(22 votes, average: 4.77 out of 5)
Loading...The second of my two boxes today from the new edition of my textbook. This one of even more pressing importance: what did Jesus think of hell?
*************************************************************
Another Glimpse Into the Past
Box 15.8 Hell in the Teaching of Jesus
Jesus sometimes indicates that on the Day of Judgment sinners will be cast, unburied, into the most unholy, repulsive, God-forsaken place that anyone in Israel could imagine, the valley known as “Gehenna.” He says, for example that it is better to gouge out your eye that sins or amputate your hand and enter the kingdom maimed than to be tossed into Gehenna with eye and hand intact (Matthew 5:29, 30)
Gehenna is obviously serious. But what is it? The word is often mistranslated in English Bibles as “hell” (e.g., in the NIV and the NRSV; see Matthew 5:22, 29, 30). But, Gehenna is not “hell” in the modern sense of a place (inside the earth) where sinners are tormented forever. Then what is it?
To find out, you will need to belong to the blog. You’d better find out! Who knows what might happen otherwise! So why not join and put your soul at peace?
Do you think these are Jesus’ words or written to appear to be his words?
I think he probably did talk about Gehenna, yes.
Thanks for the great job Bart . We love you .
I know you like the NRSV: why did they choose to use the word “hell” since it is not really a suitable translation of Gehenna? In your new book I assume you will address how the word “hell” came to be used in many translations?
Yeah, it was a bad decision. They made other ones!
“It is the worm and the fire that never die, not the person.”
The never-dying fire was discussed in another blog entry; you think that it needs to be eternal to continually torment Satan. But in what sense does the “worm” (maggot?) never die? Since we know that the Gehenna-was-a-garbage-dump explanation is too late to have been on Jesus’ mind, what would the worms feed on after all sinners have been incinerated?
That’s one eternal worm…. (OK, seriously, I don’t think he’s talking about immortal worms, but about the fact there will always be worms there.)
It’s fascinating to me how every culture I’m aware of has some concept of a soul or substance that survives physical death (in Jesus’ view, for the “righteous” only), or in ancient Hebrew thought, surviving only to experience a drab existence in Sheol. In Middle Eastern cultures, the preservation, or at least burial, of the body was (and still largely is) very important, presumably to make possible the soul’s eventual reunion with it easier(?) But whether or not the soul is reunited with a physical body, or whether or not it is destroyed for the unrighteous (Egyptian parallels here), it seems everyone has one, at least for a time. Even Eastern religions have this concept of a life force that is particular to the individual, whether it is “recycled” through reincarnation or eventually absorbed into a universal “Brahman”.
Personally, I think this belief in an individual soul of some sort is intrinsic to all humans, and can’t be explained simply through cultural contacts alone. Whatever else we know, we know first and foremost that we are conscious beings, and we also sense that there exists something which is greater than us and connects us all.
This makes sense in the context of a Jewish Jesus who wouldn’t have the more modern Christian concept of Hell as a place of eternal torture. I have to wonder if this carries at its roots the early Christian belief of two separate gods – the evil Creator god who made the Earth as a trap for lost souls, tearing his people to pieces for disobedience, and the loving father of Jesus who wanted to save us from the first god. After all, eternal torture is not “punishment” with the goal of correction, it is pure sadism which would not put Jesus’ God in a favorable light.
Jesus isn’t concerned with punishment. Punishment doesn’t change anything. He just wants the negative personalities removed from the mix. People who are honest, peaceful, and compassionate are always going to be at a relative disadvantage with regards to those who are selfish violent liars. And since he believes the way to the Kingdom is to be not just ordinarily decent, but exceptionally so–putting them at even more of a disadvantage–he wants to believe that God will arrange things so that behaviors that would normally be disadvantageous will be made advantageous. Virtue will no longer have to be its own reward. And the fact that such people practiced such virtue when surrounded by its antithesis will make them all the more worthy.
To wish eternal pain on the goats would be an act of hate, and Jesus believes we have to get rid of the hate and anger inside of us in order to be worthy of the Kingdom. Only a goat would wish such a thing. A sheep would only wish these people would mend their ways–and respond to their evil with good.
