The Evangelical Universalist Forum

What did Jesus mean by Hell

Featured Writers Dr Bob Wilson
#21

Santo,

Thanks! I sense growing consensus. We’ve agreed that Matt. 18 calls ‘Hinnom Valley’s fire" "aionios which can mean fire of the ‘coming age,’ and thus can fit A.D. 70 (esp. so if one follows my prof, George Ladd, in holding Jesus’ emphasis on God’s kingdom meant precisely that the realities of the coming age were already happening in the present age).

You say fire in 1 Thes. 2 & Rev. 20 don’t seem like AD 70, or focused on Jews, but suggests some future “parousia.” I sympathize! But as you say, neither is called ‘Hinnom Valley fire,’ and need not be identical to Jesus’ warnings, which like Jeremiah’s are fleshed out in historical terms. I’m unsure what Paul envisioned in such fire, either for enemies or believers. And I doubt the apocalypse should be taken literally. It seems most of Rev. applies to Rome’s destruction (i.e. preterist), but the final chapters seem to remain future realities presented in hyperbolic apocalyptic language.

So as I’ve said, I personally assume that the principle of purifying correction will extend beyond this life and age. Thus, I agree that Paul and John can allude to this. My paper only argues that this may well not be the focus of Jesus’ own warnings about Gehenna, and thus we should avoid using them as if they provide a basis of claiming that we know the ‘furniture’ of an other-worldly ***‘hell’ ***in some Dantesque fashion. Bob

#22

Thanks for that Bob. I have been a ardent reader of GE LADD for many years and in many respects he has been my mentor for years. Yes I agree about his position on realised and consummated eschatology and how we “taste” the age to come now and so can see how “eternal fire” can have relevance to this age since we have one foot in either age now.

But one thing Bob … there seems to be an apparent lack in Universalist writings on the Second Coming of Jesus. By taking the Preterist view the 21st Century Believer is left without any concrete future? If 2 Thes 1 and Rev 20 refer to the destruction of Rome etc then what is there left you us? Do we have any hope for the Return of Jesus to this earth? What about Acts 1:9-11 1 Thes 4:16ff and 1 Cor 15:51-54 and Phil 3:20-21 Hebrews 9:28 etc which speak of an ACTUAL return of Jesus? Acts 1:9-11 seems to be very clear that “this SAME Jesus who was taken up into the clouds will return THE SAME WAY they saw him go into the clouds” and to the right hand of the Father. But I can see strong overtones in Matthew of Jesus’ use of Jeremiah’s Gehenna language. Blessings. Santo

#23

Actually this is to misunderstand the preterist position. The concrete hope preterism affords is that of a fulfilled hope i.e,. that which Jesus promised HAS been fulfilled and complete… that being sin is defeated and redemption and reconciliation brought to fruition.

Futurism on the other hand is ALWAYS WAITING for a hope that is forever over the horizon, always out of grasp and as a consequence left the heart of many a believer “sick” through “deferred hope” Prov 13:12]. Futurism [and to a degree many preterists that cling to exclusivism] has not adequately understood what Christ’s Parousia was all about.

Christ’s Parousia was all about the redemption of Israel which was the catalyst for the reconciling of man. IOW, a consistent preterism is fully inclusive, what I call pantelism - all pan] is complete telos] - redemptively AND eschatologically.

This is something important to consider… the is NO eschatology end] relative to the new covenant age, only the old; THAT’S why it was all fulfilled then.

Actually, “the same way” Jesus ascended to the Father hidden from sight in the clouds Act 1:9b] replicates exactly “the same way” the Father came parousia] in Judgement in the OT… hidden in clouds of glory Isa 19:1; Mt 24:30; 26:64; Nah 1:3 et al ] - it is apocalyptic language used to describe divine judgement. This all came to fruition on the OC world in Ad70.

Christ’s Cross and Coming were the book-ends of God’s one time redemptive event on behalf of all Israel Rom 11:26-27] and the world wherein she was His firstfruits Jer 2:3]. With Israel redeemed the world came into reconciliation.

