** you do not have permission to see this link **
**Summary of Chapter XXXIX: "Contemplation on the topic of Gehenna, in so far as grace can be granted to human nature to hold opinions on these mysteries" (Isaac of Nineveh, *The Second Part*, trans. Sebastian Brock)**

In this profound and cautious eschatological chapter (one of three final homilies in the Second Part devoted to the Last Things), St. Isaac of Nineveh (Isaac the Syrian, 7th century) meditates on the “difficult matter of Gehenna” (Hell) within the framework of God’s infinite, unchanging love and goodness. He writes with deep humility, emphasizing that human understanding of such mysteries is limited by grace, and he rejects any view that would compromise the divine nature.

### Key Themes
- **Rejection of Retributive Punishment**: Isaac strongly opposes the idea that Gehenna involves divine anger, wrath, resentment, or vengeful retribution. Such passions are incompatible with God’s nature. Even if Scripture sometimes speaks of punishment in seemingly retributive terms, this is on the “outer surface”; the deeper reality is God’s fatherly, medicinal, and educational providence aimed solely at the ultimate good of rational beings. Attributing spite or endless punitive torment to God is blasphemous, as it implies weakness or changeability in the divine Nature.

- **Gehenna as Part of God’s Salvific Plan**: Gehenna is not an afterthought or a failure of God’s love but was foreseen and included within His eternal goodness and mercy from before creation. It serves a remedial and purifying purpose. Isaac expresses the opinion that God will manifest “some wonderful outcome” from Gehenna’s torments — revealing even more profoundly the wealth of His love, power, wisdom, and the “insistent might of the waves of His goodness.” The Kingdom will ultimately triumph over Gehenna.

- **The Scourge of Love**: Those in Gehenna are tormented not by the absence of God but by the painful awareness of having sinned against infinite Love. This “scourge of love” (a famous motif from Isaac’s First Part, here deepened) causes bitter regret sharper than any external fire. Yet this very suffering is transformative and temporary, leading the wicked to knowledge, repentance, and eventual participation in divine felicity. Punishments are measured according to sins and have an end (echoing patristic authorities like Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus, whom Isaac cites).

- **God’s Unchanging Love**: Divine love is equal, eternal, and impartial toward all rational beings (just or wicked). God created humanity out of love, foreknowing sin, and His providence — including Gehenna — always looks to future advantage and restoration rather than past requital. There is no “before or after” in God’s love or intentions.

### Tone and Approach
Isaac approaches the topic with awe, silence, and adoration before the unfathomable wisdom of God. He warns against infantile or blasphemous conceptions that limit God’s compassion. The chapter reflects his mystical experience: profound knowledge of divine love makes eternal conscious torment unthinkable. It aligns with (and radicalizes) hints in his First Part while remaining rooted in Scripture and earlier Eastern Fathers.

This chapter is a cornerstone for discussions of universal restoration (*apokatastasis*) in the Syriac tradition, emphasizing hope in God’s victorious mercy without diminishing the seriousness of sin or the reality of judgment. For the full text, consult Sebastian Brock’s critical edition and translation in the *Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium* (Second Part, chapters IV–XLI).

============
**Summary of Chapter XL (from *The Second Part*, Chapters IV–XLI, trans. Sebastian P. Brock)**

Chapter XL continues and deepens the eschatological reflections begun in Chapter XXXIX on Gehenna (Hell), maintaining the same humble, awe-filled tone while focusing more explicitly on the triumph of God’s Kingdom, the uniform and unchanging nature of divine love, and the ultimately restorative purpose of all divine dealings with rational beings.

### Key Themes
- **God’s Single, Impartial Love**: Isaac emphasizes that God has one consistent ranking of complete and impassible love toward *all* rational creatures — the just and the fallen alike. There is no shift from love to wrath or retribution. God’s caring concern remains identical before and after any “fall.” Attributing anger, vengeance, or eternal retributive punishment to God is incompatible with His nature and borders on blasphemy.

- **Kingdom and Gehenna as Expressions of Mercy**: Both the Kingdom of Heaven and Gehenna belong to God’s merciful providence, conceived from eternity out of His goodness. Gehenna is not an end in itself or a failure of divine love but a temporary, medicinal, and educational reality. Its torments function as the “scourge of love” — a painful awareness of having opposed infinite Love — that leads to repentance, purification, and eventual restoration.

