Gehenna?

[Aaron]

Jason wrote:
But the scriptural testimony does see it as applicable to the resurrection of the dead. And the context in GosMark, while (as RanRan correctly notes) universal in its hopeful application and goal to and for everyone, is delivered at the tail end of a series of warnings. Aaron is correct (if he is thinking of the Markan context here, though I somewhat doubt it based on his referential comments) that this statement is delivered to Jesus’ own disciples and even to His own apostles; but it is delivered in context at the tail end of warning to those disciples and apostles. It is of course true, as Aaron said, that all who have chosen to follow Christ “will be refined by trying circumstances” – so will all who have not chosen to follow Christ! And that’s the context of the warning in GosMark: unless (or more literally until) you, even you apostles, repent and become like this little child instead, you shall absolutely not be entering into the kingdom of God.

If “salted” carries the idea of being benefitted in some way by trying circumstances (“fire”) then yes, I do think all will ultimately be benefitted by the trying circumstances of this life - and I have no problem understanding Mark 9:49 as a general (even universal) principle that Christ is affirming. But I see absolutely no evidence at all to understand “Gehenna” as referring to a post-mortem (or post-resurrection) purgatorial experience that is inclusive of, and applicable to, all people of every generation. If the expression “all will be salted with fire” is simply a general principle (which appears to me to be the case), then the judgment of “Gehenna fire” is likely just one example of a trying situation by which people (in this case, the Jews of that generation, both believers and unbelievers) were “salted.” It is this judgment (and all the trying circumstances that led up to it) that most concerned Jesus’ disciples during that generation. In the immediate context, this judgment is spoken of as being concurrent with the time when people would be entering the kingdom of God - i.e., when the age of the Messianic reign began. This blessing of inheriting the kingdom of God is also called “life,” which of course is short for what is elsewhere called eternal life, or the “life of the age.” And to what “age” does the “life” pertain or belong? Answer: the age that was to begin whenever the age in which Christ and his disciples were living, ended (Matt 24:3). It was this then-future age that was referred to as “the age to come,” and was associated with “the life of the age” (Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; Heb 6:6; etc.). And what age was “to come” at this time? Answer: the age of the Messianic reign, which was to commence with Christ’s coming in his kingdom before that generation passed away (Matt 24-25) - i.e., when the kingdom “came with power” within the lifetime of “some” (tis, one or more) of those who heard Christ prophesy of it (Mark 9:1; Matt 16:28)

Now, the first time Christ speaks of Gehenna is in Matt 5:22. It is significant that neither Christ nor the Gospel writer give any explanation of the word, which (being an OT word with meaning already attached to it) strongly suggests that those familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures would be able to figure out what Christ is talking about without doing much (or any) speculating or extra-biblical research. The verse reads, “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the Gehenna of fire.”

So let’s see…those who are angry with his brother would be liable to judgment [probably a reference to the council of twenty three magistrates], while whoever insults his brother would be liable to the council *. So far, so good; these are both examples of some form of temporal judgment with which Jesus’ disciples would have been familiar. But according to the popular universalist understanding of “Gehenna” (which I admit is not as crazy as the traditional, orthodox view!), those who say “Raca!” are liable not to an even more severe temporal punishment (which would make sense in the context), but to some indefinitely long, post-mortem purgatorial process that all people may experience in some way or another after death and/or the resurrection. But there is simply no Scriptural evidence that this is what Jesus was talking about when he referred to Gehenna. I mean, even setting aside Jer 19 as Scriptural evidence for how Christ employed the word, it seems pretty evident from passages like Matthew 23:32-36 that Christ was referring to a national judgment that was soon to fall upon the generation in which he lived:

"Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to Gehenna? Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

And what does Jesus immediately go on to speak about to the end of this chapter (and on into the next)? Answer: the national judgment that God was about to bring upon Israel.

And in any case, Christ one way or the other could not contextually be referring in Mark 9 (as Aaron puts it) “specifically to the first-century national judgment upon Israel of which ‘Gehenna fire’ is employed as a figure.” For one thing, anyone who actually reads Jer 19 (reffed by Aaron) will quickly discover that there is no actual reference to fire in Topheth or Ben-Hinnom! Jesus, on the contrary, is quoting the final verses of Isaiah, where it is not Jerusalem per se who is being punished in the fire that is not quenched and the worm that does not die! On the contrary, the Lord’s judgment by fire (66:16) is leveled against those who go up against Jerusalem (also the case in RevJohn, by the way), who are described in terms typical of pagan non-Judaism (those who eat swine’s flesh, for example).

