Hell in the New Testament - Gospels and Jesus' Direct Teaching - Part 3

By Bart Breen

Continuing on in this, the third note looking at passages in the Gospels where Jesus mentions or refers to Hell, the passage in question is: 

.

Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

. 

Whom Speaking to:  Jesus is speaking to his 12 disciples whom He is sending out to proclaim the Kingdom. 

.

Word Translated Hell: A form of the word Gehenna. 

.

Immediate Context:  Jesus is instructing his immediate 12 disciples on how they are to go out and proclaim the message of the coming of the kingdom.  This is earlier than and independent of the Great Commission that follows and it can be said that the context of this passage in general in terms of timing is temporal to the specific time they are being sent.  The primary clue to this is that the audience being addressed are Jews and Gentiles are specifically excluded at that time as the Gospel message at this time is first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles.  The dynamics of this change after the cross and resurrection and then when the Holy Spirit is poured out in Jerusalem at Pentecost and then following in a similar manner in Acts 10. 

.

In the verses preceding this one, Jesus speaks of the opposition that they (the 12) will experience which will come primarily from the religious leaders and religious organizations.  Jesus uses a phrase that is repetitive for Him in many other passages as well that "the disciple is not greater than the Master" meaning just as Jesus will be (and has been already) persecuted, they should expect no less.  Immediately prior to the verse in question, Jesus speaks of the accusation that was brought against Him earlier, namely the one that Jesus cast out demons by the power of Beelzebub, the prince of demons.  In that regard, there's a tone set for what then comes above.

. 

So in this verse Jesus, when he speaks of those "who can kill the body" He is speaking of those same people who accused Him of being in accord with Beelzebub, or in other words, the Pharisees and Religious Leaders of that day.  This is contrasted with his call upon those disciples to not fear them, but rather fear (same word in both instances, a form of the Greek word 'phobos") the One (God) who is able to destroy (apolesai) not just the body, but the soul as well.

.

Thoughts:  This is a key verse that will factor in later significantly on several issues.  First, the word root 'phobos' as I noted is the same word here whether it is speaking of fear of those who can destroy the body only, or the One God, who can destroy body and soul.  Phobos can still, in a similar manner as does 'fear' in English, convey a sense of reverential awe toward the one being focused upon.  Even with the same word in place the context dictates it's use and when God is the object (note that the fear is directed toward God, not hell) that's a clear indication.  However, the fact that the One (God) is followed with a reference to hell and destruction of body and soul is an indication that it could be speaking of a similar type of fear.  As is common with many references to Gehenna however, it's not portraying a fear of those who are lost, the fear here is suggested for the disciples and the suggestion appears to be speaking not of an eternity of punishment but rather a destruction of soul and body which the verb for "destroy" is in an aorist form which denotes a specific point in time which continues on.

.

Conclusions:  It would be premature to draw a conclusion from one verse so, please note that my comments are not geared toward what future conclusions I may try to make, but rather here, simply trying to pull out of this one passage what is said and what isn't.  The conclusions from one passage are not all that the Bible has to say on something, so if this steps on anyone's toes, I suggest you step back and ask yourself if you would or could come to a different conclusion from this passage alone without tempering it with other passages.  That's legitimate to do, but I remind you that I'm not at that point yet.  I'm treating each passage separately as it's own component and I'll try to merge ideas after this part is done. 

.

What I do conclude however is that the threat of Gehenna here, or hell is directed not toward the lost, but rather toward the religious and it's not necessarily a direct threat so much as it is a contrast between the  power of religious leaders to kill the body but not the soul, and God who can destroy (not torment or punish eternally) with the image or picture of Gehenna called upon in demonstration.

. 

The ideas present here seem to indicate a threat of annihilation (the aorist being used) and not how Hell is traditionally looked upon.  That won't be the case in every passage we look at.  Feedback is welcome, and even strong disagreement.  Please keep it civil and addressed to issues and not personalities.

.

The next passage we'll look at is Matt 11:23.Blessings,

.

