we know it (which goes against the popular connotations of “hell” as being, in the first place, a post-mortem state); the third problem is most of the language the authors use to describe post-resurrection judgment is of death and destruction (leading to death), not torment (though that would be included in the process ending in death).
You are taking the word “hell,” meaning “eternal torment,” with connotations of “life after death,” and reinterpreting it to refer, so it seems, to a state or lifestyle one enters by acting sinfully. How does this do justice, indeed, to modern understandings of “hell,” let alone Jesus’ understanding of geenna? How exactly does a sinful state, call it “spiritual death,” denote torment (or judgment), not to mention eternal torment? It doesn’t.
Say we ignore the Greek word geenna and assume Jesus was talking about the “hell” modern readers are familiar with. How is the interpretation you suggest even likely? Jesus compares “hell” with council and judgment, not with the actions or states that sometimes lead to council and judgment. He imagines the wicked of his day facing concrete consequences for their actions. Most of the people Jesus was addressing were quite, and it is the same for many people today, content with their sinful ways. (Christianity was precisely such a small movement because it implied, at first glance, a largely unappealing change of life.) The Pharisees didn’t mind putting themselves over the poor; most didn’t mind calling their enemies fools; and the pagans, especially, didn’t mind worshiping multiple gods and participating in various other immoralities. How could the states those actions produce satisfy the consequences Jesus imagines? They can’t. Rather, Jesus sees judgment for the sinful of his audience. They are to be thrown into “hell,” reap what they sow, and face concrete consequences for their actions.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
How would your interpretation change if you used Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible, Young’s Literal Version, or indeed just a regular interlinear Greek-English Bible, like The Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Robert K. Brown and Philip W. Comfort (which, to be fair, translates geenna both as “Gehenna” and “hell”)?
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
I’m not sure how my interpretation would change if I used Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible. My interpretation would be based on Jesus use of “hell” in that Bible.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
Rotherham transliterates geenna as “Gehenna,” so your interpretation would not be based on “hell.”
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
If “hell” doesn’t appear in that translation, then I couldn’t interpret how Jesus uses “hell.”
At the same time, lots of people still use the word “hell” and they got it from somewhere. Most likely, they got it from the various other translations of the Bible that are in circulation that do use the phrase “hell.”
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
I asked a specific question. I did some analysis. I wrote up an essay outlining what I think Jesus is saying in the Gospels about "hell." As far as I can see, when Jesus talks about "hell" he is talking about disconnected relations to self, neighbor and God. "Hell" is a "whole body" experience that effects even the "soul."
So, yes, I would agree with you that people can be "thrown into ‘hell’" and that one faces "concrete consequences for their actions."
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
Does this not, according to your interpretation, completely alter the modern definition of hell? What role does the modern definition of hell have in your interpretation?
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
I’m not sure what “the modern definition of hell” is or how my understanding relates to it.
My aim was to take a commonplace understanding of “hell” that I often hear people use in the present. Then, I looked at what Jesus actually says about “hell” in the Gospels. Not that surprisingly, I found that the commonplace way that people talk about “hell” is fairly different than what Jesus says in the Gospels.
My aim was to unsettle the commonplace, to disturb the taken for granted and unquestioned.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
I have Jewish friends that tell me that the concepts of heaven and hell as an other-worldly place are not a part of their religion. Better, they say, to think in terms of being near to or far away from YHWH. This seems consistent with a Jewish emphasis on what is going on and will go on in the here and now, and perhaps then. How does this construct affect the argument over the original or even the modern meaning of the word hell, in any language?
I have a Catholic theology professor who thinks the Jews did and do have a concept of at least heaven. Go figure.
I caution both commentators that it is dangerous to make sweeping statements about what most people mean when they use this or that word. I think on any basis your own personal sample will be too small to make such sweeping probability claims.
I note that both commentators appear to believe that there is consequence for sin, and that it is something that is not pleasant to experience.
What meaning "should" we assign to the word in light of a post-modern rejection of the supernatural?
Finally, thanks to both for offering a bird’s eye view of the battle that has been raging for centuries by, between and among biblical interpreters. Very instructive from a didactic point of view.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
How does this construct affect the argument over the original or even the modern meaning of the word hell, in any language?
I’m not sure what you mean.
I caution both commentators that it is dangerous to make sweeping
statements about what most people mean when they use this or that word.
I think on any basis your own personal sample will be too small to make
such sweeping probability claims.
I agree. I’m not trying to make sweeping claims about all times and all places. I’m not trying to make a scientific claim based on large statistical samplings. I took a commonplace understanding of "hell" and called it into question.
What meaning "should" we assign to the word in light of a post-modern rejection of the supernatural?
I think "hell" can/should be seen not in metaphyical terms, but in concrete relational terms. As Martin Buber might put it, "hell" is increasing distance between I and Thou, between You and Me, and between I and I. Relational estrangement and disconnection is "hell." And as Jesus indicated, it is a "whole body" experience, one that is most physical and destructive.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
Well, there are some Jews who roughly have a concept of heaven and hell: Gan Eden and Gehinnom.
According to jewfaq.org:
Gehinnom, on the other hand, is more like a purgatory to most Jews.
Again, we must not confuse modern Jews with ancient Jews. Both, it would appear to me, have a concept of Heaven: it’s where God dwells; but unlike most Christians, to most Jews, Heaven is not a place that can be reached. The earliest Jews did not seem to believe in an intermediate state at all. Later Jews, including first century Jews, for example, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon, seemed to believe in a conscious afterlife.
Jacob’s understandings of consequences do not sound inherently unpleasant.
Why completely reject the supernatural? If we reject the supernatural, we might as well reject Jesus’ resurrection, and indeed, our future resurrection.
As for assigning a word to what Jacob seems to be describing, there are a couple words and also phrases I can think of: bondage in sin, slave to sin, bondwoman’s son, sleep, death, living in darkness, and so on; in other words, a state, especially willful state, without God, and more specifically, the pre-baptism state.
As for my understanding of hell, one word: judgment.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
Jacob’s understandings of consequences do not sound inherently unpleasant.
To me, isolation and estrangement from the love of God and neighbor seems pretty "unpleasant."
Why completely reject the supernatural? If we reject the
supernatural, we might as well reject Jesus’ resurrection, and indeed,
our future resurrection.
Why cling to the "supernatural"? It is not Bibilical.
And since "supernatural" is not in the Bible, I think it is a stretch to claim that the rejection of the "supernatural" is a rejection of "Jesus’ resurrction, and indeed, our future resurrection."
Moreover, given the predominance of scientific naturalism, I think that the whole notion that "Jesus’ resurrection" is a "supernatural" event has done great damage to the compelling story of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection.
I think that we should get past the supernatural/natural dichotomy that structures and limits our thinking. I think we would benefit from keeping life on the level of relationships. We relate to self, neighbor and God. None of these bonds are "supernatural," I would submit.
As for my understanding of hell, one word: judgment.
Yet nowhere does Jesus talk about "hell" as "judgement." Granted, to sit in "judgement" is to relate to someone in a particular way. But nowhere does Jesus suggest that "hell" is "judgement." Does he?
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
From your perspective. But what about the perspective of the person in that situation? Many people reject God and are happy for doing so.
Maye you are right and that is a good idea.
He compares hell with judgment (Mat 5:22). Hell is a place (or whatever you want to call it) God himself casts the wicked (Mat 5:29; 10:28; 18:9; Luk 12:5). In fact, Jesus calls hell judgment: “Serpents! broods of vipers! how should ye flee from the judgment of gehenna?” (Mat 23:33).
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
From your perspective. But what about the perspective of the person in
that situation? Many people reject God and are happy for doing so.
You’re right. I have my perspective. I don’t have certainty and I don’t have universal knowledge. So, basically, I can’t speak legitimately "about the perspective of the person in that situation." I mean, I know people that have rejected God and are happy enough for doing so. But I don’t speak for them. They should speak for themselves.
I would say a few more things, though. A relationship with God isn’t necessarily about happiness. Happines, in other words, isn’t a good indicator of one’s relationship with God—be it a close relationship or a disconnected relationship.
A trusting relationship in God is an act of faith. A rejection of God is also an act of faith. Both are acts of faith.
Fidelity in God is not a one time event. It isn’t that I am saved and those that have rejected God are not saved. I know people that were once saved and have since lost their faith and I know people that had once rejected God and now are most trusting and loving toward God. Faith is dynamic. Maintaining a fruitful relationship with God and neighbor is an ongoing process that many of us struggle with all of our lives.
He compares hell with judgment (Mat 5:22). Hell is a place (or whatever you want to call it) God himself casts the wicked (Mat 5:29; 10:28; 18:9; Luk 12:5). In fact, Jesus calls hell judgment: “Serpents! broods of vipers! how should ye flee from the judgment of gehenna?” (Mat 23:33).
I think that I spoke too soon and didn’t look at my own essay close enough. Jesus does indeed speak of "hell" and "judgment" together. We are in agreement.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
No problem. I thought that was the case.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
I can’t help but think you have been wrestling with this topic and grabbed a concordance, looking up every reference of the word hell in the Bible… and then supported your argument with those references. If that is the case, here are some other references that deal with the given semantic domain.
Matt. 18:8 If your hand or your foot causes you to sin cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.
Matt. 25:46 ¶ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Mark 9:43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.
John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”
2Th. 1:9-10 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.
Jude 13 They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.
Rev. 14:11 And the smoke of their torment rises forever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name.”
It seems as though the eternal nature of the said verses very much allude to the very thing you are arguing against. I would like to hear your thoughts. Have a wonderful day.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
Thanks for your comments. I’ll do my best to answer your concerns.
I used Biblegateway.com to search the NIV for all Jesus’ mentionings of “hell.”