On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell
#24

Santo,

You reflect Dr. Ladd well! Many universalist are not preterists, and I assume they affirm some ‘second coming,’ even if their writings don’t focus on such scenarios. My bias now is that despite rejecting dispensationalism, Ladd was an over detailed futurist. So e.g. I now find Gordon Fee’s more preterist Revelation commentary more persuasive. But even he sees 20-22 as more future than Rome’s demise. Davo offers a preterist interpretation of how “seeing” Jesus in Acts 1 could fit AD 70. But with N.T. Wright, my sense is that Jesus’ own apocalyptic discourses were describing first century events, not a still future coming (he sees Daniel 7’s son of man coming on the clouds as describing being raised UP vindicated into God’s presence, and thus more about Easter & Ascension, and AD 70, than a yet future event). Yet he thinks after the resurrection, the disciples and Paul naturally assumed any consumation of God’s purposes would have Jesus’ presence returning to be at the center. Then, Acts 1 could be more literally read as such a reality.

In all candor, what sort of future state and events such prophetic language requires us to grasp or expect is beyond my comprehension. My impression is that most of Scripture emphasizes a future transformation that restores life on earth. So I don’t know how literally we should understand Paul’s words about “going up,” meeting him in the clouds, or even what it would mean to “see” Jesus. I do know that the N.T. interpretation of some O.T. expectations is often loose and creative, and that what O.T. experts thought Messiah would look like in his first coming turned out very differently than they expected. Frankly, I think what really matters in all the language used by Biblical writers to express their hope, is that it implies that evil is not something that will just keep going in circles, but that whatever the ‘mechanics’ are, faith in God’s goodness and power means that ultimately, all things will be well. Sorry, I can’t insist on one of the more definitive alternatives, but perhaps faith is about trusting in God, and that means trusting the details into his good hands.

#25

Actually I’m inclined to go along with this as well. Wright like Fee are technically speaking “partial preterists” in that they still hold to some future redemptive working of God upon tangible creation, whereas the more “full preterist” understanding views the “creation” language in terms of “covenant” - which is one reason why preterism has also been called ‘covenant eschatology’.

Thus when Paul says… “if any man be in Christ he is a new creation…” full preterists pantelist i.e., an inclusive preterist] read Paul as saying… “if any man be in Christ he is new Israel…”. Jesus came as true Israel Jn 15:1; Isa 5:7; Jer 2:21], and so those called into God’s redemptive plan “in Christ” were now also true, or new and now according to Paul “the Israel of God” Gal 6:16 i.e., those through whom He was now moving ON BEHALF OF all.

#26

Thanks for the contributions :slight_smile: As I read 1 thes 4:13-18 I see a pastor writing to CHRISTIANS who are grieving. He certainly is NOT talking to unbelieving and unfaithful Israelites who are going to be judged in AD70. Here was a church that had certain folk die. What had happened? Would they see they again? To this specific situation Paul replied and told them to grieve but not like others. They would see them again. When? How? A discourse on AD70 certainly does NOT fit in the context of this particular passage. Paul wrote back and reassured these grieving Christians that they would see them again when Jesus returns. For when Jesus returns he will bring those who have fallen asleep with him [v.13]. He will physically return with those who have died in him. Then the living at the return of Jesus will meet the Lord in the air and be reunited with Jesus and those who have died forever “so encourage one another with these words”. Seems pretty clear that AD70 is not referred to here and there is no idea of Apocalyptic Judgment symbolism going on here. Here we have real people with loved ones who have died. And Paul simply tells them that they will see them again when Jesus returns. Find it hard to see this passage any other way. How would a discourse on AD70 be relevant to the specific pastoral situation Paul is dealing with? These folk want to know if they will see their loved ones again so replying with AD70 seems rather silly in this case. Paul gave them words that “encouraged” them as they grieved. Blessings Santo.

#27

Santo,

Who are you addressing? I responded 1-1, "You say, Thes. doesn’t seem like AD 70, but some future parousia. I sympthatize, and then explained that my paper only argues that Ad70 is what Jesus meant by 'gehenna.

#28

Sorry Bob :frowning: I have had a few individuals write to me personally at my email address. I shouldve only replied back to them privately. I just got a little concerned that they didnt believe in any form of the return of Jesus to the earth and so I wrote to them. Love reading your material. Feeding me! Blessings Santo

#29

Bob can you explain or make reference to other writings that might explain why Jesus was the only one to use this terminology?

Gehenna as always been the tipping point for me. If He meant Hell as traditionally understood then it should be treated that way, if not then I have reason for a Greater Hope.

#30

Cool reading, thanks.