 (to be continued)

Hell in the New Testament - Gospels and Jesus' Direct Teaching, Part 2

By Bart Breen

I'll continue to address passages in the Gospels where Jesus mentions Hell using the same approach in terms of identifying context and audience.  I'm purposely avoiding for the moment, making any defnitive conclusions based on individual passages.  Anyone is welcome to comment and make your own observations.  I'll save mine until after this element of review is done, and then we'll look at Acts, a few elements in the epistles (not much mention there of hell) and Revelation and then a look at the Patristic Fathers and speculation as to where other elements of the doctrine of hell may have been brought in from outside the Bible.

Mat 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast intohell.  30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast intohell. General Context: Jesus' Sermon on the Mount

Whom speaking to:  A predominantly Jewish audience of people who have followed Jesus to hear Him teach.

Word Translated Hell: in both instances a form of the word Gehanna

Immediate Context:  Jesus is contrasting the Old Testament law against adultery with His teaching to those listening to Him now that not just the adultery is included within this stricture but that lust itself puts a person at risk of punishment.  This is a continuing of the thought earlier from Matt 5:22 where Gehenna is mentioned as well.  These thoughts should be seen as connected to one another and complimentary in nature.  This clearly is an instance as well, at least insofar as the physical mutilation goes, of hyperbole.  Jesus is making a point by overstatement, not suggesting that actual physical mutilation is an option to avoid hell.

.

Thoughts:  My thoughts here are much the same as the earlier reference in Matt 5:22.  Some see the reference to Gehenna itself with it's connotation of punishment in a burning trash heap as an extension of the hyperbole Jesus uses in other elements.  I'm not sure that that is a fair conclusion.  The elements are different and the element of hell repeats as theme here.  Again however, the context of Jesus' speaking is not suggesting hell as a place for sinners per se.  The people being addressed, and the relative proximity of His disciples in the midst of this discourse, seems to put things in the context of the Old Covenant which Jesus is contrasting in preparation for the Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven.

Conclusions: The thought that was likely in the minds of those hearing at the time was that Gehenna was a type of purifying or even a form of purgatory where such sins would be paid for under the Old Covenant.  Of course, Jesus knew He was coming to establish a New Covenant and He may have intended more to this than the audience hearing could understand.  Jesus often shrouded His teaching with an element of mystery and mysticism.  In any event the focus here appears to be upon those who are at least seeking to be right with God and Jesus is tying the idea of punishment (or at least refining) beyond the simple law and into the realm of heart attitudes.  That's the primary point here.  Gehenna is an illustrative element and not the primary focus in the sense we're considering.  

(To be continued)

Hell in the New Testament - Gospels and Jesus' Direct teaching, PT. 1

5-Part Teaching by Bart Breen .....Part One

 It's time to look at the Gospels and specifically what Jesus has to say about Hell.  First however another few general observations about these passages.

1.  All references to hell in the Gospels are found in Matthew, Mark and Luke.  There are no direct references to hell in the book of John.  The first 3 gospels are often referred to as the Synoptic Gospels.  They are called this because they preimarily contain narratives of Jesus actions and words in a somewhat linear perspective.  John is different than the synoptics in that it is more a theological summary of who Jesus is and the themes of his ministry and teaching.

2.  It will be important when looking at the passages involved to differentiate between what word is being used, ie. whether it is gehenna or hades.  Remember Jesus didn't commonly speak in koine Greek to the best of our knowledge.  Based on His geographic location, the times and the audiences He was addressing, there were 3 basic languages in use.

Koine (which just means "common" to differentiate it from Classical) Greek was the language of trade and commerce.  Most of the known world had been familiar with Greek for centuries because before the Romans came and arose to World Empire status Greece was the primary nation and empire.  Even though the official language of Rome was Latin, in practice most communications to and from tributary nations and provinces continued in Greek.

Hebrew was the language of Religion for the Jews in Palestine.  Most Jews even if not literate and able to read, participated at the temple and/or in the synagogues (which had developed during the times following the destruction of the temple and continued even after the temple was rebuilt) where sciptures were read in Hebrew.  Discussion at the Synagogue meetings likely took place in Hebrew.