If there were multiple similar mentionings, such as Matthew 5:21-30, Matthew 18:8-10 and Mark 9:42-47, I just focused on interpreting one citation.
But some citations that you note, like John 3:36 (NIV), don’t actually use the word “hell.” So, I didn’t interpret them.
One key point is that verses that “allude” are not what I’m interested in. Look at my question. I’m interested, explicitly, in what Jesus had to say about “hell.” There’s a difference between looking at allusions to hell and looking concretely at what Jesus said about “hell.”
The very thing that I’m arguing against is the commonplace view that “hell” is a place. I don’t see it. It seems to me that Matthew 5:21-30 offers a fine example of “hell” as a way of relating with one’s self and one’s neighbor.
When Jesus says “gouge” out an eye and throw it away, it seems to me that he’s saying precisely nothing about a place. Rather, he is saying that one has to relate to one’s self in a particular way—one has to be disciplined and not allow one’s eyes to wonder and lust after women. It is exactly this kind of relationship (“adultery”) that will cast one’s “whole body” into “hell.”
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
Like I said, Jacob, Jesus’ understandings were modeled after a place. The valley of Hinnom was and is a geographical location. Interpreting why Jesus talked about that place should stream from the acknowledgement that he was actually talking about that place. Why would finding oneself in the valley of Hinnom constitute finding oneself in a particular state and relationship to others? If someone says, “If you walk out your front door, you will find yourself outside”, the significance of oneself being outside can only be determined if it is acknowledged that the person was talking about the outdoors (or in the case of the sentence being metaphorical, something similar to the outdoors or the dichotomy between inside and out). “Outside” is not some unknown word; it has a meaning. The sentence does not define the word; the word defines the sentence.
You are taking the English word “hell” with all its modern connotations, detaching it from all meaning so all that is left is an unknown word, then trying to define it based on your understanding of what Jesus is saying. This is not exegesis, in my opinion, but eisegesis.
How is the state you think Jesus is describing a judgment? Taking into the modern day connotations of “hell”, how is the state Jesus is describing one of eternal torment? More specifically, how is the state Jesus describing post-mortem?
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
Thanks for pushing me.
Dan Kimball has a post that somewhat bridges the differences between you and I. "If you think I’m going to hell, you should care that I’m going to hell"
He sees hell as a "shutting out" from God, which is a relationship that one has with God—or more precisely, the lack of a relationship one has with God.
To go along with your example above, being on the inside of a house is a relationship (between you and the house) just like being on the outside of the house. They are two different relationships that one can have with their house. Being in God’s salvatory grace is a relationship that one has with God, just as being shut out from God’s good graces is a relationship that one has with God that I call "hell."
Are geographical locations not sitting in relationship to other geographical locations? England is closer to Germany than the US—those are relationships. Aren’t they?
Post mortem is a phrase I don’t see Jesus use, so I don’t know where to start to answer it.
Being shut out from God can no doubt be an infinite relationship—that seems like something along the lines of "eternal torment." Don’t you?
It seems to me that judgement is a kind of relationship that one has toward others or that God has toward a person or people. For a person to sit in judgement of you is a different relationship than for a person to sit in admiration of you.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
Hey Jacob. Thanks for the reply. I see what you are getting at more clearly now. I do have a couple of ideas I would like to wrestle with on the matter. They are more of an approach-based set than the defined matter at hand.
Do you think it is appropriate, or wise, to not use the whole of scripture when it comes to this stuff? It seems as though Jesus teaches alot of things without concrete, pedagogical rhetoric. I keep thinking about the passage in Matt 13 where Jesus tells His disciples that He is teaching in parables to fulfill the Isaiah 6 passage.
It concerns me that you are setting out to assert that hell is not a physical place on the basis of isolated verses, outside of the context. In my opinion, this is a poor hermeneutic approach and is very dangerous.
I feel the way you go about coming to your conclusion is narrow and elementary at best in light of other references to eternal judgment, hell, etc.
Do you ever wrestle with the question of how a loving, gracious God could issue such a seemingly wrathful condemnation for those who do not have faith in Him and live in outright denial of Him? Maybe this is at the heart of your understanding of hell.
I am interested to continue this conversation with you. Have a great day. May God grant us the faith and wisdom to wrestle with His Word to the end that our faith in Him is strengthened and He is glorified!
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
I’ll try to respond below.
You asked and stated:
Do you think it is appropriate, or wise, to not use the whole of
scripture when it comes to this stuff? It seems as though Jesus teaches
alot of things without concrete, pedagogical rhetoric. I keep thinking
about the passage in Matt 13 where Jesus tells His disciples that He is
teaching in parables to fulfill the Isaiah 6 passage.
I think that how you use the scripture depends on what you are asking of the text. In this particular essay, I wanted to try better understand what Jesus has to say about "hell." I don’t think there is anything necessarily dangerous about that question. What about it is dangerous? Can you say more specifically what you mean by dangerous?
Moreover, if my aim had been to see more generally what the Gospels or maybe even the whole Bible had to say about hell, then I would have went about answering the question differently. The hermeneutic is question driven and I don’t think that that is necessarily a bad way of approaching the text.
For my question, it would have made no sense to use the whole scripture. For your question, maybe the whole scripture is appropriate. But, you see, I’m not asking your question. I’m asking my question. And there is a big difference, because you are judging my question-answer based on what you think I should’ve asked and how you think I should’ve answered it.
To be clear, I’m not asserting that "hell" is not a place. I’m empirically showing you that Jesus doesn’t talk about "hell" as a place. I’m showing you that Jesus talks about "hell" in terms of relationships.
You claim my words are out of context, so I have to ask: which context do you speak of?
You asked me:
Do you ever wrestle with the question of how a loving, gracious God
could issue such a seemingly wrathful condemnation for those who do not
have faith in Him and live in outright denial of Him?
No, not really. I worry more about people who kill in God’s name or who abuse people in God’s name or who enslave people in God’s name. That seems to me to be the more relevant concern.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
Not merely out of textual context, but historical and modern context as well.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
I’ve noticed that when I challenge entrenched, commonplace views of something, like “hell,” then I am labeled by those who support the conventional view as “out of context,” as “dangerous,” and so on.
What do you mean by “textual context”? Or “historical and modern context”? Could you be more concrete?
I am happy to try to account for myself further, but making empty claims without specification doesn’t do either one of us any good.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
enarchay and kesed,
A question for you two: Is there one and only one way of reading the Bible? Or can there be more than one interpretive approach?
It seems that you two are suggesting that there is one way of reading the Bible and you two (it just so happens) know that one way.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
If you are doing analysis of someone’s beliefs, trying to find their thoughts related to "cats," it would be asinine to ignore the parts where they used the word "feline" instead. Also, the parts of the subject’s writings where they refer to Caterpillar tractors as “cats,” or the subject’s daughter is referred to as "Cat" for short, is probably pretty irrelevant to the discussion. Context/intended meaning is very important.
Jesus obviously never used the English word "Hell." He wouldn’t have generally spoken in Greek either, even though that’s what we have in the New Testament to work from. There really is no doubt that Gehenna (translated "hell" often) was a real place that was known to most his audience. It would evoke a certain meaning. Most have interpreted that Jesus was using the place as a metaphor, whether interpreted as judgment, separation from God, coming woe on earth, eternal torment of the soul, or whatever. Therefore, "hell" is used in many translations, as Gehenna is unknown to most readers. To do an analysis why Jesus used such a metaphor, it is irresponsible not to acknowledge the word Jesus was using, as if he were translating modern language when he was speaking in the past. The question is why Gehenna makes sense in context, or why was Jesus saying that? What did he mean? If you are looking to insight into the what Jesus meant when uttering "hell" (as translated in NIV, etc), than not looking at the how the word would be heard originally is really putting your head in the sand.
It isn’t helpful to assume Jesus had a single context-free concept for a word he never used like "hell" just because a translation has that word in multiple places, and that word has come to have concrete meanings to contemporaries.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
If you are doing analysis of someone’s beliefs, trying to find their
thoughts related to "cats," it would be asinine to ignore the parts
where they used the word "feline" instead. Also, the parts of the
subject’s writings where they refer to Caterpillar tractors as “cats,”
or the subject’s daughter is referred to as "Cat" for short, is
probably pretty irrelevant to the discussion. Context/intended meaning
is very important.
I’m not doing an analysis of Jesus’ beliefs. I am doing an analysis of Jesus’ words as they appear in the NIV translation of the Bible.
Jesus probably never used the word "hell." OK. Yet there it sits in the NIV and people use it everyday to tell people off. It seems to me that evocations of "hell" are far more significant than arguing over gehenna.
As to the problem of "context" that you refer to, see the article I just posted.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
Assuming you are not doing a word game or something, the reason you are looking at the words is because you are interested in their meaning. You clearly are looking for an overall idea of what Jesus said about hell, and then you assign interpretive meanings to it based on analysis to come up with what Jesus meant by “hell.”
The word in most of these examples in the original Greek is “Gehenna.” Some translations use that. The point is that you shouldn’t ignore the original concept of the word if you want to get at what Jesus is saying. This is a fundamental part of any such analysis of Jesus’ words as they are in the Bible, which is what you are attempting. Obviously, if whatever bible you were using did translate the word as “Gehenna” or something other than hell, it should make very little difference to your analysis. Imagine you were studying the biblical perspectives of “church” and you ignored all the places your bible read “congregation” just because it wasn’t “church”, even though the actual word was ecclesia in both cases.
So, most people are familiar with “hell” and not “Gehenna.” You therefore want to engage the discussion of what Jesus meant by hell. Immediately you see that the original word (in most cases) was “Gehenna” and that has implications for what Jesus meant. It was translated into “hell” in many English translations. So if you want to know what Jesus was saying by “hell” in those translations, Gehenna (as would be understood by the culture at the time) would be relevant, and anyone, including someone who has never heard that word, could easily understand how that word is relevant to Jesus’ words about hell.