But there’s no Biblical precedent for ascribing to “Gehenna” anything other than either its literal meaning (Josh 15:8, 18:16; 2 Kings 23:10; 2 Chron 28:3, 33:6; Neh 11:30; Jer 7:31, 32, 19:2, 6, 32:35) or the figurative, emblematic meaning that is attached to it in Jer 19 by divine authority. The objection that there is no reference to “fire” in Jer 19 is forceless, since there is very strong precedent for understanding “fire” as a metaphor for God’s wrath manifested in temporal judgments upon people or nations (Deut 29:23-24; 32:22; 2 Sam 22:9, 13; Job 18:15; Psalm 11:6; 21:9; 29:7; 50:3; 68:2; 78:21; 79:5; 83:13-15; 89:46; 97:3; Isaiah 9:19; 10:17; 30:27-33; 34:9-10; 42:24-25; 47:14; 66:15-16, 24; Jer 4:4; 17:4, 27; 21:10-12; 48:45; Lam 2:3-4; 4:11; Ezekiel 5:1-4; 21:31; 22:17-22, 31; 38:22; Amos 1:4, 7, 10, 12, 14; 2:2, 5; 5:6; Obadiah 1:18; Nahum 1:6; Zeph 3:8; Zech 13:9; Mal 3:2) - which ties in perfectly with what I think Jesus meant when he made reference to “Gehenna.” But since many don’t think that Jesus is referring to a temporal judgment upon unfaithful Israel by his use of “Gehenna” (for which, again, there is precedence in the OT) I would like to know what source informs one’s understanding that Jesus is referring to something else (e.g., some purgatorial process in a future state of existence)? Where does one get this information from? The Jewish Targums? All I know is that it’s definitely not from any inspired source.

And yes, Jesus is quoting the final verses of Isaiah, but that’s even more evidence that a temporal judgment is in view (as opposed to some post-mortem, indefinitely long purification process that somehow cleanses people from sin and reconciles all remaining rebels to God). As you’re well aware, those being consumed by fire and devoured by maggots are not “disembodied spirits” or resurrected immortals, for Isaiah writes: “And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”

Moreover, the “unquenchable fire” of which we read in Isaiah 66 and Mark 9 is simply typical OT language used to describe temporal judgments upon nations (especially Israel!!):

Its streams shall be turned into pitch, and its dust into brimstone; its land shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night or day; its smoke shall ascend forever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste; no one shall pass through it forever and ever. Isaiah 34:9-10

"But if you will not heed Me to hallow the Sabbath day, such as not carrying a burden when entering the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day, then I will kindle a fire in its gates, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched." Jeremiah 17:27

“For I have set me face against this city * for harm and not for good, declares the LORD: it shall be given into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall burn it with fire.* And to the house of the king of Judah say, ‘Hear the word of the LORD, O house of David! Thus says the LORD: ‘Execute justice in the morning, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed, lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of your evil deeds.’” Jeremiah 21:10-12 (cf. v. 14)

"Behold, I will kindle a fire in you, and it shall devour every green tree and every dry tree in you; the blazing flame shall not be quenched, and all faces from the south to the north shall be scorched by it. All flesh shall see that I, the LORD, have kindled it; it shall not be quenched." Ezekiel 20:47-48

“Seek the LORD and live, lest he break out like fire in the house of Joseph, and it devour, with none to quench it for Bethel, O you who turn justice to wormwood and cast down righteousness to the earth!” Amos 5:6-7

And in Isaiah 33:14 we read: "The sinners in Zion are afraid; trembling has seized the godless: ‘Who among us can dwell with the consuming fire? Who among us can dwell with everlasting (olam) burnings?’" Here, it is the sinners and godless in Zion who are said to be exposed to the fearsome judgment of “consuming fire” and “everlasting burnings.” And earlier, the prophet had said that God’s “fire is in Zion,” and his “furnace is in Jerusalem” (31:9).

But who constitutes the “Jerusalem” whose enemies God is represented as judging in the last chapter of Isaiah? It is surely not inclusive of Israelites like those against whom Jeremiah prophesied in Jer 19, who brought down judgment upon themselves because of their pagan abominations against God (Jer 19:4-5). No, the “Jerusalem” in view here is constituted solely by the believing Jewish remnant who, along with all believing Gentiles, were included as citizens of the “New Jerusalem” of Rev 21-22 when the age of the Messianic reign began in 70 - i.e., it constitutes those whom Paul calls the “Israel of God” (Gal 6:16). And Jerusalem’s “pagan enemies” against whom God “fought” and avenged his people - who were they? Shockingly, they turned out to be of their own brethren - i.e., the unbelieving Jewish majority of whom Paul speaks in Rom 9-11. This “Jerusalem” - i.e., the one that God didn’t “fight for” but actually fought against - is described in Zech 14:

“Behold, a day is coming for the LORD, when the spoil taken from you will be divided in your midst. For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle and the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women raped. Half of the city shall go out into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be cut off from the city.” Zech 14:1-2 (cf. Luke 21:20-24).