- **Triumph of the Kingdom**: Isaac expresses confident hope that the Kingdom will ultimately prevail over Gehenna. The sufferings of Gehenna have limits measured according to sins and serve a corrective purpose. God’s power, wisdom, and overwhelming goodness will manifest even more gloriously through the resolution of this “difficult matter,” bringing all to participation in divine joy. No rational being is ultimately excluded from the fullness of God’s salvific plan.

- **Humility and Mystery**: As in the previous chapter, Isaac approaches these mysteries with profound caution, relying on grace and spiritual insight rather than speculative certainty. He distinguishes the “outer surface” of scriptural language (which can appear retributive) from its deeper, merciful inner meaning. Human opinions on these matters are provisional; the full reality exceeds our present understanding.

### Overall Character
This chapter (along with XXXIX and XLI) forms part of Isaac’s most sustained treatment of the Last Things in the newly discovered Second Part. It exemplifies his mystical theology: divine love is the beginning, middle, and end of all things. Judgment and Gehenna are real and serious but never ultimate or retributive; they are subsumed within God’s fatherly, healing providence aimed at the restoration and felicity of all. The tone is one of wonder, adoration, and pastoral warning against despair or overly literal, “infantile” interpretations of Scripture.

These ideas align with broader Syriac traditions of *apokatastasis* (universal restoration) while remaining rooted in Isaac’s own contemplative experience of God’s boundless compassion. For the full text, consult Brock’s critical edition and translation in the *Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium*.

Steefen said
I just searched Recent Posts for "Original Sin." I didn't find anything. Google says, "Jesus did not talk about original sin because the specific term and formal doctrine did not exist during his lifetime." But Paul was the first biblical author to put that in Early Christianity. Then St. Augustine put it in his theology.
Did Paul read Genesis and Jesus didn't? What in the world is going on here?
  

BDEhrman said:

Genesis does not speak about “original sin.”

The doctrine of original sin depends in part on a particular interpretation of Genesis.

Paul’s view was not at all Augustine’s view.

Steefen:
Interesting.

Genesis has all humans outside of Eden after the knowledge-evolution phase, so we do all suffer something.

Jesus did not speak of Original Sin, so his crucifixion doesn't follow from that.

Paul's view: he made it up so he can always have all humankind as his audience--the manipulator/exploiter of the pious.

Augustine: (I have to see what he said exactly.)

Reading Jewish interpretations is liberating. The presumption of Christians while telling Jews what their scriptures “really” mean is staggering.

It really is.  Perhaps, the only thing more astounding is Islam's remake of Judaism and Christianity.

Back when I was searching (rather than merely being lost)

I think all of us who were one-time Christians made an attempt to stay in one way or another. 

When I finally gave up trying once and for all, it was because of Mark 9:1 and my unwillingness to distort it to my liking.

I live in a Greek Orthodox dominated environment, and my impression is that many (most?) Greeks view the church more culturally than religiously. The difference between what is believed by the priest and the parishioner is significant, and they are not much bothered by it.  

It wound up that I was attracted by all the aesthetic aspects but repelled by the actual core of beliefs.

I enjoy certain things - lighting a candle, the stained glass windows, the architecture, and the icons.  

Could we create a religion that focused on the aesthetic parts and the community, that saw itself as some kind of communal metaphysical theater and performance art but ditched the gimcrack doctrines and the antiquated prejudices?

Not sure how accurate this observation is, but it certainly seems that as they move towards what at least I would consider enlightenment they ditch the aesthetics.

I'm rather fond of Reform Judaism (allowing a wide range of beliefs or lack of beliefs, for that matter) and so can imagine  attending services in a beautifully constructed building with ** you do not have permission to see this link ** depicting the wonderful stories, prophets, and poetry of the Tanakh. When we're back in the Twin Cities, perhaps we'll visit one. I think the only time I was ever in a synagogue was when I met with a rabbi to talk with him when I was considering a semester in Israel in the early 80s.

I rather got a kick out of reading ** you do not have permission to see this link **

BJH1960 said

Paul’s later interpreters took some of the statements he made and created the doctrine. They then read it back into Paul & Genesis. Find a Jewish exposition of early Genesis. You will be surprised. Read Paul’s seven authentic letters in the context of Jewish apocalypticism.