Imagine a text that follows the adventures of two characters, Aby and Baby, originally written for the friends of Aby and Baby. The text starts with a phone conversation in which Aby says to Baby that he will be over as soon as the snake gets there. The original readers all knew the “Snake” was the name they used for a crazy bus route that went every which way, and therefore seemed to take forever to get anywhere, but also seemed to eventually go everywhere in the neighborhood. Later in the text, Aby comments that his year has been a ride on the snake, and that becomes a somewhat common expression (although not always directly using the word “snake” but something that references it with different reptilian descriptors). Sometimes the emphasis of the expression is on the exhaustive scope of the described thing, and sometimes more on the length of time, and sometimes more on the inefficient nature of it. The text is translated into another language, for an audience formerly unfamiliar with the life of Aby and Baby. The translators may use the word meaning “convoluted” something once or more for instance when referring to the snake. They may use “local bus” for the first time it is used or other times. Another translator would use a different combination. Translators with poorer understanding of the original context will make poorer translations. And clearly, any words used to translate the snake expression may be used elsewhere in the text to translate some non-snake reference. Regardless, it is the reader who reads it the with the original understanding of the “snake” bus and knows the places in the text that snake is used (and not used), who has the best understanding of what Aby was saying.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
A bit ago, I posted on the problem of "contexts." I noted how we are all implicated in taking something "out of context." Let me illustrate what I mean.
You said:
The point is that you shouldn’t ignore the original concept of the word
if you want to get at what Jesus is saying. This is a fundamental part
of any such analysis of Jesus’ words as they are in the Bible, which is
what you are attempting.
As you rightly point out in the first line of the above quote, I am guilty of ignoring the orgiinal concept.
But, as the second line in the above quote demonstrates, your claim that locating scriptures in their "original concept" is a "fundamental part of any such analysis of Jesus’ words," is in fact, a claim that is "out of context." In other words, your criticism is "out of context."
Trying to interpret scripture by locating it in its "orginal context" is a modern way of reading the Holy Bible. Its a mode of historical criticism and systematic theology—what I’m doing is neither. And I see no good reason to take your modern mode of criticism as the "fundamental" way things are done. Rather, historical criticism is one way people read the Bible and certainly not the only way or necessarily the most fruitful way.
You are right, though, my aim is to interpret the meanings of Jesus’ words. But that isn’t the whole story. My aim is to interpret the meanings of Jesus’ words for people here in the present. And so, as I said, arguing about gehenna is not that relevant.
I hope this helps.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
Yet, you are throwing out what people understand “hell” to mean in the present. You are pretending “hell” has no meaning and trying to define it based on your reading of what Jesus has to say.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
Yet, you are throwing out what people understand “hell” to mean in the present. You are pretending “hell” has no meaning and trying to define it based on your reading of what Jesus has to say.
Three responses:
1) And…
2) But more seriously, you call it "throwing out" and I call it a re-interpretation of what "hell" means in the present. Either way, I’m want to see things changed.
3) I’m not "pretending "hell" has no meaning." Rather, I’m saying the meaning of "hell" is not fixed and timeless, as you and yoder and others seem to be saying. I’m showing you a timely interpretation of "hell."
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
It’s a bit crazy to assert that it seems I am attributing a “fixed” definition of “hell.” I don’t know if I could be much more forceful advocating that word meanings are tied to the context in which they are used. Or, that what the speaker intended is what matters in meaning, not just the words. So indeed word definitions will change how they are normally used over time. This way of looking at meaning is the opposite of the common fixed idea of word meanings, most radical in Platonic thinking.
However, it’s one thing to say that people always use the same words in different ways (with different meanings), it’s a whole other thing to advocate that a word said once in a particular way means something totally different at a different time when looking back at that specific original set of words. This is not just an unfixed theory of meaning, but de facto advocates words have arbitrary or no meaning. “Meaning” itself is meaningless. If the current common/current definition is not relevant, and neither is the original context, then “interpretation” is an arbitrary creative exercise of advocating a desired use of a word. Sort of a game. You do see this kind of thing in the US Constitution interpretation sometimes for instance, but no serious thinker can advocate it as a tenable way to think of real word meanings.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
It’s a bit crazy to assert that it seems I am
attributing a “fixed” definition of “hell.”
Is it really "crazy" or do you just disagree with what I’m saying?
I don’t know if I could be
much more forceful advocating that word meanings are tied to the
context in which they are used.
That is precisely what I am saying too. We agree on this. So follow me for a moment.
If "word meanings are tied to the context in which they are used," then we should focus on how they are used in the present context.
I have never heard gehenna used in my everyday life—gehenna is a word rooted not in the present context. It is a word rooted in 1) ancient Jewish contexts and 2) in esoteric conversational contexts like this and among scholars.
I have heard on many occassions people use the word "hell"—"hell" is a word rooted in the present context. It is a word rooted in the present context because people read it in the NIV and other versions of the Holy Bible. They are literally not talking about gehenna. They are in very concrete terms talking about "hell" and so am I and so is Jesus as presented in the NIV edition of the Holy Bible.
I am not talking to ancient Jewish people and, only to a degree, am I talking about esoteric subjects. My audience is in the present. They use the word "hell." My aim is to offer another interpretation of the word "hell" that reframes it in relational terms for an audience living and breathing in the present and wrestling with the word of God in the present.
it’s a whole other thing
to advocate that a word said once in a particular way means something
totally different at a different time when looking back at that
specific original set of words.
That "a word said once in a particular way means something totally different at a different time" is a matter determined by empirical-historical-genalogical analysis of the use of that word. It is not for you or me to determine ahead of time.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
But you are detaching the word “hell” from the modern context to which you are trying to appeal. According to your interpretation, Jesus says nothing about a place of eternal torment; according to the modern definition of “hell”, he does.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
But you are detaching the word “hell” from the modern context to which
you are trying to appeal. According to your interpretation, Jesus says
nothing about a place of eternal torment; according to the modern
definition of “hell”, he does.
Yes, I’m trying to detach or better yet, deconstruct the modern stranglehold on the word "hell."
While you disagree with what I’m saying, do you understand what I’m saying about "hell"?
I mean, it seems to me that if you can understand that I think "hell" is disconnected relations with self, neighbor and God, then it makes sense enough in our present context for other people too. I’m not asking you to agree with it like it, just to see that it is one interpretation that offers something different than the predominate view on "hell."
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
Deconstruct to what? To nothing? You can’t take words, pretend they mean nothing, and then assign to them the meaning of your own choice.
1) How is God responsible for this disconnected relationship? If it is God who casts one into “hell”, where is he in this interpretation of yours?
2) How is this disconnected relationship a judgment?
3) Where does fire and worm fit into your interpretation (Mat 5:22; Mar 9:48)?
4) How is the destruction of both body and soul involved in your interpretation (Mat 10:28)?
Those are the problems you face textually. As I said, you face other problems by stripping the English word “hell” of all meaning.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
Deconstruct to what? To nothing? You can’t take words, pretend they
mean nothing, and then assign to them the meaning of your own choice.
Deconstruction is a precursor to reconstruction. As I stated in the article, I want to deconstruct a commonplace view on "hell" and offer a relational interpretation.
I’m not pretending words "mean nothing." Based on my interpretation of Jesus’ words in the NIV, which I amply cited in the article, "hell" means a disconnected relationship with self, neighbor and God. That is what I’m saying "hell" means according to my reading.
1) How is God responsible for this disconnected relationship? If it
is God who casts one into “hell”, where is he in this interpretation of
yours?
See the original article. I say that "hell" is both self-made (Matthew 5:21-22) and God-made (Matthew 10:27-30). We put ourselves in "hell" here on earth long before God speaks for eternity.
2) How is this disconnected relationship a judgment?
Again, refer to the original article. Being shut out by God, or having "the will of your Father" (Matthew 10:29) cast against you, seems to qualify as a judgement to me.
And, also, in later conversation you and I spoke about this. You brought it to my attention and I ammeded my interpretation and thanked you.
3) Where does fire and worm fit into your interpretation (Mat 5:22; Mar 9:48)?
Like it or not, I’m not going to answer this because I think that it is a bogus question. Or how about this: justify this question to me. Why should I answer it? What value does it add to this conversation?
4) How is the destruction of both body and soul involved in your interpretation (Mat 10:28)?
See the original article and some comments somewhere in this string that have already addressed this question. My interpretation of this is that fruitful relations with self and neighbor are important and play a role in whether one is cast into "hell" or not, but it is ultimately one’s trusting bond with God and God’s savaltory graces that determines whether one is cast into "hell" or not. And "hell" is the destruction of the "whole body" and the "soul."
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
Because you are trying to define hell and Jesus describes what you are trying to define as a place/state/whatever of fire and worm. If someone tells you a cookie you are trying to describe has chocolate chips in it, you should not ignore it, or else your description will misrepresent the cookie.
I know plenty of people who have unfruitful relations with themselves, neighbor, and God, and their bodies are in perfect tact. Why have their bodies not been destroyed?
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
Because you are trying to define hell and Jesus describes what you
are trying to define as a place/state/whatever of fire and worm. If
someone tells you a cookie you are trying to describe has chocolate
chips in it, you should not ignore it, or else your description will
misrepresent the cookie.
Look at the original post.
I know plenty of people who have unfruitful relations with
themselves, neighbor, and God, and their bodies are in perfect tact.
Why have their bodies not been destroyed?
What you seem to be saying is that you judge that certain people have unfruitful relations with themselves, neighbors and God and they seem to be OK. From appearances, we judge a lot. But these people that you judge to have unfruitful relations, I don’t know at all, have never seen and am in no place to make any kind of judgement. I don’t know them and so I can’t really answer your question.