I don’t mean that rebel Jerusalem doesn’t end up in the punishment of Gehenna, too; only that Jesus’ focus is much wider than that in GosMark 9. He is not talking “specifically” there about the fall of Jerusalem in 70CE. He is warning His prideful disciples and apostles, who had been arguing with one another about who was chiefest among them, that they had better shape up or they would suffer the same fate as the rebel Gentiles – something that they, in their religious pride (at being ‘of the elect’ as we would say), simply were not expecting. The whole point to reffing Isaiah 66 was for the revelatory shock value that it didn’t (on the face of it) apply “to Jerusalem”. Any attempt at trying to interpret it so that it counts as a prophecy specially exclusive to one historical tragedy involving Jerusalem, consequently, is contextually inappropriate.

Again, I don’t think that is the case at all. Neither Christ’s words in Mark 9:49 nor his reference to “Gehenna” and “unquenchable fire” need be seen as evidence that his focus is “much wider” than the overthrow of the nation of Israel in 70. Nowhere in the OT does “Gehenna” have anything at all to do with any nation other than Israel. And the so-called “rebel Gentiles” (as you say) of Isa 66:24 actually turned out to be rebel Jews whose abominations against God surpassed even those of the most depraved Gentiles that the world had ever seen. Which is one of the great ironic (and tragic) twists of the story of redemptive history: those who prided themselves on being “the people of God” were ultimately severed from their own “olive tree” and “cast out” as his people (Rom 9-11), while those who had formerly been considered “not-my-people” (the heathen) became the new people of God (Hos 2:23) by embracing Jesus as the Messiah. And while this dramatic “turn of the tables” was certainly prophesied in the OT, Isaiah (especially toward the end of his prophetic work) is largely concerned with the believing remnant within national Israel who were to inherit the Messianic kingdom (i.e., when the kingdom “came with power” within the lifetimes of some of Christ’s contemporaries - Mark 9:1; Matt 16:28). It is this Jewish remnant which I believe constituted the “Jerusalem” of Isaiah 65:18ff (and elsewhere, like Isa 24:2), and which God defended and vindicated by casting apostate (dare I say pagan?) Jerusalem into “Gehenna fire.” Paul certainly realized that there had been a line drawn (so to speak) by God between unbelieving Israel and believing Israel; one group was identified with the then-present “Jerusalem” while the other was identified with the “Jerusalem above” (Gal 4:21-31), which (figuratively speaking) descended to earth when the former Jerusalem was destroyed. Those who had come to constitute the “Jerusalem above” were thus vindicated by God, while all who clung to the former Jerusalem ended up suffering severe judgment: “And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: 'Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay” (Rom 9:27-28).

(Not incidentally, this widescale cosmic level of punishment for both rebel Gentiles and rebel Jews, is also the point of at least two other prior references in Isaiah to the fire that will not be quenched (1:31; Jerusalem shares the fate of other rebels, though she shall be redeemed) and the gnawing maggots of death (14:11, part of the taunt of Israel to fallen Babylon). The context is hardly improved more “specifically” to a forthcoming fall of Jerusalem, by considering the other Synoptic parallels to this section; and who would dare to say that the application of the same saying during the Sermon on the Mount, 5:29-30, was supposed to “specifically” refer to the forthcoming fall of Jerusalem?!)

I’m not seeing any “widescale cosmic level of punishment” in Mark 9 or in the two verses you referenced, and I don’t think appealing to the two verses from Isaiah you referenced helps buttress your position. Isaiah 1:31 is referring to a judgment upon Israel; the “both” refers to “the strong” and “his work” of the “faithful city” which had become a “whore” (v. 21) - i.e., Jerusalem. But even if God were talking about both rebel Jews and Gentiles being judged in this passage (or elsewhere), it would not make it a “widescale cosmic level of punishment,” or even a simultaneously occurring temporal judgment - it would simply mean that, just as one nation is judged, so shall another, irrespective of what nation it is. Moreover, just because similar language is applied to the downfall of Babylon doesn’t mean it must (or even can) refer to Gentiles being judged in Mark 9. Again, Gehenna, being a specifically Jewish word for a specifically Jewish location, most likely refers to a specifically Jewish judgment when employed by Christ in a figurative sense (as it does in Jer 19).

You ask, “and who would dare to say that the application of the same saying during the Sermon on the Mount, 5:29-30, was supposed to “specifically” refer to the forthcoming fall of Jerusalem?!” Answer: I would! Yes, Jesus is proclaiming a system of “kingdom ethics” applicable to both Jew and Gentile in all successive ages of redemptive history, but who, specifically, is Jesus addressing here? First century Jews! It is completely natural and appropriate that Jesus would add emphasis to his teaching during this discourse by referring to a judgment that concerned the very men to whom he spoke! If Jesus had wanted to speak of a future judgment upon the nation of Israel that was then approaching (a horrific judgment which would affect the lives of most of the people to whom he spoke during his “Sermon on the Mount”), what better word could he have possibly used?