However, he himself is not perfect. He sees how life could be–and how it is. He knows who is responsible. Natural disasters, plagues, earthquakes, famines, floods–just part of life. We should feel no more resentment for this than the lilies of the field or the birds of the air. This is merely a testing ground for the Kingdom. And nobody was ever promised a perfect life when they were born.
But human evil is unique in all of nature–to behave as if your fellow beings are only there for you to exploit and torment, even when you don’t need to do so in order to survive–that is something that enrages and frustrates him. Such behavior not only harms the good people–it tempts them to abandon the path they’ve chosen, go against their natures. Evil begets evil. They drag others down with them.
Therefore, even though it is in a sense a contradiction of how he tells us to be, he wishes this much harm upon the goats–that they know one moment of anguish, as they realize they have doomed themselves to destruction, have led themselves to slaughter. But then they will know peace. And the world will be tormented by them no more.
Though I don’t know for a fact this is exactly what Jesus envisioned (we can’t know that), and he may well have had other ideas about what would happen to the goats, I don’t find this vision the least bit hard to understand.
It is a great temptation.
Good article. Thank you, Dr. Ehrman.
Many (perhaps most?) who hold the predominant Eternal Conscious Torment View of Hell (ECT) do so on the basis of the alleged evolution of the term “Gehenna.” While they admit that Gehenna referred to national judgment in the OT, they argue that during the Intertestamental Period (IP) Gehenna came to be understood as individual eschatological judgment (e.g. from works like 2 Esdras).
(Question p. 1): So are we to accept the notion that non-canonical /non-inspired writers of the IP discovered the true nature of the afterlife and yet none of the inspired OT writers ever did? (this would even include the NT writers if we do not assume they meant ECT when they spoke of Gehenna).
(Question p. 2): What is your assessment of this primary argument of the ECT camp?
1. In the OT Gehenna usually just refers to a valley owned by the sons of Hinnom. It was a place of human (child) sacrifice, and so took on nefarious connotations; 2. I think they are precisely wrong. I deal with the matter in my new book (almost finished!) on where the ideas of Heaven and Hell come from.
What a great paradigm shift – no eternal damnation for unfortunate sinners, only annihilation. A major weapon removed from the verbal arsenal of fire & brimstone preachers. It never made sense anyway – a finite life on earth punished by unimaginable torture for infinity.
A convenient later addition to Christian theology?
What about weeping and gnashing of teeth? Doesn’t that imply at least a conscious afterlife, even if it’s finite?
Yup, people are *extremely* upset when they see they are headed for a painful destruction.
why do you think that ?
1) there is no clear indication that the gnashing of teeth is related to their expectation in IMMANENT “PAINFUL DESTRUCTION”, rather gnashing of teeth is usually portrayed as recognition of PRIOR un-requitable errors. it seems to me
2) Don’t those who commit suicide actually refute this. their preference being annihilation as opposed to continual pain and/or regret which they imagine will never abate (e.g. Judas)
Why do I think people headed for painful destruction are extremely upset? I’m not sure what you’re asking. Why does someone who knows he is going to be burned at the stake tomorrow morning find that upsetting?
the text gives no indication that their anguish is due to their expectation of being burned up tomorrow (or the next day).
Ok i guess matt 13:42 indicates that the gnashing of teeth will be IN the fiery furnace,.
Other verses say the gnashing of teeth will be due to being in outer darkness,
another passage says the gnashing of teeth will be merely because the person isn’t invited to the same venue as Abraham. etc, etc
the only point in common in all these ALLEGORIES is the regret of the sinner has at his past foolishness. (ie you are taking it too literally)
rather
. . . IMMINENT “PAINFUL . .”
It’s not an afterlife, though. Even those who enter the Kingdom aren’t really in the afterlife, because they haven’t died–going by what Jesus is reported to have said, they may never die. How can there be an afterlife without death?