Aramaic was the common language of the region and the most likely language to have been spoken by Jesus when He was addressing crowds of the common people.  Even where this might not have been true the only other real option as to the languages spoken would have been Hebrew, not koine Greek.  So, what we have in the Gospels where Jesus speaks are not the verbatim words that he would have directly spoken by Jesus.  The words themselves are translated from Aramaic or Hebrew into Koine Greek.  So, the use of the word Gehenna or Hades takes on significance in terms of the understanding of the human author who penned the particular Gospel in question.  In general, the word "Sheol" from Hebrew is likely translated to "Hades" in the Greek and unless Jesus is intending otherwise, the use of the word "hades" should be understood as the grave or place of death and not the greek underworld which hades denotes in other contexts.  The word "Gehanna" is transliterated into the Greek and so it's probable that when the word "Gehenna" is used that that is the actual word that Jesus used, and that He used it with a conscious appeal to the knowledge of His listeners who would be familiar with its location and characteristics.  He also would be familiar with its reputation as a place where idol worship and child sacrifices took place, where apostates (those who repudiated their faith) went for punishment and the presence of fires. So, it's my belief as I go through these passages that Gehenna is the word Jesus used (or the NT translates to) when the focus is upon the element of punishment.  So, it will be very important to consider the context of Jesus' words and teaching and who Jesus is speaking to and/or whom Jesus is speaking about.  As much as possible, I want to suspend what I think I already know about hell and assume a blank slate and hear what Jesus is saying, and what it meant to those who were originally listening.

So off we go. Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

General Context:  Jesus' Sermon on the Mount

Whom speaking to:  A predominantly Jewish audience of people who have followed Jesus to hear Him teach.

Word translated Hell: Gehenna

Immediate Context:  Jesus is contrasting the Old Testament law against murder with His teaching to those listening to Him now that not just the murder is included within this stricture but that anger itself and insulting another person puts a person at risk of punishment.  Throughout the Sermon of the Mount, Jesus uses a literary and speaking device that is commonly known as Hyperbole.  This is something too that is common in the Old Testament, particularly in the Psalms and portions of scripture employing poetic language.  It's closely associated with parallelism which contrasts and compares.  Not far removed from this particular verse are the most commonly cited verses that demonstrate this type of "hyperbole" or overstatement to drive home a point, and that is where Jesus speaks of mutilating oneself in various ways as preferable over entering "Hell."

Thoughts:  By using Gehenna Jesus is tying the images associated to His audience's of the Valley of Hinnom.  The idea is that Moses Law gives clear lines not to cross, but that God looks beyond things to the motives and intents of a person's heart.  So anger toward another person that rises to the level of calling them a fool or a morally deficient person creates a state of mind and heart in someone that effectively is no better than if they went ahead and killed that person.  The idea present here seems not so much a sense of "hell fire" as in the sense of a Lake of Fire in the underworld (which we'll look at in Revelation) but more the sense of equating such a person with the apostate who will go through punishment and the fires noted are referring to the trash fires associated with Gehenna.  In any event, the Sermon on the Mount includes elements of Hyperbole and we have to be careful about picking and choosing what we want to take literally and at face value versus what we see as a clear overstatement.  Beyond that, I'll leave the speculation and final conclusion to you.  I want to address these passages individually first and then look at them collectively for what they tell us about "Hell.

"Conslusions:  There's no differentiation in this passage between "saint" or "sinner."  The term "hell fire" creates an image in our minds that might be very different than what it created in the minds of those original listeners.  However, there clearly seems to be an element of punishment being assumed here.  The duration of punishement in this passage isn't clear. 

(I'm going to stop here for a short while to ask for feedback.  Is this format of going through verses helpful to those of you reading this series of notes?  If not what would be better in terms of a different approach or added components?  Based on your feedback, I'll pick up in the next note and continue through the Gospels looking at the references to Hell.)