On the other hand, I can’t even come up with a single Scriptural phrase - let alone a single word - that Christ could have used to refer to what many think “Gehenna” means. Since the OT is completely silent on the idea of post-mortem punishment (be it remedial or otherwise) - let alone a universal judgment/punishment in another state of existence - it would have required a completely new revelation from Christ (and most certainly would have required more than a single, unexplained word to express and sanction the radical idea that it was meant to convey).*

[RanRan]

Jason wrote:
But the scriptural testimony does see it as applicable to the resurrection of the dead. And the context in GosMark, while (as RanRan correctly notes) universal in its hopeful application and goal to and for everyone, is delivered at the tail end of a series of warnings. Aaron is correct (if he is thinking of the Markan context here, though I somewhat doubt it based on his referential comments) that this statement is delivered to Jesus’ own disciples and even to His own apostles; but it is delivered in context at the tail end of warning to those disciples and apostles. It is of course true, as Aaron said, that all who have chosen to follow Christ “will be refined by trying circumstances” – so will all who have not chosen to follow Christ! And that’s the context of the warning in GosMark: unless (or more literally until) you, even you apostles, repent and become like this little child instead, you shall absolutely not be entering into the kingdom of God.

If “salted” carries the idea of being benefitted in some way by trying circumstances (“fire”) then yes, I do think all will ultimately be benefitted by the trying circumstances of this life - and I have no problem understanding Mark 9:49 as a general (even universal) principle that Christ is affirming.

Actually, ‘salted’ carries the idea of being made acceptable - if the salting of a grain offering in Lev 2 is the indicator. And as Christ referred to us as grain - there is no reason to think that indicator can be anywhere else. A salting that has lost it’s saltiness by being obsolete and finally done away with by the destruction of the temple, by the way. The old has passed away.

So it’s no longer a salting by the hands of men but by God making us acceptable - His fire is His ‘salt’. So I think there’s something more Holy (it is His fire) going on then mere ‘trying circumstances’ which may be decreed but are often accomplished by the hands of man.

[Aaron]

RanRan wrote:
So it’s no longer a salting by the hands of men but by God making us acceptable - His fire is His ‘salt’. So I think there’s something more Holy (it is His fire) going on then mere ‘trying circumstances’.

Well, I’m not so sure it can be viewed as either/or…I mean wouldn’t you say that God works through - or even more, ordains - the circumstances of life that, in the end, will ultimately prove to have been for our benefit?

I should also add that I’m inclined to see “salt” as symbolizing that which gives long-lasting benefit to people, based on how the image is used in Matthew 5:13-14 (“You are the salt of the earth…You are the light of the world…”) as well as what Jesus says in Mark 9:50 (“Salt is good…have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another”). And that’s not to say that Jesus didn’t have in mind the salted sacrifices of which Lev 2 speaks; I would just understand it in the following sense: just as salt was indispensable to rendering offerings acceptable to God, so the “fiery trials” through which divine providence takes us in this life are indispensable to our fully enjoying the immortal existence for which we are all destined (assuming, of course, the expression “everyone will be salted with fire” is a universal principle that is applicable for every person of every generation).

[RanRan]

RanRan wrote:
So it’s no longer a salting by the hands of men but by God making us acceptable - His fire is His ‘salt’. So I think there’s something more Holy (it is His fire) going on then mere ‘trying circumstances’.

Well, I’m not so sure it can be viewed as either/or…I mean wouldn’t you say that God works through - or even more, ordains - the circumstances of life that, in the end, will ultimately prove to have been for our benefit?

It’s true that everything works for our good - but I doubt if that’s the fire Christ is talking about - I don’t think anyone can withstand it on this side of the resurrection. Even a good man who thinks he is perfectly holy and ready to step into heaven as is - will have that pride burned away - an egotist in a resurrected body - now there’s a nightmare. Everyone will be salted with fire.

[Melchizedek]

RanRan wrote:
So it’s no longer a salting by the hands of men but by God making us acceptable - His fire is His ‘salt’. So I think there’s something more Holy (it is His fire) going on then mere ‘trying circumstances’.

Well, I’m not so sure it can be viewed as either/or…I mean wouldn’t you say that God works through - or even more, ordains - the circumstances of life that, in the end, will ultimately prove to have been for our benefit?

I should also add that I’m inclined to see “salt” as symbolizing that which gives long-lasting benefit to people, based on how the image is used in Matthew 5:13-14 (“You are the salt of the earth…You are the light of the world…”) as well as what Jesus says in Mark 9:50 (“Salt is good…have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another”). And that’s not to say that Jesus didn’t have in mind the salted sacrifices of which Lev 2 speaks; I would just understand it in the following sense: just as salt was indispensable to rendering offerings acceptable to God, so the “fiery trials” through which divine providence takes us in this life are indispensable to our fully enjoying the immortal existence for which we are all destined (assuming, of course, the expression “everyone will be salted with fire” is a universal principle that is applicable for every person of every generation).