But turn your question around and ask it of yourself. Assuming that "hell" is a place, why isn’t their bodies destroyed? Could you see their bodies being destroyed if it were a place? Do you see anybody whose body is being destroyed in this place called "hell"?
Carlton Pearson, whom I referenced in my "Emerging Visions of Hell" article, says that he saw the people during the Rwandan genocide as in "hell." Their bodies were certainly destroyed—being estranged from your neighbor in those circumstances may have gotten your head split open with a machete, which seems pretty hellish to me.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
It depends on what hell we are talking about.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
Is it really "crazy" or do you just disagree with what I’m saying?
The former. Not that you’re literally crazy, but I think I made it clear why it is was a super odd statement, not just something I disagree with, given my actual position.
That is precisely what I am saying too. We agree on this.
I think we couldn’t disagree more. You apparently have a way of talking of meanings in "context" that is close to the opposite of the normative meaning. The point that you are not talking to ancient Jewish people is irrelevant to what the meanig is. The point is you are interested in getting at what Jesus was saying so that you can communicate that to contemporary people. He was talking to a Jewish audience 2000 years ago and was a Jew. Your accurate contemporary understanding of those words for the present is more than slightly compromised if you ignore this. You specifically are advocating taking the word "hell" out of context, whether you know that or not. It seems you are not overly concerned with what was meant by Jesus as much as desiring to redefine the word, and using the English words as a vague launching point.
None would advocate that we determine the meaning of words already uttered "ahead of time." That doesn’t even make sense. It’s undeniable that the same words are used differently at different times. The way we know the real meaning each time, to the degree we can which is admittedly limited, is by understanding the context, either implicitly or explicitly in which the word is used. Not only can we do this, but we must whenever we communicate at all successfully.
You say that "hell" is a word rooted in the present context, which, based on how you put it forth, is a convoluted and arguably misleading way of saying that the word is used currently. Jesus didn’t necessarily use it the way it is used today or historically by the church. You obviously agree, since you advocate that Jesus says something else. While you advocate that the word is completely different than most interpret (and therefore would never be translated to the word “hell” in the first place if your interpretation was held by the translators), you still hold that Jesus must have meant the exact same thing each time “hell” is translated in the NIV New Testament, regardless of the original word. This makes no sense.
This conversation isn’t esoteric. No more so than your initial post at least. You are overemphasizing the strangeness/ability to understand translated words and cultural context. Everyone gets the concepts. You are bringing up ideas in your post that are just as likely new to people. Again, even in Tyndale’s Bible which was for the masses, it was included on the one page about the text.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
The point that you are not talking to ancient Jewish
people is irrelevant to what the meanig is.
Not if meaning is conext bound. If meaning is context bound, then who your audience is always matters and the fact that I am not talking to ancient Jewish people and that I am talking to late modern english speakers mostly in the United States, does matter a great deal for me. Maybe it doesn’t matter to you. But it does to me and this is a point you too easily dismiss.
The point is you are
interested in getting at what Jesus was saying so that you can
communicate that to contemporary people.
That is right. How we go about doing that varies. THere are different methodologies of interpreting the Holy Bible.
The way we know the real meaning
each time, to the degree we can which is admittedly limited, is by
understanding the context, either implicitly or explicitly in which the
word is used. Not only can we do this, but we must whenever we
communicate at all successfully.
Exactly. Now if I am looking at how "hell" is used in the present context, it seems the present context is of utmost importance. If I’m trying to communicate Jesus’ words on "hell" to people in the present context, then the present context is supremely important.
…you still hold that Jesus must have meant the exact same thing each
time “hell” is translated in the NIV New Testament, regardless of the
original word. This makes no sense.
It makes no sense because that is not what I’m saying. That is not my argument.
Let me be clear, I am interpreting Jesus’ words as they appear in the NIV and relating them to our present situation. I am making no claims as to what "Jesus must have meant." As far as I’m concerned, I can never know what "Jesus must have meant." My mission is to read his words and try to offer relevant and creative interpretations for people today.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
But you are ignoring the present context! Your understanding of “hell” contradicts its definition within the present context.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
What do you mean by “present context”?
I mean in our current time and place—for me that is late modern America, in which I happen to live in a major urban area.
In our present context, no one in my everyday life uses the word gehenna. They most always use “hell.” They got this word from the Bible and they most often interpret “hell” to mean a place. That seems to me to be pretty much the opposite of “ignoring” the present context—as you claim that I’m doing.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
That is what I meant.
The modern reader defines “hell” as a place of eternal torment. If you take away that definition, you take away the word “hell.” You are ignoring the modern definition and giving the word your own. That would be like me reading “jacket” in the sentence, “My jacket kept me from getting wet”, and saying “jacket” is a lightweight handheld collapsible canopy.
Not to mention, you’ve never considered the etymology of the English word “hell.”
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
The modern reader defines “hell” as a place of eternal torment. If
you take away that definition, you take away the word “hell.” You are
ignoring the modern definition and giving the word your own. That would
be like me reading “jacket” in the sentence, “My jacket kept me from
getting wet”, and saying “jacket” is a lightweight handheld collapsible
canopy.
Readers define "hell" differently. To say that all modern readers define "hell" one way and only one way is an empty statement that I don’t think you can support with evidence.
Conversely, I’m a modern reader and I don’t define it as a place. Neither does Dan Kimball, when he describes "hell" as a "shutting out" from God. So there are two modern readers who don’t define "hell" the way you assert they must. "Hell," as I’ve tried to point out, has multiple possible meanings.
Not to mention, you’ve never considered the etymology of the English word “hell.”
You’re right. But again, there "hell" sits in the NIV translation of the Holy Bible. And "hell" is what people regularly use in their everyday talk.
I tend to use the etymology argument when a word is clearly not in the Holy Bible and yet claimed to be in the Holy Bible by many folks (e.g. "homosexual," "rapture," "inerrency," etc). None of these words are in the Bible, but people will argue til their face turns blue that that is what the Bible means.
In the case of "hell," it is in the Holy Bible for all of us to see.
Re: context, meaning, and interpretation
You are confused by what is meant by providing context. No one is advocating you talk to modern people as if they are ancient Jews. No one is suggesting you talk to English-speakers in Greek. I didn’t say that your audience being modern English speakers was irrelevant to how you present the material; I said it is irrelevant to the meaning of Jesus’ words. The actual meaning of Jesus’ words does not change because a presenter’s audience does.
Now if I am looking at how "hell" is used in the present context, it seems the present context is of utmost importance.
You are only looking at how "hell" is used in the present as a comparison to how Jesus uses the word. Your idea is that Jesus (who was speaking in a different context) didn’t use "hell" as it is used most commonly today among US English speakers. How does the current common definition affect Jesus’ meaning? I think even you are ostensibly attempting to be influenced by Jesus’ concepts, not the present normative ones regarding your interpretation of hell. Your definition is, by your own admission, very different than the common understanding. Following your own way of thinking, you would say it is "out of context" because of that. But, that is not what people normally mean by taking words out of context.
Let me be clear, I am interpreting Jesus’ words as they appear in the NIV and relating them to our present situation. I am making no claims as to what "Jesus must have meant." As far as I’m concerned, I can never know what "Jesus must have meant." My mission is to read his words and try to offer relevant and creative interpretations for people today.
The ardent limitation to "as they appear in the NIV" just seems arbitrarily limited.
If you cannot get at what Jesus meant, your whole enterprise here is useless. Implicitly, you do think you can get at Jesus’ meaning. Your whole thing is about getting to what Jesus meant to convey surrounding "hell." But, if you are doing a personal creative rethinking of the modern word ‘hell," and you cannot get at Jesus’ meaning (and what Jesus meant in context is a priori irrelevant), why start with Jesus words at all?
Imagine a movie is lost and rediscovered in the future. It is lauded as a masterpiece despite its relative quaintness, and one character in particular, “Abilene” captures the imagination of a generation. In this future, they no longer use the word "hot" to mean attractive. In the movie, this meaning is indeed used by this main character. The audience generally interprets her words to always to mean hot in the normal way. The movie takes place in hot weather, and the more normal use of "hot" is used as well.
Two friends and fans of the film, Bob and Cob, each come to suspect something is a little odd when certain phrases are uttered, including the word “hot” sometimes. It’s tricky to understand everything because the entire dialog is a little odd sounding to the modern person. Bob decides to look at all the places the loved character utters the word “hot.” Cob independently does his own investigation. Bob decides that Abilene means something more like “appropriately/smartly dressed” when saying “hot.” Bob explains his idea to Cob.
Bob; You see what I mean. It all fits nicely…
Cob: Yes, I had some of the same concerns about “hot.” Turns out, we’re definitely not the only ones. You know, at the time the movie was made, “hot” was sometimes used to mean something like attractive or really attractive. It was sort of slang poetic term. Like the object was so attractive, it could burn you or you could feel it viscerally. It was a fairly common expression. That seems to fit just as well for Abilene. And also, another character uses it…
Bob: I am only looking at where Abilene uses it. That’s the character that everyone loves. That was my mission from the start.
Cob: Yes, but it is the same movie, so I think it is relevant to the meaning of the word.
Bob: It’s outside the scope of my investigation so it is not relevant. No one I want to talk to in the future really cares about those characters anyway. My point was to see what ABILENE meant by “hot.” Why would I look at what other characters say?
Cob: You know that there was a version of the movie found that was dubbed back when it was made into another language. And the word “hot” is translated to something like attractive in all the times I think are problematic.
Bob: Almost no one has seen that version or even heard of it. There’s no way I could use that version to describe to normal people of today who are only familiar with the current version the meaning of the word “hot.” And another thing you have overlooked, Cob…I am sorry to say but your interpretation doesn’t make sense in the third scene where Abilene uses it. Mine makes sense there. Don’t you think mine is the way to go? I like the story with that understanding.
