I’m appreciating this series. I’ve also been intrigued by rethinking the concept of hell that has been taught to me.
There’s just one place in this article that doesn’t make sense to me and I was hoping you could clarify. In this paragraph -
“Fire burns up, consumes, and destroys. And I believe Jesus’s message — again, one steeped in the Jewish storyline and theology — was that the Valley of Gehenna would be a place where judgment would be applied by the Romans to the unfaithful Jewish people who had forsaken the one true God. Not only that, but it would be one highlighted by the destructive forces of death, fire, and worms feeding upon the dead bodies.”
- you mention Gehenna as a place of destruction of the bodies of those unfaithful to God during the war and destruction of CE 70. But in that case, the Romans were indiscriminate in their killing. They were not only destroying those who were unfaithful to God, but everyone, and indeed, maybe those who were faithful to God (and thus refused to swear allegiance to Caesar) in even greater numbers. So, how could this be extrapolated to our modern version of hell which is only for the unfaithful?
That’s a good question. The true followers of the Messiah that died were typically the martyrs. But Jesus warned & said, “When you see these things happening, flee…” So I do think many of those who were followers of Jesus remembered & heeded his words.
Thank you for this! I appreciate your research and dominant perspectives!
Once we consider the duplications of Jesus's references to gehenna (i.e. comparing the synoptics), the number of distinct usages decreases further.
My question has to do with this paragraph and your conclusions that follow. You write of Isaiah 66:19-24, "This Old Testament passage tells us that the people from the nations will be brought to a restored Jerusalem, a whole new setting established after the Babylonian judgment, and this restored Jerusalem is identified by the phrase 'new heavens and new earth.' In that day...
I am wondering about the timing of fulfillment here. It would seem from the Isaiah passage and from Jesus' utilization (as you quote him in Mark 9:42-50) that the timing involves two simultaneous destination options. For Isaiah: the "new heavens and new earth" are seemingly concurrent with the ability to "go out and look on the dead bodies" of the rebels. For Jesus, it is better to "enter life maimed" than "to go into gehenna, where the fire never goes out"... And the parallel, "it is better to enter the kingdom of God with one eye" than to "be thrown into gehenna" with two eyes, where the fire isn't quenched.
So, I'm seeing 3 A-B scenarios, of Door A: New Heavens/New Earth, Life, Kingdom of God; vs. Door B: see the dead bodies in hehenna, fire of gehenna, unquenched fire of gehenna. And that these are concurrent destinies.
It seems that candidates for the timing of a "restored Jerusalem" future to Isaiah could be: Ezra's return and the 2nd temple rebuild, figuratively of Jesus (restoration of David's tent), or end of time coming down of the New Jerusalem.
So, if the time of fulfillment is the Jewish War (circa 70AD), this works for the destruction (the gehenna part). But I don't see quite how it works correspondingly for the New Heavens/New Earth, Kingdom of God part. Can you explain how this works? I'm slightly aware of Perriman. Perhaps he means this to be the outworking in history of what was established by Jesus' death and resurrection, after 40 years of "last day", and thus the start of Christendom. Can you explain more fully, if this is the gist?
If that time is intended, it protects us from the unwieldy conclusion that in the coming down of the New Jerusalem we will still (forever?) see corpses of the worm-eaten, slain continuing to exist physically within view of the city.
I’m appreciating this series. I’ve also been intrigued by rethinking the concept of hell that has been taught to me.
There’s just one place in this article that doesn’t make sense to me and I was hoping you could clarify. In this paragraph -
“Fire burns up, consumes, and destroys. And I believe Jesus’s message — again, one steeped in the Jewish storyline and theology — was that the Valley of Gehenna would be a place where judgment would be applied by the Romans to the unfaithful Jewish people who had forsaken the one true God. Not only that, but it would be one highlighted by the destructive forces of death, fire, and worms feeding upon the dead bodies.”
- you mention Gehenna as a place of destruction of the bodies of those unfaithful to God during the war and destruction of CE 70. But in that case, the Romans were indiscriminate in their killing. They were not only destroying those who were unfaithful to God, but everyone, and indeed, maybe those who were faithful to God (and thus refused to swear allegiance to Caesar) in even greater numbers. So, how could this be extrapolated to our modern version of hell which is only for the unfaithful?
That’s a good question. The true followers of the Messiah that died were typically the martyrs. But Jesus warned & said, “When you see these things happening, flee…” So I do think many of those who were followers of Jesus remembered & heeded his words.
Thank you for this! I appreciate your research and dominant perspectives!
Once we consider the duplications of Jesus's references to gehenna (i.e. comparing the synoptics), the number of distinct usages decreases further.
My question has to do with this paragraph and your conclusions that follow. You write of Isaiah 66:19-24, "This Old Testament passage tells us that the people from the nations will be brought to a restored Jerusalem, a whole new setting established after the Babylonian judgment, and this restored Jerusalem is identified by the phrase 'new heavens and new earth.' In that day...
I am wondering about the timing of fulfillment here. It would seem from the Isaiah passage and from Jesus' utilization (as you quote him in Mark 9:42-50) that the timing involves two simultaneous destination options. For Isaiah: the "new heavens and new earth" are seemingly concurrent with the ability to "go out and look on the dead bodies" of the rebels. For Jesus, it is better to "enter life maimed" than "to go into gehenna, where the fire never goes out"... And the parallel, "it is better to enter the kingdom of God with one eye" than to "be thrown into gehenna" with two eyes, where the fire isn't quenched.
So, I'm seeing 3 A-B scenarios, of Door A: New Heavens/New Earth, Life, Kingdom of God; vs. Door B: see the dead bodies in hehenna, fire of gehenna, unquenched fire of gehenna. And that these are concurrent destinies.
It seems that candidates for the timing of a "restored Jerusalem" future to Isaiah could be: Ezra's return and the 2nd temple rebuild, figuratively of Jesus (restoration of David's tent), or end of time coming down of the New Jerusalem.
So, if the time of fulfillment is the Jewish War (circa 70AD), this works for the destruction (the gehenna part). But I don't see quite how it works correspondingly for the New Heavens/New Earth, Kingdom of God part. Can you explain how this works? I'm slightly aware of Perriman. Perhaps he means this to be the outworking in history of what was established by Jesus' death and resurrection, after 40 years of "last day", and thus the start of Christendom. Can you explain more fully, if this is the gist?
If that time is intended, it protects us from the unwieldy conclusion that in the coming down of the New Jerusalem we will still (forever?) see corpses of the worm-eaten, slain continuing to exist physically within view of the city.