Your comments ring true to me here, Aaron. Jesus learned obedience through the things which he suffered. He was being salted to render his ultimate offering acceptable.

I think you’re making a strong case for the lack of post-mortem punishments; the thing that continues to trip me up with it is the “resurrection of judgment” terminology. What are your thoughts on this?

[Aaron]

Melchizedek wrote:
I think you’re making a strong case for the lack of post-mortem punishments; the thing that continues to trip me up with it is the “resurrection of judgment” terminology. What are your thoughts on this?

Hi Mel, my view of the “resurrection of judgment/life” can be found here:

John 5:24-29

Hi RanRan, The “resurrections” to which Christ is referring in John 5:28-29 should be interpreted in light of verse 25 of this chapter. There, we read, “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.” Christ links the then-present and ongoing spiritual vivification of those who are said to be “dead” (v. 25) with a then-future event in which these very same people (whom he categorizes as “those wh…

I see this event as being parallel to what is prophesied in Dan 12:2 (with Jesus and Gabriel both employing slightly different imagery to speak of the same thing): Daniel 12:2

[Aaron]

Previously I suggested that the statement, “For everyone will be salted with fire” (Mark 9:49, ESV) may be a general principle that Jesus is affirming, and that “Gehenna fire” is but one example of how this principle played out for the Jews of that first-century generation. But for the sake of argument, let’s say this understanding of the verse is not tenable, and that the “fire” of v. 49 can only refer back to the “unquenchable fire” of vv. 43 and 48. If this were the case, then pas (“everyone”) cannot be understood in an all-inclusive, universal sense. In the context, two different ends are in view. Christ is contrasting the blessing of entering “the kingdom of God” with the punishment of being “thrown into Gehenna.” Those who made the necessary sacrifices would enter into “life,” while those who didn’t faced certain judgment (“unquenchable fire”). The unavoidable implication is that those who made the necessary sacrifices for entering into life/the kingdom of God would, by their actions, thereby avoid the “unquenchable fire” of Gehenna completely. Consequently, if the “fire” of v. 49 refers back to the “unquenchable fire” of vv. 43 and 48, then the “everyone” who would be “salted with fire” can only refer to everyone who was to be “thrown into Gehenna.” Of course, if being “salted” with this “fire” is a good thing (which I think is the case), then Jesus would be teaching that even those who would have to undergo this severe judgment would ultimately be benefitted by it in the long-run. But the point of Jesus’ words prior to this verse is that being thrown into Gehenna (and being “salted” with its “fire”) was something that could be escaped. So again, if the “fire” of v. 49 is the same “fire” of the previous verses, then pas in v. 49 simply cannot be understood to mean “all mankind” or “all people without exception.”

[RanRan]

So again, if the “fire” of v. 49 is the same “fire” of the previous verses, then pas in v. 49 simply cannot be understood to mean “all mankind” or “all people without exception.”

I think that’s a mistake when ‘salting’ or ‘being salted’ is always referenced as a good thing - purifying and making acceptable. I wanna be salted! “You’re the salt of the earth!”

“If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.” Ps 139

So if even in the depths, His Fire is ‘salting’ men - how can that possibly be a bad thing for them or anyone?

‘Everyone will be salted with fire.’ That is either the worst mixed metaphor in history or a great universal truth.

So in all this cutting off our hands or plucking out our eyeballs to make ourselves acceptable, have we forgotten how this all works? We know it’s from the top down, not from the bottom up. Did those he was addressing understand that? I doubt it, and they certainly hadn’t a clue as to just how top down salvation was going to be - How have WE been found acceptable?? By something we did? So might He be teaching that the things men need to do, but men can’t do without His help and without His fire?

So He leaves them and US with this cryptic 'salting with fire" - a good thing by this seemingly bad thing. He’s talking about the perfecting of the resurrected.

If the joke is in the metaphor, which I think it is, it’s being played on, as usual, the self-righteous, who believe everyone, but them, deserves hell. We’ll see how that works out for them - or is it US? Are we missing the forest for the trees? Or the metaphor for the ‘lesson’ in this case?

The enhanced version: “If you say you are without sin, you’re a friggin’ liar!” Do you understand what THAT is saying and what Christ is saying by way of metaphor? Only a fool would say that anyone is worthy and ready for the resurrection. Expect some salting. ‘Religion’ is another word for pride and self-deception. Examine your heart.

Everything I claim you to be, I find I am. Can you understand that?

[RanRan]

So again, if the “fire” of v. 49 is the same

“fire” of the previous verses, then pas in v. 49 simply cannot be understood to mean “all mankind” or “all people without exception.”

I think that’s a mistake when ‘salting’ or ‘being salted’ is always referenced as a good thing - purifying and making acceptable. I wanna be salted! “You’re the salt of the earth!”