Nor is there afterlife for the goats, because as the sheep have been granted eternal life, the goats have been granted eternal death–oblivion, not torment (Buddhists say that oblivion is the goal all living beings should seek, but Buddhists are weird).
They just have a short period of anguish and (perhaps) remorse, as they are forced to recognize that they and they alone have been the authors of their destruction. That if they had not lived lives of selfishness, lust, and violence, for the purpose of having a better material existence than those around them, they could have lived forever in a happy realm where everyone is equal and at peace, and nobody needs to exploit anyone else.
To which I suppose some might say they don’t see the point of such an existence. I suppose that might be the point. 😉
A lot of people use Matthew 10:28 as a proof verse that Jesus taught the idea of a separation of soul and body at death. The idea that one’s soul survives at death. Some say that when you die your soul goes on to heaven if you are righteous and to hell if you are not. Why is the a wrong way to look at this verse? Is the Greek instructive here? Did the NT writers believe in the soul as a separate entity after one dies?
Humans can kill your body but not your soul, because your soul can be brought back by God into your body — that is, it is not annihilated. The resurrectoin happens when God breathes your soul back into you at the end of time. God, however, can destroy both body and soul. When he annihilates you , you can never exist again.
As a person exploring Universalism as a more unified theory on the afterlife, I would be interested in how you synthesize the gehenna/annialation verses with the eternal punishment (aionios kolasis) ones.
Also do you grant creedence to the objection to aionios as meaning forever vs age lasting?
Thank you sir.
I’ll try to lay that out in my book, but I don’t take a stand there on the (debated) meaning of aionios.
Is there any evidence that Jesus supported the idea of a bodily resurrection at some later time? Where did that idea come from?
Yes, he clearly did (see Mark 12:18-27). He got it from the popular views of his time, that are “apocalyptic” in their orientation, views that started up within Judaism about 200 years earlier and were widespread in his time. (Search for “apocalypticism” here on the blog.)
I’ve always seen this passage as Jesus’ clever way to avoid the Sadducees attempts to trap him. They didn’t believe in an afterlife (as you know) and by setting up the many wives scenario they figured he’d be cornered with absurdity. But he sidestepped it with, what I see, as an interesting glimpse into continuing life–there is no marriage. Also, I’ve always thought verse 27 (He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living) actually again is showing that people continue on–that Moses and Abraham and Isaac continue living. This response doesn’t really support holding them in a state of non consciousness for some future mass resurrection.
It’s hard to know how to interpret that part of it, I agree. But my point is that he did think there was to be a future resurrection (somehow)
The “somehow” of that resurrection is something that I’ve spent a lot of time and thought on. And that’s resulted in the ebook, “Can Reincarnation and NDE’s be Christian?” It traces the spiritual impulse behind OT passages and Hebrew words into some of the arcane (and doctrinally misapplied) statements that Jesus is quoted as saying in the Gospel of John.
Bart, interesting though your article is, perhaps you can let me know how “annihilation” squares with other NT verses that tell us “our God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:29). Jesus we are told says, “EVERY ONE will be salted with fire” (Mark 9:49). And the fire will try every man’s work 1 Corinthians 2:13-15. Obviously, these are not meant to be taken literally, but it seems to me there is a sort of purification process that ALL must go through that burns up the “chaff” in us so in the end God reconciles ALL. Several NT scriptures show this. Moreover, Jesus tells us to love our enemies and 1 John 4:7 informs us that God is love. What say ye?
My view is that the NT does not have one consistent portrayal of what happens at the end. There are certainly hints of universal salvation, especially in Paul. And lots of indications of future annihilation (“consuming fire” is a fire that destroys what it burns, for example).
Thank you for your prompt reply. I agree that the NT does not portray one consistent and uniform presentation of what happens at the end. However, perhaps some credence could be given to the application of “progressive revelation” wherein God can change and even abolish his law as he sees fit with the last disclosures having precedence. I concur that “consuming fire” is a fire that destroys what it burns. But it’s clearly a metaphor showing that God will burn up all works that are combustible in us. Paul makes it plain that the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. And if a man’s work is made of incombustible building blocks, he would receive a reward. But if any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
Saw this and was reminded of your latest work. Shelby Spong interview.
https://ideapod.com/hell-invented-church-claims-bishop/
How would you read Jesus in Matthew 25:46?