THE SECRET

An excerpt from "The Secret" by C. Baxter Kruger

 
Imagine an eight-year-old kid at the fair.  There he is, in the midst of everything 
a kid dreams about.  Exciting rides, caramel apples and cotton candy, games and 
prizes--all are within his reach.  And he is taking full advantage of the moment.  But 
suddenly he realizes that he has been separated from his parents.  He is lost.  Sheer
terror seizes his little soul.  In a split second he moves from having the time of his
life to being so panic-stricken that he no longer even knows there is a fair.  His
freedom to see and enjoy the good and wonderful things that are all around him has
vanished into thin air.
What this story is telling us is that what happens to our insides shapes the way
we experience what is outside of us.  Our insides can be so shredded we lose sight of
the great and awesome things that are all around us.  We no longer see them as great
and awesome.  And when that happens, we lose our freedom to enjoy them.
I think the kid at the fair is a parable of human life, it is a picture of what is
happening to us, of why our joy and contentment are so fleeting, of why life can be
so painful and meaningless.  Again and again we encounter something that
overwhelms our insides.  It may well be that we do not even know it.  The internal
shredding, so to speak, may not even reach the level of our conscious feelings, much
less the intensity of feelings that we see in the kid at the fair.  But the shredding is
happening, and the effect is the same.  The bewilderment inside short-circuits our
capacity to behold the glory of life around us and thus shuts down our freedom to
live in it.  And we don’t live in it.  Our living becomes as empty as the laughter of
the lady who did not get the punch line of the joke.
It is not that the glory goes away.  It is just that we can no longer see it.  We
look right into the smile of a little girl and see nothing.  There she stands, a sheer
miracle, the living embodiment of beauty, and she is smiling at  us, eager to share
life.  But we look right through her, smile and all.  We do the same with other
people, with flowers, with music, with work, and baseball.  Their wonder and glory
just don’t register with us.  They appear pale to us, mundane, even boring and
meaningless.  I don’t think that we are consciously aware of what is happening.
Rarely do we tell ourselves that this person or that flower is boring.  We just don’t
see them for what they are, and as a result, their presence does not touch us or mean
anything to us.  Before we know it we have flown through a week--maybe even
months and years--with our eyes glazed over.  We may be alive, but we have missed
out on living life. For we cannot relate to, much less enjoy, what we cannot see.  

Let me relate a story to you that illustrates what this kind of blindness does to
us.  It comes from C. S. Lewis’ splendid tale, The Chronicles of Narnia.
is of a beautiful land on a clear day.  The whole earth is full of glory, alive with a
radiance that only our best, most glorious days can hint at.  It is Narnia, the promised
and longed-for land.  Several of the heroes of the story are walking around with
increasing awe and irrepressible joy, never having even imagined anything so
beautiful, so intensely alive, so real, so good.    
But also present is a bitter little band of scowling Dwarfs.  They are not
exploring.  There is no light of wonder in their eyes.  They have no joy.  They are, in
fact, huddled in a tight circle on the ground.  Far from knowing themselves to be in a
beautiful land on a clear day, they believe they are trapped in a “pitch-black, poky,
smelly little hole of a stable.”
Lucy, one of the heroes of the story, shouts to the Dwarfs:  “But it isn’t dark,
you poor stupid Dwarfs.  Can’t you see?  Look up!  Look round!   Can’t you see the
sky and the trees and the flowers?  Can’t you see me?”
One of the scowling Dwarfs, named Diggle, blurts out in exasperation: “How in
the name of all Humbug can I see what ain’t there?  And how can I see you any more
than you can see me in this pitch darkness?”
Instantly a bolt of grief shoots through Lucy’s heart.  Then an idea comes to her.
She snatches up some wild violets and shoves them toward Diggle.  “Listen, Dwarf,”
she says,  “even if your eyes are wrong, perhaps your nose is all right: can you smell
that?”
 Smell he can, but far from smelling fresh violets, Diggle smells stable-litter,
and is so deeply offended he takes a swipe at her.  
At this point, the great lion Aslan appears.  Aslan is the supreme hero of the
story and the one responsible for the existence and the glory of Narnia.  Lucy, in her
bewildered grief over the blind Dwarfs, immediately implores Aslan to do something
to help them.  What follows is fascinating:
Aslan raised his head and shook his mane.  Instantly a glorious feast
appeared on the Dwarfs’ knees: pies and tongues and pigeons and
trifles and ices, and each Dwarf had a goblet of good wine in his right
hand.  But it wasn’t much use. They began eating and drinking
greedily enough, but it was clear that they couldn’t taste it properly.
They thought they were eating and drinking only the sort of things
you might find in a Stable.  One said he was trying to eat hay and
another said he had got a bit of an old turnip and a third said he’d
found a raw cabbage leaf.  And they raised golden goblets of rich red
wine to their lips and said “Ugh!  Fancy drinking dirty water out of a
trough that a donkey’s been at!  Never thought we’d come to this”.
This is a truly tragic situation.  The Dwarfs sit in the open on a splendid
cloudless day.  Before them is a luscious feast called forth by the King (admittedly
you would have to be British to think of this as a feast, but use your imagination).
They have the golden goblets in their hands.  But, as Lucy said, their eyes are all
wrong, and so is everything else, dreadfully so.  They actually drink the rich red
wine of the promised land and taste only dirty water from a donkey’s trough!  
Note carefully that the problem is not that the Dwarfs have been excluded from
the glory of Narnia.  They are every bit as much in Narnia as are the heroes.  In fact,
it would be impossible for the Dwarfs to be any closer to Narnia than they already
are.  But their eyes are wrong.
7
  And the absence of proper seeing leaves them
incapable of experiencing Narnia as  Narnia.  Like the kid at the fair, the Dwarfs’
blindness robs them of the joy of Narnia and thus leaves them scowling and bitter.