“If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.” Ps 139

So if even in the depths, His Fire is ‘salting’ men - how can that possibly be a bad thing for them or anyone?

‘Everyone will be salted with fire.’ That is either the worst mixed metaphor in history or a great universal truth.

So in all this cutting off our hands or plucking out our eyeballs to make ourselves acceptable, have we forgotten how this all works? We know it’s from the top down, not from the bottom up. Did those he was addressing understand that? I doubt it, and they certainly hadn’t a clue as to just how top down salvation was going to be - How have WE been found acceptable?? By something we did? So might He be teaching that the things men need to do, but men can’t do without His help and without His fire?

So He leaves them and US with this cryptic 'salting with fire" - a good thing by this seemingly bad thing. He’s talking about the perfecting of the resurrected.

If the joke is in the metaphor, which I think it is, it’s being played on, as usual, the self-righteous, who believe everyone, but them, deserves hell. We’ll see how that works out for them - or is it US? Are we missing the forest for the trees? Or the metaphor for the ‘lesson’ in this case?

The enhanced version: “If you say you are without sin, you’re a friggin’ liar!” Do you understand what THAT is saying and what Christ is saying by way of metaphor? Only a fool would say that anyone is worthy and ready for the resurrection. Expect some salting. ‘Religion’ is another word for pride and self-deception. Examine your heart.

Everything I claim you to be, I find I am. Can you understand that?

I can understand that you will hope for, wish for the weakest arguments against you - but where are they?

[Aaron]

RanRan wrote:
I think that’s a mistake when ‘salting’ or ‘being salted’ is always referenced as a good thing - purifying and making acceptable.

So in other words, if the “fire” of which Jesus speaks in v. 49 is a “good thing” (and I’m not saying it isn’t; I think it is) it must therefore refer to a universal experience? That is, is it your position that being “salted with fire” could not be a “good thing” unless it was a universal experience (i.e., what happens at the resurrection) as opposed to, say, a local judgment? Because the more I study the passage, the more the context (and even the grammar) seems to indicate that the “fire” with which people would be “salted” refers back to the “unquenchable fire” of “Gehenna” in the previous verses - which would mean that being “salted with fire” is not an all-inclusive experience (since being “thrown into Gehenna” was not an inevitable fate for those to whom Christ was speaking).

[Aaron]

Everyone,

In the opening post for this thread, Mike wrote:

I personally don’t see any scriptural proof that Gehenna was anything other than a literal place with a literal fire, worms, and even a gnashing of teeth. I would love to know at what point in time did Gehenna become symbolic for hell.

I would love to know this as well! Gehenna certainly wasn’t symbolic for “hell” in the OT, so when did it come to symbolize endless punishment in a future state of existence?

[RanRan]

RanRan wrote:
I think that’s a mistake when ‘salting’ or ‘being salted’ is always referenced as a good thing - purifying and making acceptable.

So in other words, if the “fire” of which Jesus speaks in v. 49 is a “good thing” (and I’m not saying it isn’t; I think it is) it must therefore refer to a universal experience? That is, is it your position that being “salted with fire” could not be a “good thing” unless it was a universal experience (i.e., what happens at the resurrection) as opposed to, say, a local judgment? Because the more I study the passage, the more the context (and even the grammar) seems to indicate that the “fire” with which people would be “salted” refers back to the “unquenchable fire” of “Gehenna” in the previous verses - which would mean that being “salted with fire” is not an all-inclusive experience (since being “thrown into Gehenna” was not an inevitable fate for those to whom Christ was speaking).

An ‘unquenchable fire’ does not speak to me of an unending ‘salting’. ‘Salt is good’, he tells us that.

“In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. These have come so that your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire…” 1 Pet

His fire is always spoken of as eternal and unquenchable - but I can’t find evidence anywhere that the ‘salting’ by it is eternal. Can you?

What I do find is that people emerge from it - refined. If Christ meant something other than that refining - I don’t think He would have worded it the way He did: “Everyone will be salted with fire.” It’s very easy to prove that that salting is/will be the universal experience of mankind redeemed from death - which everyone.

So, is it a matter (in all cases) of getting what we deserve or getting what we need?

[Aaron]

RanRan wrote:
An ‘unquenchable fire’ does not speak to me of an unending ‘salting’.

Just trying to follow you on this: so is it your view that IF the “fire” with which people were to be “salted” in v. 49 is the same fire that is called “unquenchable” in the previous verses, then it would follow that the “salting” would be endless in duration? Because I don’t think it’s necessary to affirm that an “unquenchable fire” means an endlessly burning fire. In the examples I provided earlier, expressions such as “fire that will never be quenched” clearly referred to temporal judgments of finite duration. So my understanding is that, even if the “fire” with which people would be “salted” referred to what is previously called the “unquenchable fire” of Gehenna, it wouldn’t follow that the “salting” would be unending. While the benefit of the salting would be endless, the “salting” itself would not be. But maybe I’m misunderstanding you on this.