Yes, reading the Jewish view of the story in Genesis is eye-opening.  
And although original sin is definitely the majority position in Christianity, it is not accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
  

Reading Jewish interpretations is liberating.  The presumption of Christians while telling Jews what their scriptures "really" mean is staggering.  

Back when I was searching (rather than merely being lost) one of the things that attracted me to Eastern Orthodoxy was its rejection of Augustine and Original Sin, an idea which still strikes me as sick. (See my Bad Ideas thread.) I also liked the eastern emphasis on theosis, divinization, becoming by grace what god is by nature.   The aspect that astounded me most when I first attended a service at a church was the utter absence of grim creepy Christs hanging on crosses.  (See any Ingmar Bergman movie.)   I was attracted by the sensuosity of the service, the light and the music.  (And the Icons.) 

I nearly took a trajectory being traced now by many jumping ship from Protestant denominations.  It is a remarkable process that is going on.  The Orthodox church in America is holding its own largely because of converts out of Protestantism. The cost of this is the, what's a word? "de-ethnicizing" of the church.   Traditionally it was associated with eastern communities but the American church is really in flux.  There is a lot of agitation as these converts do like all converts do when they come from outside the tradition.  They want to bring some of their old ideas along with them.  I guess you could say they want to practice a "Protestant" Orthodoxy.  And of course everything gets "Americanized" eventually.  But the paradox is that converts are usually super-zealous so you have this situation where they're anxious for ardent practice but filtered through their own sensibilities.   What will come of it?  

They'll encounter one of the most culturally and politically reactionary communities you'll ever see.  I said that I "nearly" took this trajectory.  Eventually the darker, more disturbing aspects of Orthodoxy presented themselves.  I heard someone boast that the church had not changed a single idea since the seventh century!  And that was to be admired.  Of course it's blatantly false but tradition is heavy.  Politically they hold on to the idea that church and state must be intimately entwined and over the years this has enabled the church to support some awful regimes.  Today, the Russian Orthodox Church is one of Putin's biggest supporters hooraying the war in Ukraine as part of the Holy War against western decadence, liberalism and satanism. 

Then there's the institutional misogyny.  And sexual attitudes little better than those of my own family. 

It wound up that I was attracted by all the aesthetic aspects but repelled by the actual core of belief. I'm like a lot of people I'm sure.  I want the magic and the gods but not the obligations.  Could we create a religion that focused on the aesthetic parts and the community, that saw itself as some kind of communal metaphysical theater and performance art but ditched the gimcrack doctrines and the antiquated prejudices?  Maybe this kind of thing already exists?   But until we can convince the folks that require order and discipline and stringent commitment to unwavering convictions that they should be content to do their own thing and leave the rest of us alone, paradise will be out of reach.

Paul’s later interpreters took some of the statements he made and created the doctrine. They then read it back into Paul & Genesis. Find a Jewish exposition of early Genesis. You will be surprised. Read Paul’s seven authentic letters in the context of Jewish apocalypticism.

Yes, reading the Jewish view of the story in Genesis is eye-opening.  

And although original sin is definitely the majority position in Christianity, it is not accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church:

** you do not have permission to see this link **

Stephen said
Paul's later interpreters took some of the statements he made and created the doctrine. They then read it back into Paul & Genesis. Find a Jewish exposition of early Genesis.  You will be surprised.  Read Paul's seven authentic letters in the context of Jewish apocalypticism. 
Paul believed Sin & Death were cosmic powers that entered & dominated the cosmos because of Adam's disobedience. These demonic powers are what the Son of Man will destroy at the Parousia to establish God's earthly kingdom.  This is not Original Sin but the idea that was used to create the Doctrine of Original Sin.  There is no "personal salvation" in Paul's view.
  

Steefen:

Neither Adam nor Eve were disobedient.

There is no "personal salvation" means what if individual persons repent?

Paul believed Sin & Death were cosmic powers that entered & dominated the cosmos because of Adam's disobedience. These demonic powers are what the Son of Man will destroy at the Parousia to establish God's earthly kingdom.  This is not Original Sin but the idea that was used to create the Doctrine of Original Sin.  There is no "personal salvation" in Paul's view.

Did Paul read Genesis and Jesus didn't? What in the world is going on here?