This is what happens to us.  It is not that we are excluded from Narnia, so to
speak.  The feast is ours.  We daily dine on the bounty of the King’s royal food and
raise his golden goblets of rich red wine.  But something rather like an optical
illusion keeps happening and we do not see properly.  We do not see who we really
are, where we are, and with what glory we are involved. And this optical illusion,
this absence of light, this absence of proper seeing, destroys our ability to experience
the feast as a feast, the fair as a fair, life as life.  Without seeing the glory we have no
freedom to live in it.  And life inevitably becomes a joyless, boring, meaningless
routine--sometimes, even dreadful.

THE DANCING GOD

The Dancing God....Neil Carter...excerpt
Once again, I find that C.S. Lewis put his finger on things that I didn't realize he had.
The words "God is Love" have no real meaning unless that one person contains at least two Persons. Love is something that one person has for another person. If God was a single person, then before the world was made, He was not love.
I came across this idea first in the writings of Norman Grubb. I'm sure the realization didn't originate with either of these two British gents.
What both of them are saying is that if God is Love, then He must be plural. He must be a community of at least two. One person alone cannot be Love, because there must be an object for His affection other than Himself. As it turns out, our scriptures describe three persons of God. The Father and the Son we understand (sort of). But this third Person evades description. Trying to describe our God strains our language beyond what it can handle, because even our concept of a "person" leaves some things unexplained here. Lewis goes on to say:
God is not a static thing--not even a person--but a dynamic, pulsating activity, a life, almost a kind of drama. Almost, if you will not think me irreverent, a kind of dance. The union between the Father and the Son is such a live concrete thing that this union itself is also a Person.
A dance. Now that's beautiful. My apologies to all the old school Southern Baptists out there. But this is a truly charming and illustrative image. So much of my confusion cleared up once this idea got a hold of me.
It works for understanding the union of the Trinity, as my theology professors once pointed out. When they said it, they had to use a fancy Latin word for it (circumincessio) so that they wouldn't feel irreverent. Everything feels more legitimate once it's put in Latin, you know. Circumincessio indicates a kind of mutual enfolding which expands and contracts, so that they are one, and two, and one again. As if one Latin term doesn't cut it, my professors felt the need to bolster this concept with a second, Greek term (perichoresis), which essentially means the same thing. But now it's in both Latin and Greek, so it's gotta be okay to believe, right?
But the Dance extends beyond the inner relationship of the Father, Son, and Spirit. Jesus said that we would come to know the same kind of relationship (it's at the end of John 17, I'm not making this up). We are becoming one with God in the same way that He is already one with Himself (!)
If you think about it, this explains a lot. I have always gotten confused about whether I am separate from God or one with Him. Sometimes I pray to Him. Other times I feel like He is praying through me. But which is right? Which is better?
It's a dance. You get what I'm saying? Watch two people dancing. They are two, then they are one. Then they are two again. Back and forth. Around and around. In front of, behind, between, above, below, apart, and together again. It's beautiful, isn't it? When two are joined in a dance, something arises between them that is more than simply the sum of two parts.
And that is what's happening with us and God. Christ is in us, then He is above us. He is our every breath and heartbeat, then we turn and address Him as if He were with us instead of in us. We are meant to enjoy and preserve both. Sometimes we lose consciousness of His separateness from us, because we are so one. But then He comes to us and gets our attention as if He were introducing some side of Himself that we've never seen before.
There will always be more. His dance has spins and steps you've never seen. But always He brings us back into who He is, so that folks looking on will hardly be able to tell where He ends and we begin.
It's a Dance