[RanRan]

So my understanding is that, even if the “fire” with which people would be “salted” referred to what is previously called the “unquenchable fire” of Gehenna, it wouldn’t follow that the “salting” would be unending. While the benefit of the salting would be endless, the “salting” itself would not be. But maybe I’m misunderstanding you on this.

That’s pretty much it.

Two things: ‘Salt’ or ‘salting’ is never spoken of as a negative.

Likewise: His fire is eternal and is constructive and refining in purpose and always has been.

Anyway - the sequence of verses under discussion aren’t really about hell - they are about humility. It starts with His disciples arguing about who is the greatest among them and perhaps passing that pride to others - so He repeats this twice: ‘it is better for you…’ to enter heaven as…less.’

The images used by Christ go to the heart of pride - which suitable for the garbage dump until it’s gone. ‘All your pomp has been brought down to the grave, along with the noise of your harps; maggots are spread out beneath you and worms cover you.’

It takes a particularly prideful, self-righteous person to deceive themselves into thinking that others need to be salted with fire, but not them. Sounds like religion, doesn’t it?

‘The eyes of the arrogant man will be humbled and the pride of men brought low; the LORD alone will be exalted in that day.’ Is 2

So was Christ teaching here about the destiny of men or the destiny of pride? It’s a nightmare to the prideful, that’s for sure. But the salting has a purpose - to humble us all.

Did Christ really say that everyone will be salted with fire? Yes. What a stumbling block for the self-righteous, the proud and the superior! Let us all try and understand the nightmare for what it is. It’s a test. Forgive as you have been forgiven. If one can’t do that, send ‘them’ to the fire …and expect to join them.

[RanRan]

So in all this, Aaron, it’s important to keep in mind that He is talking to His disciples and He is scolding them in all of it. It’s strange how people can understand the hyperbole of cutting off limbs to enter heaven but can’t see the same use of hyperbole being used to describe the place (or time) of humbling - Gehenna.

But, likewise, in all this, they would have understood that ‘salting’ as being good and necessary. Christ could have used the image of a smoldering slag heap or dross heap to convey much the same idea of salting being refining and corrective, rather than destructive. But the immediate confrontation of the pride of His disciples called for worms and garbage as the hyperbole of choice, not leaving an occasion for pride to say, “I’ll be made even greater!”

I find that “Everyone will be salted with fire” to be very much a part of the Good News for mankind - and integral in the preparation of/for the new creation.

So Jason asks:

Where is the resurrection into crisis distinct from the resurrection into life, in this?

As far as ‘salting’ goes, there is no distinction. The judgment (not the salting) is about rewards and is always based on works - ‘he who is not against us is for us’ - the crisis comes from hindering the advance of His Kingdom and that well may be reserved, mainly, for the religious. But whatever may be the case, none of us are saved by the fire but by Christ’s work of redeeming mankind from death.

[Aaron]

RanRan wrote:
Did Christ really say that everyone will be salted with fire? Yes. What a stumbling block for the self-righteous, the proud and the superior! Let us all try and understand the nightmare for what it is. It’s a test. Forgive as you have been forgiven. If one can’t do that, send ‘them’ to the fire …and expect to join them.

and

So in all this, Aaron, it’s important to keep in mind that He is talking to His disciples and He is scolding them in all of it. It’s strange how people can understand the hyperbole of cutting off limbs to enter heaven but can’t see the same use of hyperbole being used to describe the place (or time) of humbling - Gehenna.

I find that “Everyone will be salted with fire” to be very much a part of the Good News for mankind - and integral in the preparation of/for the new creation.

Ran, while I love the emphasis you put on humility and God’s sovereignty, I’m not sure I can agree with your exposition of Mark 9:42-50. Jesus really does seem to have two different ends in view in this passage (i.e., entering life/the kingdom of God or being “thrown into Gehenna,” where “the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched”). We both agree that Christ is using hyperbole when he speaks of people cutting off body parts to enter life/the kingdom, but this colorful language still stands for something drastic that those to whom he spoke would have to do in order to avoid the fate of “Gehenna.” And while I do believe that every member of the human race will, at the resurrection, be “purged” of all sin and self-righteousness (for all people are going to be subjected to Christ!), I don’t think that’s being taught here, and I fail to see how “Gehenna” is being used to denote this universal experience.

For one thing, there is nothing said about the resurrection or any kind of post-mortem experience anywhere in this passage, or in the surrounding context. I think the main reason you’re reading the resurrection into this passage is because Jesus talks of “the worm that does not die,” which (from what you’ve said before) you apparently understand to be a reference to death and the grave. But the image of “unquenchable fire” and undying worms refers more accurately and specifically to the Valley of Hinnom/Gehenna, which became Jerusalem’s garbage dump during the reign of King Josiah (2Kings 23:10), and shortly after (during the prophetic ministry of Jeremiah) became associated with, and emblematic of, the fearful judgment that God threatened to bring upon the nation of Israel for her sins (Jer 7:31-32; 19) - which Christ was clearly hearkening back to when he employed the word during his own ministry!