Cob: The reason it doesn’t make sense in the third scene using my definition is that the normal modern definition of hot is used there. People used the normal/modern use of hot back then too. Apparently such use was much more common than the slang version, according to research. It makes complete sense there as the normal modern sense of the word “hot.”
Bob: Sorry, Cob, but that won’t work. The people I am looking forward to talk to in the future about this are interested in the word “hot” as said by Abilene. You may say it is different in one place than another, yet she utters it clear as can be, “hot,” each time. Nobody uses “hot” the way you are claiming they used to in part. Therefore to use the old version to explain the word “hot” which is used currently, would be taking it out of context.
Cob: That’s not what “out of context” means. Bob, plenty of modern people understand that words change meaning and are used differently in one time than another. You are even promoting that “hot” was used differently than it is used today, and expecting people to understand that anyway.
Bob: I’m just using a different interpretation. What’s the problem with that?
Cob: What? Um, nothing is wrong with having different interpretations in and of itself. Just because there are multiple interpretations doesn’t mean they are all valid or as useful as any other. Anyway, the point is what did the character actually mean when she said “hot?”
Bob: There is no way you can actually know what she means. I am just using her words to come up with a creative interpretation that really seems less awkward than the normal understanding.
Cob: Generally, if you are interested in “interpretation,” it is tied to the understanding of the meaning. In this case, as in any case, knowing how the word was used seems pretty undeniably important to its meaning. If you say you can’t know what she means, what is your point that you think “hot” should be understood to mean dressed appropriately?
Bob: I am making no claims as to what Abilene meant. I am only looking for what we modern people should understand for “hot” there based on what she said in the movie.
Cob: If we knew clues to what she meant outside of the words uttered in the film, wouldn’t we use them? If that influenced our conclusion, wouldn’t that be what fit best? It almost seems that you are just looking to replace with words that you enjoy the most into there, even though that doesn’t fit the common or original understanding. My love for the movie makes me want to know what was intended. I suppose there are all kind of words we can change as a Mad Libs-type creative project though. That could change the story in all kinds of ways, but I don’t know if I’ve got the time for that.
Bob: Cob, you’ll just have to accept that your method of analysis is different than mine. I don’t agree with yours because it doesn’t allow me to talk to modern English-speaking people about the idea of what we should think of as “hot” for when Abilene says it. So, that’s fine. Nothing for you to be threatened by or anything.
Cob: Bob, it’s not that…Yes Bob, we do have very different ideas of how to go about this.
Bob: So what do you think of my idea that “hot” has the definition of “appropriately attired?”
Re: context, meaning, and interpretation
Imagine detaching “hot” not only from the context in which it first appeared in the film, but also the context in which it appeared later when the film was rediscovered. The result is something not germane to either the original or the future context, misrepresenting them both.
Re: context, meaning, and interpretation
Right. In the above example Bob chose “nicely dressed” as a definition for “hot” doing exactly the type of thing you refer to. People do this by mistake sometimes. But Bob unabashedly does it by design/on purpose.
Re: context, meaning, and interpretation
When I first read this post, particularly these two lines:
You are confused by what is meant by providing context.
You are only looking at how "hell" is used in the present as a
comparison to how Jesus uses the word.
I thought to myself, wow you really have this didactic quality to your writing that is like a thumb in my ribs. You apparently are without doubt that you got it Right and I am simply Wrong and Confused. You know better what I mean than I do.
In your mind, is it possible that you are representing one way of interpreting the Bible and I am representing another? Is that even possible?
But anyway…
The actual meaning of Jesus’ words does not change
because a presenter’s audience does.
The first problem I have with this claim is that it presumes that the "actual meaning of Jesus’ words" are accessible to us here in the 21st century.
You apparently think they are accessible. I do not think that the "actual meaning of Jesus’ words" are accessible to us in the present. So we have a real difference here.
The second problem is that, as I said in a past post, you are advocating a static understanding of meaning. You seem to be suggesting that the "meaning of Jesus’ words" just hang in history and wait to be found by us late moderns.
The third problem is that the "meaning of Jesus’ words" have in fact changed considerably based on the presenter and the audience. I mean, historically speaking, look at the wide variety of different interpretations of Jesus’ words that are out there. For you to say that the "meaning of Jesus’ words" do not change is to ignore about 2000 years of people interpreting the words. For you to say that the "meaning of Jesus’ words" do not change is to ignore that we are right now arguing over the meaning of his words.
As far as I’m concerned, the "meaning of Jesus’ words" have been anything but unchanging. They have been dynamic and continuously changing and subject to debate and contention among different interpreters.
You are only looking at how "hell" is used in the present as a
comparison to how Jesus uses the word.
No, actually that is what you are doing.
What I am doing is looking at what Jesus had to say about "hell" in the NIV and looking at how people use "hell" in the present. Then, I’m offering them a relational interperpretation.
I beg of you not to conflate your aim with mine. Please don’t make my project into yours.
The ardent limitation to "as they appear in the NIV" just seems arbitrarily limited.
Limits are to some extent always arbitrary. But you have to draw lines somewhere because you can’t study everything. The purpose of the original article was to look at what Jesus had to say about "hell" and the particular version of the Bible that I looked in was the NIV. It is limited—yes.
why start with Jesus words at all?
Because my question was concerned with what Jesus had to say about "hell."
Finally, I’ve noticed that you ask me to "imagine" this or that scenario a lot. I prefer to look at what the Holy Bible concretely says. If you don’t agree with my interpretation of some text, please don’t ask me to imagine a scenario. Please go to the Bible and offer me another interpration of the text in question. We can imagine all day long. I’m more interested in interpreting the Bible’s words.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
Actually one of the biggest faults of systematic theology is that it is basically a non-contextual way of viewing the Bible. There’s almost a platonic idea of meaning in which the meaning exist independently of the context. In systematic theology the text is fit into a definition structure. The biblical text is used as proof for/to extrapolate these floating concepts. There is a tendency to always assume certain major words that play key parts in the definition structure are used the same in all places. Narrative theology on the other hand tends to do a much better job of sticking to the context.
But of course we always use the context in any sense to find meaning; it has nothing to do with theological traditions. The more you understand the context of a statement, the more you can understand it. Perhaps it is more noticeable in ancient texts where we lose more and more of the cultural understanding of where it came from. It’s undeniably clear how in my hypothetical text with Aby and Baby how the culture that received the translation would benefit from knowledge of the snake bus and where that was used. If I tell someone I think this is the best weather we’ve had this season, it matters where I am in the world to get at what that means. Also it matters what I think is “best.” Maybe I’m a farmer talking to another about weather for crops. Maybe my preferred weather is overcast and cool. This is all we are really talking about with figuring the context. It is synonimous with figuring/understanding the meaning of the words. There is nothing particularly modern about wanting to know where someone is coming from or what he or she means.
People here in the present gain just as much from understanding the context as the original audience. So, if you are interested in communicating the meaning to such people, the context if very relevant.
Imagine a culture (called the X) that has no sheep, and no herding/farming animals at all, and is isolated. The bible is translated into their language, and the word for shepherd is usually translated into culture X words “bo ca” which roughly means “animal leader”, and sheep is translated to a word that means deer or deerlike creature (which are hunted sometimes in their culture). The word “ca” can mean any type of leader, but its most normative form evolves in the culture to generally signify a leader of a small group in war or hunting. Now someone in the tribe who is interested in the bible, decides to see what Jesus says about “bo ca” or just “ca” (The “ca” are sometimes condemned by Jesus in the bible by the way). Jesus describes himself as the “pa bo ca” which would mean roughly beautiful and/or fertile deer leader. If anyone were to study the bible on this without referencing what sheep actually were, what shepherding was actually about in the Jewish culture, and so on, they are going to miss the point of all those references in the bible. The narrower one looks at those words in the scriptures, the more off they will be, because at least the old testament or other parts of the bible can perhaps provide clues. Sure someone could make up their mind not to take into account any information about Jews’ sheep and shepherding, and such a person may find that the current understanding of his culture’s “bo ca” probably wasn’t what Jesus was talking about, but if he is not taking into account such clear contextual aids, he will miss the point as well. The people of that X culture will ultimately come to understand best if they are given the relevant information about Jewish sheep and their use and care. So, to best talk to the X culture about those concepts from Jesus’ or a biblical perspective, you would do best to explain the relevant background as much as is feasible.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
This is more or less the point I have been trying to make all along. However, I’d take it a step further: not only is Jacob taking the English word hell, which itself, as you explained, is detached from Jesus’ context, but he is also detaching the word from its modern context! Jacob not only ignores what implications geenna may have had for the first century hearer, but also ignores the implications the English word “hell” has for the modern reader today. The result is an interpretation completely different from both what the original hearer might have thought and what the modern reader thinks today.
Does anything I have said, whether in my previous posts that Yoder seemed to clarify or in the current post, not make sense? Perhaps the points I am trying to make are not turning out coherent enough, though they make sense to me before I type them.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
The interpretation is different, which isn’t necessarily bad.
Your and yoder’s remarks do make sense to me, I’m just not going to follow you down the interpretation you are marking out. Hence, a new interpretation different from yours.
However, when you say that my interpretation is “completely different” from what a “modern reader thinks today,” I would say hold on a minute.
I would say that talking about gehenna is foreign to modern interpretations. In my everyday life, I have never heard anyone use gehenna. Gehenna pops up in esoteric conversations among people debating the accuracy of a word. Gehenna has little meaning for people today.
Instead, in everyday life, people talk about “hell.” “Hell” is precisely what you hear people say and it is what I’m looking at in the NIV.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
I think you are missing enarchay’s point about your interpretation being different than the modern one. He is not saying you should have that interpretation of course, but that you are trying to have it both ways in a sense.