Yup, I have a discussion of it in my book! It’s a bit complicated. But maybe I should post on it.
It would be great if you’re able to!
Dear Bart,
I’ve read your book on Heaven and Hell. I do have one question. Hope, you can help me clarify something. You rightly point out that Jewish anthropology was featured by the idea of unity (body and “soul”). The distinction between the body and the soul came from the Hellenistic background (Plato, etc.). Several months ago, I had a lovely correspondence with Dale Allison. He pointed out that “Jesus’ Judaism was Hellenized, and Hades was already influencing ideas about Gehenna before the first century”.
I wonder how strong was that influence (I’ve read M. Hengel’s book “Judaism and Hellenism”)? Based on the sources at hand, do you think it is possible that Jesus’ Judaism was Hellenized enough for Jesus to believe in this idea that after we die, the soul, goes to heaven or hell, and then in the last days, the body and soul will be judged accordingly? I hope my question makes sense.
Thank’s!
It’s absolutely true that much of Israel (“Palestine”) had been Hellenized at the time. But that doesn’t mean that everyone there had adopted Greek views, and I don’t believe (or can’t imagine) that Dale thinks they had either. Jesus himself does not show much / any influence from Greek philosophical thought, and adopted the more traditional Jewish apocalyptic view, which was decidedly not Hellenistic. Yes, Hengel’s book — two volumes! — is a classic.
Dear Bart,
I guess the issue then isn’t whether people in 1st century Palestine could have believed in a dualistic approach. As Dale pointed out in our correspondence:
“4 Ezra clearly distinguishes between souls and bodies; it’s Palestinian and first century. So too the Greek Life of Adam and Eve. So too parts of 1 Enoch, which are pre-Christian. (In it souls go to chambers under the earth before the resurrection.) Philo and the Testament of Abraham are also dualistic, as is Josephus, who was a Palestinian Jew. And there is the Apocryphon on Ezekiel, in which the soul and body are two separate characters, each of which accuses the other of being responsible for sin (until they are united at the resurrection and both punished together).”
The place where you two disagree is in the question of historical Jesus. In your view, Jesus “does not show much/any influence from Greek philosophical thought”. In contrast, Dale claims: My sense is that many if not most first century Jews in Israel and outside it were basically dualistic… As for Jesus, the resurrection was to the fore for him, but an interim state would not have been foreign to him.”
Well, maybe it wouldn’t be foreign to him, but I don’t know of any evidence he held to it. (And I think it’s a mistake to take literary texts as guides to what an illiterate villager in Galilee would have been exposed to. Not a lot of Hellenists in Nazareth, I should thing)
Dear Bart,
That’s a good point. It is always hard to know what “ordinary people” believe. Especially if you take literary texts written by educated people as your guide.
I have one more practical question: I’ve seen your conversation with Kevin Grant on YT, and I found out that he has a book “Did Jesus believe in Hell”. Would you recommend it? I’ve read your book – twice. So, I’m not sure whether he argues the same thing you do? If he does, it doesn’t make sense to read it. Or maybe he approaches it from a different perspective? In that case, I would be happy to read it!
Thank’s!
Kind regards from Croatia!
Marko.
Yes, we consulted on his book while he was writing it. It is written for an audience that would not read my books (since they think I’m evil or wrong headed or just an apostate). His views are very similar to mine in most ways, so it depends on whether you want a similar perspective written by a different author or a seriously different persective..
Thank’s! I’ll give it a look. But, I have one more question (seriously, this is the last!). Let’s say I want to read a different perspective: an author who argues that Jesus did believe in eternal punishment (or even in the interim state). Who would you recommend? I guess you’ve read those books (or articles) while preparing material for your book.
All the best!
Most any conservative evangelical or fundamentalist book about heaven and hell!