Moreover, the image of “fire” is never (as far as I can tell) associated with the resurrection of the dead. But it is frequently associated with temporal judgment/punishment of people and nations. And the more I consider this passage, the more convinced I am that the word pas (“everyone” or “all”) here seems to refer only to *everyone who would be “thrown into Gehenna” * - which again, was one of two possible ends of which Christ spoke (like when he spoke of the “narrow gate” and “hard way” that leads to “life,” and the “broad gate” and “easy way” that leads to “destruction”). And as I’m sure you’re aware, pas need not refer to every person who has ever been born or ever will be born (see, for example, Matt 8:16; 10:22; 15:37; 17:11; 22:28; 27:22; Mark 2:12; 3:10; 6:42; 14:23, 50; etc.). Though I have no doubt that it sometimes refers to the entire human race, it doesn’t always (or even mostly) have such a universal scope. Its meaning can only be determined by the context. And the context of Mark 9 is not the universal resurrection (for that, see Mark 12:18-27).

[RanRan]

Moreover, the image of “fire” is never (as far as I can tell) associated with the resurrection of the dead.

I know. It’s a little maddening, jumping from death to paradise - and surrounded with people who also make it paradise. What makes us all so lovely to be with all of sudden? That’s the mystery to me - because a new body is nice, but that’s not going to cut it…because that’s still not a new creation, that’s merely a re-clad creation.

Is the resurrection about MoreofMe and MoreofYou and MoreofThis? God help us if it is.

So I look to Christ on that question. God will do right in all this, and I will let Him solve the problem.

When Christ says that ‘everyone will be salted with fire’ I say, ‘Aha - that’s where the fixing occurs’.

In all this it’s the same Christ who took away the sins of the world and the same Father who is not counting men’s sins against them and the same Spirit teaching men the truth.

What is it about an eternal fire that scares you when His love is in it? I don’t want MoreofMe, I want ME with my true eternal name.

What I can’t decipher from your argument is when or where all this magic happens.

[John]

Not as salty a language as in the past but the fire is still there!

That was a grand message in it’s simplicity and it’s well placed trust. You write with a rare clairity, Ran.

[RanRan]

Thanks John. In the lesson given to His disciples in this short segment of scripture, He covers a gamut of possibilities: from being certainly rewarded for giving a cup of water. That’s sounds easy, except it may be better for the same guy to cut off the same hand that gave the cup of water for causing someone else to sin. If he doesn’t do that ‘surgery’ he ends up on a burning garbage heap but still is rewarded. If the rewarded are or are to be or can be salted with fire without losing their reward, then why not everyone?

OR, if the salting by fire is to be avoided at all costs, why not give someone a cup of water, then shut-up and wait it out? Of course, THAT might be sinning and if others follow the example…

The rewards of trepidation?? Then we got Luther saying “If you are going to sin, sin boldly!” Man, is he ever going to burn for that one! Meanwhile, the powers that be here, are figuring out a way to make this all a sweet little dispassionate tea party.

What could be clearer?

[Aaron]

I know. It’s a little maddening, jumping from death to paradise - and surrounded with people who also make it paradise. What makes us all so lovely to be with all of sudden? That’s the mystery to me - because a new body is nice, but that’s not going to cut it…because that’s still not a new creation, that’s merely a re-clad creation.

I don’t have all the answers, Ran. While I’ve suggested how this “jump from death to paradise” might be accomplished elsewhere on this forum, it’s still largely a mystery to me. But what I am confident of is that death is the last enemy, and that when, by Christ’s command, death is swallowed up in victory, all people will be subjected to Christ and reconciled to God. Consequently, no sin or self-righteousness extends beyond this mortal existence.

Is the resurrection about MoreofMe and MoreofYou and MoreofThis? God help us if it is.

I certainly don’t think so. But if, after the resurrection, people are still in need of being humbled and purged of sin by the “fire” of Mark 9:49 (which I don’t think you’ve even defined yet), then it would, in fact, be the case that the resurrection is “MoreofMe and MoreofYou and MoreofThis.”

What is it about an eternal fire that scares you when His love is in it? I don’t want MoreofMe, I want ME with my true eternal name.

The fire of Mark 9:49 doesn’t scare me. And that’s not only because of the fact that I see God’s love being present in all the trying circumstances of life, but because I see Jesus’ words in Mark 9 as referring specifically to a judgment that took place almost 2,000 years ago.

What I can’t decipher from your argument is when or where all this magic happens.

It happens when death is destroyed (1 Cor 15:21-28). As to where it happens, apparently it happens right here on earth, just before we’re caught up in the clouds to meet Christ in the air (1 Thess 4:13-18).