Your starting point is to be aware of what you think is the modern sense of “hell.” But that interpretation/understanding will have no bearing on how you interpret it. You will be looking at what Jesus says, and that will ostensibly be your basis for the meaning of hell. If it turns out Jesus says that hell is the designated vacation spot for people who work for the government, you will adapt that as Jesus’ understanding (but then maybe you would rethink how important this Jesus’ perspective is in the first place). You then will report how different or similar that is to the common view. OK. In that sense you are sort of following the (relatively recent) reformation tradition of Sola Scriptura. There is another post by john doyle here that brings up the Christian tradition of hell, but clearly that plays no part in your interpretation, even though for most of the Church and most of Church history, that would be very important. However, you’re basically within the Protestant tradition to go the route of looking only at the scripture. But then you don’t want to look at the scripture meaning itself. The cultural and specific references made by Jesus are considered irrelevant even if it has clues to meaning. That he was using different words with different meanings for hell in different parts doesn’t matter. The understanding/tradition of those at the time of hearing Jesus makes no difference. The reason? It would not be “relevant” to the modern person who generally doesn’t know all that stuff yet, and has a totally different idea of “hell.” This is circular. The whole point is that you are looking to Jesus’ understanding of hell. But when you even scratch the surface, you hide behind the idea that it is foreign to modern people, but then you yourself provide what you think is a foreign definition.
You have accused the people who advise looking at the whole picture, or paying attention to the original text in this case as being too modern for your taste. And also that such an approach doesn’t appeal to modern people. But it really is the English language Bible that is the newcomer here. The Orthodox Church used primarily Greek in their scriptures and always had the Geenna/Hades split. Latin had Gahenna/infernos. When William Tyndale first translated the whole Bible into English from Greek and Hebrew he was very aware of the difference of the words hades/infernus and Gehenna. He was frustrated by the English language limitations. On the reverse of the last page of the printed Bible (he didn’t want to waste a single blank page in those days), Tyndale wrote the only page of commentary for the layperson in that Bible. The first thing he wrote on was the difference of Hades (Sheol) and Gehenna (which he also described it’s meaning derived from “valley of Hinnom”) because he was worried the common understanding was inconsistent with the original text.
You say that “gehenna” is foreign to modern interpretations and esoteric, and so should not be included. First, it’s not just about that word, but also about the context. For people to understand about the valley it referred to or whether or not the Jews already had the concept Jesus was referring to would appeal to anyone truly curious about the meaning of the words. And keep in mind what you are doing is very much just as “esoteric” as mentioning in passing the underlying meaning of the words. The average person or Christian cannot give you all the examples of when Jesus used “Hell” in the NIV. I believe roughly the same percentage of people could summarize those passages as would know of Gehenna/Hades or the Valley of Hinnom. The whole exercise of putting the passages together to pull out a single meaning of a word is an academic-type way of engaging with those stories.
Imagine you are trying to explain to someone your idea of what Jesus meant by hell. You make the case that when you look at all the places Jesus uses “hell” together you come up with the idea that hell isn’t a place. As you go on a bit, the other person stops you. “Hold on, Einstein! You’re doing something I almost never do when reading the Bible or talking Biblical concepts with my friends. Your exhaustively taking all the places the word “hell” is used in the NIV even when they don’t happen right together. I don’t normally do that. If you want to make a cogent argument, I suggest you do it in a normal conversational manner I am used to.”
Or, let’s say someone explains to you that they are very concerned about going to the place of hell, and they are interested in finding out what Jesus or scripture says about how one avoids going there. You start to explain how Jesus doesn’t talk about hell as a place. You start to go through the different passages. “No, I am interested in avoiding going to the place of hell. You are talking about something else,” he says. “But hell is not a place…if you would just look here…” you say. “You don’t seem to get it. I am interested in where the Bible shows how not to go to that place. If the passages you provide aren’t about that, I’m not interested in them right now.” “But they are relevant to your question…” “If they are not about avoiding the place of hell, those passages are not relevant.”
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
As I read this, I thought:
Why is it so important for me to investigate “hell” or “gehenna” or whatever it is the way that you want me to investigate it? Why are you trying to persuade me to read the Holy Bible as you read it? What about mulitiple interpretive possibilities makes you want to hunker down and protect the critical historical approach you advocate? What about my actions makes you want to correct me and instruct me on how to do it right, correct, true, accurate, etc? What line have I crossed?
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
This seems completely off-track and likely unhelpful to go into personal motivations and such. Most of your questions here indicate that we see these interactions very differently, in that all the things your questions assume about what I am doing, I pretty much don’t see. Also I note these questions are just as well be turned right back onto you or anyone at anytime. But I admit I am not really interested in doing that.
I will note that I haven’t offered any interpretation of hell/Gehenna at all, but am more concerned about the reasoning behind your “interpretation.” I have no problem with multiple interpretive possibilities at all. I often maintain multiple interpretive possibilities on many subjects. My “approach” revealed here is acknowledging the importance of the original meaning which comes through the context. If we have any clues to that, use them. This is a universal way of gaining understanding of other people’s words, and is done by everyone to some extent.
Honestly, it never occurred to me to convince you to read the Bible like me, so answering that would be contrived at best.
I already explained the main “lines” you crossed, I guess, in my previous posts. That’s a funny way to think about it.
I don’t really know what your talking about with “what about your actions makes me want to correct you” and all that. This is a message board for the exchange of ideas, and you put forth a post looking for feedback in an area that caught my interest. Again I already explained in my posts some of what I found unclear or illogical, and have nothing significant “extra” that is out there. I assume we are mutually looking for clarity in our ideas, and wish to increase each other’s abilities to communicate to more people in ways that are meaningful.
There are a huge segment of folks that you can’t communicate with this type of “argument” you have presented. I am just one who can’t get past the circular logic, arbitrary meaning/interpretation, etc. It’s not just logicians and theologians you are going to miss though. You may not care, I don’t know, but if you or someone else is going to make a case for something (not necessarily related to the Bible), there are some basics that make it much more compelling/worth the time for the presenter and the recipients. Maybe someone else can get benefit from such a discussion, even when the primary party doesn’t.
Whenever I post something, I am always looking for a critique. If someone thinks my whole starting point is wrong, than I would want to see that, before they went on to other things. I am looking for or open to where I am missing stuff as well as what is compelling or could be developed further. So, when I post, perhaps I point out something relevant that hasn’t been said yet, or present something in a new way that helps someone understand. Again, it often is for my own clarity as well. We are all on paths of discovery that intersect sometimes in these little conversations. Hopefully, we all learn stuff.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
We do apparently see these interactions very differently. We also see the practice of reading and interpreting the Bible very differently. So differently, in fact, that what I am saying is unintelligble to you. It isn’t unitelligible to everybody, however. Some people do make sense of what I’m working to say. That’s good enough.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
Thank you again Jacob for further clarifying your statements. This is what happens when we are not able to have a continual dialog in person, so please bear with me as we continue to flesh this out together.
I see now, and should have before, that you are trying to uncover the teachings of the ‘red letters.’ You have an interesting point when you look at only the quotes/teachings of Jesus on the matter of hell.
I appreciate your uncovering the aspect of ‘relationship’, but do not agree that this is the only facet of hell in Jesus’ teachings. At this time I would like to point our discussion back to scripture where we will find a red letter teaching that has previously been left alone.
Luke 12:4-5 reads— “I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.
What is Jesus talking about here when He says ‘after killing the body’? Do you think this goes outside the ‘relationship’ understanding and into something bigger? What does it mean to go INTO hell?
So that I might be clear in understanding your belief:
Do you believe hell is a physical place?
Do you believe it is both a physical place and a relationship state?
Do you believe hell is an eternal state of some sort?
You have raised some wonderful discussion, and I am really enjoying out interaction. God bless you!
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
Luke 12:4-5
reads— “I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the
body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should
fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw
you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.
"do not be afraid of those who kill the body"—a fearful relationship with those that can kill the body is not warranted.
"Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell."—maintain a fearful and deferential relationship with God.
To be thrown “into hell,” then, is to have one’s body and soul figured into a certin kind of relationship with God. The specifics of that relationship aren’t clear in the quote above. But in the "Jesus, ‘Hell,’ and Destructive Relationships" post, I closely examined Matthew 10:27-30 and interpreted it like this:
Finally, you asked me:
Do you believe hell is a physical place?
Do you believe it is both a physical place and a relationship state?
Do you believe hell is an eternal state of some sort?
My aim in this essay wasn’t necessarily to lay out what I believe about "hell." My aim was to see what Jesus had to say about "hell." But that you asked, I have to say that I believe what the Holy Bible says about "hell" and what Jesus has to say in particular. So, I tend to believe that "hell" is a relationship that, as Dan Kimball describes it, is a kind of "shutting out" from God, a distant and disconnected bond with God that leaves one broken, suffering, parched, dry and eventually void of life and beyond the salvatory graces of God.
traditional Christian understanding of hell
Whatever Jesus meant by Gehenna, it’s certain that from earliest times Christians believed in a hell of eternal torment reserved for unredeemed sinners. While a minority dissenting opinion was expressed among the early Church Fathers (e.g., Origen didn’t believe in hell), on this issue as on many others dissent soon gave way to orthodoxy: those souls who "failed the final exam" would be consigned to hell, certainly involving separation from God and probably also physical suffering as well. Augustine believed in this sort of hell; so did Aquinas; so did Luther and Calvin.
