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.
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.