Witness to God’s mercy: Conference of Br. Sabino Chialà on Isaac of Nineveh (June 14, 2008)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
After Ephraim, Isaac of Nineveh, also known as Isaac the Syrian, is the most well known and best loved of the Syrian writers and his works have been translated into many languages.
...
Isaac tells us that we cannot know God as He is but only through the economy, through salvation history, and this economy is nothing other than love.
God’s entire activity in the past, the present and the future is motivated by only one feeling, namely love.
Even when Scripture speaks of God’s wrath we need to understand this correctly.
Even when God allows us to suffer, He still acts out of love and never out of wrath or justice but rather out of fatherly wisdom.
Even the last judgement must be understood as a purification and as an act of love.
It is only this love that can account for the Cross of Christ:

"Why did Christ stretch himself out on the cross for sinners and why did He give His holy body over to suffering for the sake of the world?
I suggest that God did this for only one reason:
to make His love known to the world, so that our ability to love, increased by such a discovery, would be the prisoner of His love.
As such, the exceptional power of the Kingdom of Heaven, which consists of love, found an opportunity to express itself in the death of His Son.
Our Lord did not die in order to redeem us from sin, or for any other reason, but purely and only so that the world would see and perceive the love of God for His creation.
If this wonderful act was only in order to forgive sins, then another means could have been found to realise it." (Cent IV, 78)

Wow, when one of these kinds of discoveries is made I always immediately wonder what else is out there just waiting for somebody to notice?

Operative paragraph:

The research highlights several key features of Codex H. The newly recovered pages include some of the earliest known chapter lists for Paul’s Letters, which differ significantly from the divisions used today. They also reveal how sixth-century scribes corrected and annotated their texts, showing that these manuscripts were actively read and modified rather than simply copied.

Didn't these simpletons know that you're not supposed to mess around with inerrant and inspired scripture?  

** you do not have permission to see this link **

Steefen said
Dr. Ehrman:
I’d say there was not a single oral tradition to be aligned with, but thousands of oral traditions, and each author is reflecting what he has heard.
Steefen:
With the “thousands of oral traditions” Matthew, Mark, and Luke heard Jesus was the Son of God before he was crucified.
Let’s say thousands or millions of people went to the Macy’s 4th of July fireworks, sure there were thousands or millions of oral testimonies but they all agree they saw fireworks. Paul did not hear anything because he wasn’t there and did not immediately go to Jerusalem after his conversion as per Galatians 1: 17-18.
You have just given equal weight to eyewitnesses and one or those who were not eyewitnesses. Just because there were thousands of people who knew what happened does not mean every piece of writing is accurate. Jesus was known to be the Son of God before he resurrected (also add Jesu’s baptism accounts) is different from Jesus was appointed to be the Son of God after he resurrected.
  

There is no direct evidence that the anonymous works attributed to Matthew, Mark and Luke are eyewitness accounts, so the whole "you have given equal weight to eyewitnesses and those who were not eyewitnesses" fails at the lack of confirmed eyewitnesses.

It fit in with our view of what’s called Dispensationalism, the idea that there are different divinely orchestrated ages of time and different aspects characteristic of each age.  We live in the ‘Church Age’ which supposedly will continue right up until the Rapture. This idea is behind a lot of the ‘End Times’ mythology. 

One of my favorite books during my first year or so in the Church was ** you do not have permission to see this link **

Paul is clearly comfortable with visionary experience and ecstatic utterances. My question is whether this was specific to Paul’s view or did all Jewish apocalypticists include this behavior in their practice? What about Jesus? Did he and his followers encourage this kind of experience? If so it would explain a lot. If you’re already spent a lot of time having visions of spiritual realms then seeing Jesus after his death no longer seems much of a stretch.

I've found some good resources that I'm starting to explore. Hopefully I'll be able to come up with some reasonable answers. 

Yeah that was the approach my people took when trying to explain why we didn't speak in tongues.  It fit in with our view of what's called Dispensationalism, the idea that there are different divinely orchestrated ages of time and different aspects characteristic of each age.  We live in the 'Church Age' which supposedly will continue right up until the Rapture. This idea is behind a lot of the 'End Times' mythology.   

Paul is clearly comfortable with visionary experience and ecstatic utterances.  My question is whether this was specific to Paul's view or did all Jewish apocalypticists include this behavior in their practice?   What about Jesus?  Did he and his followers encourage this kind of experience?  If so it would explain a lot.  If you're already spent a lot of time having visions of spiritual realms then seeing Jesus after his death no longer seems much of a stretch.