Someone having this orthodox view of hell already in mind could certainly find evidence for it in Jesus’ references to Gehenna. I think everyone on this thread would agree that, for the Jesus of the gospels and his hearers, Gehenna connoted not just the physical river valley but also God’s judgment and punishment. And certainly one could find support in Jesus’ teachings for the idea of an eternal punishment for sinners:
In a recent discussion elsewhere the doctrine of the Trinity came up for discussion. Did the Church Fathers correctly understand what Christ and the NT writers had in mind all along, or did they construct a theory to interpret what they read in the Scriptures? I think the same question can be posed about the doctrine of hell. Also, to what extent is the historical Christian tradition to be regarded as authoritative? Does the living tradition, like the Scripture, record the Holy Spirit’s revelation to His people, or does it reveal only the thoughts and intrigues of fallible men? And if the tradition changes regarding belief in hell, as it seems to be doing, does the generally-accepted interpretation of Scripture change along with it?
Re: traditional Christian understanding of hell
A few Church Fathers appeared to support annihilationism, and in addition to Origen, there was Clement of Alexandria who supported Universalism.
I’m not so sure. Already by the time the Talmud is finished, rabbis are still debating what happens in geenna, and among the three major interpretations is a form of Universalism and annihilation. Additionally, Jesus himself evokes images of a place of rotting corpses, not torment. If Jesus had wanted to create a doctrine involving ongoing torment, with all the crucifixions going on during his time, he could have came up with better language. I’m not saying there are not some passages in the Bible that support eternal torment; what I am saying is Jesus’ talk about geenna, in my opinion, does not.
Of course, but being thrown into the valley itself was the judgment, in the same way a criminal being torn down from a cross, denied burial, and thrown into a garbage dumb was a judgment.
One could find it there, I suppose. But one also could find a doctrine of annihilationism. It seems likely the New Testament authors used the Greek word aionios to denote the “age to come” of Pharasaic Judaism, in which case the passage is talking less about how long the life and punishments will last, but when they will take place (after resurrection). As for kolasis, the word appears in the LXX to denote death, so even if Jesus meant by aionios “eternal,” he could have simply been describing the ill-reversibility of the annihilation that he foresees coming upon the wicked.
I’m not sure if the New Testament authors were thinking Trinity as they wrote. However, and I say this as someone who once was borderline Unitarian or henotheist, the doctrine of the Trinity makes the most sense of what the authors said. Likewise, as N.T. Wright explains, the doctrine of the Trinity is actually not far off from what Jews of that period believed about God and his ways of interacting with the world.
I’m not sure where my agnosticism/denial on/of biblical inerrancy puts me on this question. I will say for now the early traditions are valuable, but should not be valued over the canonical Scriptures. Why? Well, right now I see two reasons: 1) the traditions were developed after (most of) the texts we recognize were written and 2) these same traditions have their origins in the Scriptures. This is what N.T. Wright has been saying about the Reformation: instead of obeying all the traditions that have been handed down to us, adopt the methodologies of the creators of these traditions and go back to the Scriptures they earnestly sought. The early Church Fathers are definitely insightful and valuable, but we must realize they could have been as wrong interpreting some of the Bible as, perhaps, many are today. In other words, the Apostolic/Church Fathers were trying to do the same thing we are trying to do today as theologians, and just as it makes sense to refer to (fellow) scholars to help understand the Bible and its context, so also does it make sense to refer to the early Apostolic/Church Fathers (which most scholars do).
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
I acknowledge that I haven’t looked deeply into the matter, but according to Wikipedia:
The Wikipedia entry goes on to say that in Jesus’ day the Pharisees believed in an afterlife: the righteous dead in Sheol would be resurrected, whereas those who were consigned to Gehenna would suffer torment until Judgment Day. The Pharasaic tradition would come to dominate diasporate Judaism after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD. In subequent rabbinic teaching Gehenna was transformed into a place of time-limited purification analogous to Purgatory in the Catholic church.
If Wikipedia is accurate, then when Jesus spoke about Gehenna wouldn’t a substantial proportion of his audience have been thinking about the place of punishment after death as taught by the rabbis? And since Jesus apparently did believe in an afterlife, might not many of his listeners, Pharisee or not, have assumed that Jesus subscribed to the Pharasaic understanding of Gehenna?
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
I doubt they thought of Gehenna as the place one goes after death. That would have been a chamber of hades, I would assume. For example:
Also, in the Babylonian Talmud, Gehenna is thought of a place one is sent after resurrection in the age to come.
Considering Jesus often criticized the Pharisees, I think we must also consider that Jesus understood Gehenna a different way.
Like I said, I need to see some evidence the first century Pharisees believed Gehenna was a place one went immediately after death.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
enarchay -
I don’t really have a horse in this race, and I’m not sure why I’m engaging in the discussion other than that it’s theoretically interesting and I like to throw in dissenting opinions. I honestly suspect, though, that the story isn’t a clean-cut one, that there were and still are Jews for whom Gehenna means hell, while for others it means purgatory, and for still others it means a particular valley in Israel. As I said before, based on my reading of the Gospels I think there’s evidence that Jesus believed in punishment after death. Based on evidence from history at least some of the first century Jews believed in punishment after death. The contemporary Hebrew word for "hell" is "Gehenna," so there must be some association etymologically between that particular valley on earth and a place of punishment or correction in the afterlife. I should think you’d need to take this sort of evidence into account in arriving at a defensible and robust position on this issue, for your own sake if not for an audience that likely knows less about the subject than you do.
On a related note, in the couple of months I’ve been back here at OST I’ve observed that you have a particular enthusiasm and capibility for exploring theological topics like this one as opposed to, say, the practical ways in which the church should engage in social and political action. There’s nothing wrong with the latter sort of topic, and no doubt your participation in OST reflects only one aspect of your overall Christian commitment. Still, based on what I’ve seen it seems like you could really rise to the occasion in putting together a persuasive theological thesis on a topic like Jesus’s understanding of life after death.
Re: Jesus, "Hell," and Destructive Relationships
I think it would have been wholly possible for them to hold one of the three popular views of today (eternal torment, annihilation, or purgatory/universalism) while at the same time maintaining the judgment takes place in the particular valley. Gehenna is not derived from GeHinnom for nothing.
Most also derive the word “world” in the phrase “world to come” from the Hebrew word olam, which meant something different to the ancient Hebrews than it does to the moderns, assuming it to refer to a place one goes after death. This is similar to how some modern readers (even scholars!) are looking at “resurrection” and thinking it to refer to the life one experiences immediately after death. Anachronism is the flaw of both reasonings. My point is, just because hell is translated from Gehenna does not mean the two concepts are exactly the same. It seems most Pharisees focused more on judgments in the age to come than after death. Moreover, I’m pretty sure “hell” at one point in time (I’m not sure how long before the publishing of the KJV) had connotations of that which is covered, and would have been a fitting translation for hades, which literally means “unseen.” It has come to mean something quite different.
As for why the valley has come to be a place modern Hebrews associate with hell, I would say, has to do with 1) how the biblical texts focus on this valley as a place of judgment and 2) how the Talmud and other Rabbis describe Gehenna as a place of torment/annihilation/purification.
I’ve studied this topic probably more than any other and eschatology continues to interest me. Maybe it’s a bad thing, but as a Christian, I am attracted to theology, and this area of theology interests me the most.
The reason I may not participate as much as others in some other areas on this website is that some subjects are still relatively new to me and I am trying to absorb what everyone else has to say. My lack of experience sometimes prevents me from commenting. I have been trying to contribute a bit more lately, but maybe I am still falling short.
That is probably what I will write my thesis paper on. However, I will be focusing on the intermediate state (which I don’t consider geenna to be), and will not be dealing with (post-resurrection) judgment.
Re: meaning, interpretation, context, and definitions
Actually, as I’ve said, our understanding of another’s conveyance is always limited. What is very clear is that the more you understand the context of the speaker, the more you understand the words. This is with any two parties, not just Jesus of course. This can be shown in any simple conversation, both how a lack of contextual understanding leads to poorer understandings, and where there is a disconnect in understanding that goes beyond reasoning ability, it is about having less than ideal context overlap in specific ways. We can see that as well in the hypothetical examples I’ve given, including how Aby’s story is better understood with the understanding of the “snake” bus, how the understanding of the translation of shepherd in the bible would be better be understood by the X tribe if they had some basic understanding of sheep and sheep culture among the Jewish people, how Cob’s interpretation that takes into account how the original culture of the time the movie was created used “hot” leads to a better understanding, how understanding a statement about how the weather is “good” weather depends on knowing about the situation and location of the speaker, etc. In no case are we saying that perfect understanding occurs. But conversation is based on the idea that you can come to better understanding. We ask questions to understand the context better so we know better what the speaker is saying.
It’s best to clarify a couple of things. There is a difference between the thinking of words themselves having absolute meanings, with language attempting to reference the “real” definition, and the idea that when someone conveys something they mean something basically in particular as opposed to something else. The former idea is a Platonic type of idea, which I reject (as would Jacob I assume). Ultimately, in terms of communication at least, it is meaningless to talk of meanings completely outside the intent (which is dependent on the context) of the sender. The second idea, that people mean something somewhat particular in their conveyances, is one that everyone accepts at least implicitly if they function in a human in society, but may not explicitly believe it I suppose.
We do not have the ability to get Jesus’ message in all nuances today (and neither did the people of the time to a different extent). The reason is that we don’t have Jesus’ perspective, which includes his context. It is not because he did not mean something by his words. If he didn’t mean something particular of value, or if the attempt to understand the particular meaning has not been influential, or if understanding the particular meaning could not be influential to our current understanding, there is no reason to spend time doing analysis on what he said.
My son came downstairs tonight playing with an audio recording device after I thought we had already done the final night rituals. I messed around with it for a minute, and then said “good night” as he went back up to bed. Now I will make the ‘radical’ claim that I meant something in particular (and even more obviously, there’s a lot of stuff I didn’t mean) by “good night”, regardless of how it was interpreted.
There is a difference between interpretation and meaning. This is obvious, but the words are used interchangeably above. The meaning of someone’s words are not the same as people’s interpretation of them. Yes, interpretation is an attempt to get at the meaning. Interpretations change over time. I’ve given plenty examples of that. Interpretations are different than the intended meaning itself they are trying to point to, unless the interpretation is miraculously perfect. The question is what factors give a more accurate interpretation.
Misinterpretations are ubiquitous, and occur because we have limited understanding of each other. They can grow with the distance of time. They certainly don’t change what the original presenter was trying to convey, however. If my son recorded my “good night” words on his audio recording, and that recording was being looked at many years later, and the people decided “good night” was me saying something about how the night was especially pleasant that evening, that wouldn’t change that I had not meant that at all. If someone came to the future debate over the interpretation of “good night” in this instance armed with knowledge of how the expression “good night” was generally used in our time, and showed other examples of it perhaps, then he would come to a better interpretation. He would be able to convince the rational people there that they had been missing something very germane to the interpretation, and they would change their interpretation. But no matter what people interpret in the future, it does not change my initial intent or the meaning to my son or myself. Later, we ourselves may misinterpret are own words in the just the group in the future, but that again does not retroactively change what has already happened.
I am not sure if this is directed at just me, because I haven’t gotten into what Jesus was talking about except to mention indirectly a tad what we know about “Gehenna” and the Gehenna/Hades distinction being part of the discussion for instance. I haven’t said anything about to what extent, if any, Jesus’ concept of “hell” differed from the normative one or the presented one. In this thread, the basic assumptions of the word study and understanding texts, and what type of things would be relevant or irrelevant in the discussion are among the topics I’ve been talking about.
What I am doing is looking at what Jesus had to say about "hell" in the NIV and looking at how people use "hell" in the present. Then, I’m offering them a relational interperpretation.
It looks like this is a restating of the very thing denied a sentence before in your post. (Sentence denied by Jacob, where “you” refers to Jacob: “You are only looking at how "hell" is used in the present as a comparison to how Jesus uses the word.“) In both cases you are looking at the interpretation in the present. In both cases you are looking at how Jesus uses the word. Neither indicates you used the present definition at all in your coming up with the “relational interpretation.” Now in your actual analysis and purpose, it is even more clear. Not only are not influenced by the present definition, you are explicitly reacting against it, looking for something different, and we see nowhere an argument of moving toward the common definition just because it exists. Your whole argument for your advocated interpretation is based on Jesus’ translated words. If you did not mean to base your definition on Jesus’ words, I think it is fair to say that your argument makes it seem like that is what it is based on. And if your definition is not based on Jesus’ words, then the exercise seems more than a little pointless and disconnected.
Perhaps it would have been better had I said “overly” limited and “unnecessarily arbitrary.” Agreed, you can’t study everything, but there comes a point where the limitations are too much to make the study very useful or meaningful. Like a statistical analysis of 20,000 university students on a controversial manner, where the sample size was 5 of those students.
When my son came downstairs tonight, I said, “Hey buddy, why are you down here?” If he answered, “Because I decided to come downstairs,” he’s really not answering the question (at least as intended and as I’d expect him to understand). It’s hard to imagine that one wouldn’t get that “why start with Jesus’ words at all” had to do with what was it about Jesus in particular that would make one start with or make integral to an attempt to investigate or redefine “hell” (especially if you can’t get at his meaning anyway). But I suppose it could be one of these clear misinterpretations. There seems to be an ongoing problem of the methodology of the analays itself being an end and a beginning. It is often presented as if it exists for itself in a vacuum rather to illuminate a larger question.
I am a big supporter of using the Bible as the basis for figuring out what Jesus says on a subject. But by the time I looked at the thread, it was clear Jacob was calling some of the most basic and obvious Bible facts/tools/background on the manner into question as to their relevance to the discussion. Therefore that is clearly the most important piece for me to address.
In a good conversation about a study or proposed theory, the initial methodology does not become the end in and of itself. Anything else that further helps illuminate what the limited methodology/sample was supposed to help illuminate, is obviously part of the discussion. But in this case, the methodological question was being treated as more basic than the broader theological questions that spawned it, and therefore clearly useful contextual aids are ignored. The question of what was said by Jesus in the passages of the NIV that have the word “hell” is not really a significant theological one. That was the initial methodology of getting at the question, what did Jesus try to convey about hell. A limited start is fine and impossible to avoid, but that is no reason to stop as you get more relevant information. If information that is relevant to the conceivable deeper question (which brought about the particular investigation in the first place) is rejected out of hand because it isn’t within the limited methodology of the investigation, the whole endeavor seems more than a little flawed.
Let’s say I am doing an experiment testing the hypothesis that a certain chemical causes a change in butterfly wings’ color. In my experiment, I chose to inject 5 ml of it over a time frame to the subjects, then observe, then inject a higher dose, etc. I get no color change, and came to the point of publishing my conclusion that the chemical doesn’t impact the wing color. But a friend points out another researcher has done some stuff with slugs and the same chemical, looking at a possibly related reaction to what I was looking for, and he found that after a dose of 3 ml, the slugs didn’t have the caused reaction, but below 3 ml they did. Somehow too much of the chemical seemed to block the reaction from occurring. If I were to run from this information, simply saying that my question only had to do with what would happen if 5 ml and more of the chemical reacted with my subjects, I would be rightfully thought to either be dishonest or helplessly obtuse by my friend.
In addition, it became unclear whether or not you believed Jesus meant something in particular that we could get closer to understanding through study. That needs to be cleared up before we can have a meaningful discussion on what Jesus meant. Sure, we can creatively imagine definitions for what Jesus said all along. I’m more interested in getting closer to the meaning Jesus’ words (aka interpretation). This includes using our understanding of the whole Bible and its context, original language, etc.
Please forgive me as obviously I will continue to use analogies every once in a while when I find them appropriate. This thread does have more of them than usual unfortunately. But in return for the transgression, I will not make a laundry list of writing styles and argument fallacies that I find ineffectual or unhelpful, and therefore ask to have precluded from further use. As an additional help in the manner, I offer that perhaps the best way to reduce their number is to show them irrelevant to the point being made by the presenter in the particular cases. It’s the only way to reign in those analogy abusers as far as I know. Peace.
Re: meaning, interpretation, context, and definitions
It would still be helpful to me to know where you (yoder) stand on the question that I asked in the last post:
Is it possible that you represent one way of interpreting the Bible and I represent another? Is that even possible?
Also, if yoder could sum up his disagreements with my post on "hell" in three (or two or four or whatever) main points, what would they be?
What is very clear is that the more you understand the context of the speaker, the more you understand the words.
I agree. But which context are you talking about: the times and places that Jesus spoke in? Or the times and places that the Gospels were written in? Or the times and places in which "hell" is uttered in the present?
Yoder seems to place the most emphasis on the context in which Jesus spoke. Jacob seems to place the most emphasis on the contexts in the present when people are concretely intepreting the Bible and applying it to their everyday lives.
This is a real difference between yoder and Jacob.
Ultimately, in terms of communication at least, it is meaningless to talk of meanings completely outside the intent (which is dependent on the context) of the sender.
The intent of someone’s words are significant, perhaps. But the words themeselves are more important, I think.
The meanings of words are never confined to someone’s intent. I mean, you know the old saying that "good intentions paved the way to hell." In more concrete terms, I have said well intentioned words to my wife that still hurt her feelings. So, as far as I can see, the words said are more important than the intent behind the words. The meanings of the words emerge out of the context of their use, not from their intentions.
That yoder and Jacob see the significance of intent very differently, it will be hard if not impossible to reconcile their different understandings of meaning.
But no matter what people interpret in the future, it does not change my initial intent or the meaning to my son or myself. Later, we ourselves may misinterpret are own words in the just the group in the future, but that again does not retroactively change what has already happened.
When I read claims like this it continues to make me think that you are arguing for a static understanding of meaning. Yoder seems to be saying that a word uttered at time A holds its meaning through times B and C. Yoder seems to be saying that it is the interpretation that changes and not the meaning of the original utterance. It is as if the original utterance and its intent hang there in history and wait to be interpreted by present day people.
My point is that we don’t have Jesus’ original intent or words. No one does. We have Jesus’ words as written in the Gospels by the various authors. And then we have people in the present uttering words they’ve read from the Gospels and the Bible more generally. The meaning of Jesus’ words change considerably from Gospel to Gospel and from person to person—as we can all see for ourselves by the wide variety of understandings.
I simply do not believe that we have access to Jesus’ words or intent. What we have is the Bible.
Perhaps it would have been better had I said “overly” limited and “unnecessarily arbitrary.” Agreed, you can’t study everything, but there comes a point where the limitations are too much to make the study very useful or meaningful. Like a statistical analysis of 20,000 university students on a controversial manner, where the sample size was 5 of those students.
Maybe so. But if someone’s question is concerned with what Jesus has to say about "hell," it makes no sense to read Psalms. For, Jesus doesn’t speak about "hell" in the Psalms.
My concern with yoder and some of the other critics is that they are reading "hell" into various parts of the Holy Bible where it is clearly and empirically not there. They are being too general and too broad.
I am a big supporter of using the Bible as the basis for figuring out what Jesus says on a subject. But by the time I looked at the thread, it was clear Jacob was calling some of the most basic and obvious Bible facts/tools/background on the manner into question as to their relevance to the discussion. Therefore that is clearly the most important piece for me to address.
Yes, I am calling long held positions into question. See my OST biography for more context on why I might be doing that.
In addition, it became unclear whether or not you believed Jesus meant something in particular that we could get closer to understanding through study.
Whatever Jesus meant in particular, I don’t think that you or I or anyone else has access to that particular meaning. All that we have are his words as presented in the Gospels. We can interpret his words as they sit there on the page.
Re: meaning, interpretation, context, and definitions
To reply would waste much needed time in redefining words…I’m thinking about the word work…