I’d be interested in your reply to nimblewill’s query also, since I largely subscribe to an NT Wright-Ian AD70 perspective on Jesus’ use of Gehenna/ apocalyptic language in general ( though I also allow for a possible secondary end-time fulfilment meaning). Also, I haven’t had chance to read Perriman, but does anyone know if he addresses this issue?

#31

Nimblewill and Pog,

I’m not sure what you mean by “Hell as traditionally understood.” Jersak, etc argue that a later tradition which informs our predominant interpretation is different from Jesus’ tradition. E.g. he asserts that the evidence for Hinnom Valley’s image as a smoldering garbage dump appears way past Jesus’ day in rabbis about 1200AD. What matters is the “tradition” of Jesus and his hearers. My impression is that the development of ‘hell," a painful after-life judgment, had barely begun in Jesus’ day, and that Hinnom Valley itself could be widely understood as a metaphor for imminent historical events, as in Jeremiah (what leads you to conclude that such usage is “unique to Jesus”?). I don’t know first-century literature enough to cite documentation on how they used it, much less whether it agrees with whatever concept Jesus is actually intending to imply. But Jerzak argues that even if Pharisees,etc already took Gehenna as a symbol of post-death punishment (as can be documented in much later literature), Jesus was often antithetical to their interpretations anyway. Thus, our bias should be that Jesus would be using references to Hinnom Valley, understood in terms of its’ Biblical usage, as I detailed from Jeremiah. As Santo has pointed out, these references themselves don’t seem to clearly settle what his meaning was. The tie-breaker for me is that when Jesus does refer in the plainest language to coming judgments on Israel and Jerusalem, it clearly fits both AD 70, and the sort of historical event that Hinnom Valley language plainly meant for Jeremiah. So I conclude that both of these have the same thing in mind.

Blessings to you,
Bob

#32

Andrew Perriman has written quite a few good articles on this. He is in a similar vein the Tom Wright. Although neither hold to what I would consider to be the more consistent ‘full preterist’ view both Perriman and Wright are definitely heading in the right direction. Here are some of Perriman’s thoughts on Gehenna…

Was Gehenna a burning rubbish dump, and does it matter?

Who else has argued that Gehenna is a place of historical judgment?

Killed and thrown into Gehenna

The destruction of body and soul in gehenna

The rich man and Lazarus, and what the story tells us about hell

#33

Thanks bob; thanks davo! :slight_smile:

I agree that the OT should be the primary lens for interpreting Jesus’ gehanna sayings, though itd be cool if someone could point me to an article where they are compared with the various 1st cent ideas/texts floating around, and see if that helps any.

I’ve ordered the Perriman book (cant recall title) - but it seems delayed in getting to me (is it out of print?)

#34

Hi everyone :slight_smile:

I am a personal friend of Jersak and I have told him about the discussions going on re his Jeremianic interpretation of Gehenna. He said he would be more than happy to join this discussion if you all wanted. What do you think? Santo

#35

Sounds great to me, though im not 100% sure yet exactly what questions I’d ask. 'Im sure he’d be welcomed and his input prove very valuable. thanks :slight_smile:

#36

Santo, I think it would be great if Jersak would be willing to offer his evaluation of our discussion, including my characterization of his approach, and even my brief paper. I certainly don’t want to misrepresent his views. While my paper incorporates my own perceptions, I do see it as largely influenced by Jersak’s book.

#37

I guess I mistakenly assumed that “hell” was traditionally understood as ETC as taught by American protestants. I haven’t read much on Gehenna outside scripture so I meant that no other writer in the NT used the word used by Jesus other than James of course.

#38

I too would enjoy Jersak joining us for this and other discussions. I look forward to getting his book when it comes out on Kindle.

#39

Well, then you have reason for a Greater Hope! Hallelujah!

It is also helpful to note that it is primarily Matthew who quotes Jesus warning of Hinnom Valley. Mark and Luke only quote one passage each of Jesus warning of Hinnom Valley. In Mark 9 Jesus is warning the disciples of the consequence of causing others to stuble and sin. And in Luke 12 Jesus is warning all of the hypocricy of the religious leaders, telling everyone to not fear man who can only kill you, but fear Him who can cast you into Hinnom Valley. Both of these are similar to two of the 4 (5, one is a repeat) various quotes in Matthew.

So it is Matthew who wrote to the Jews and had a focus of warning against the doctrine and practices of the Pharisees, who predominantly quotes Jesus warning of Hinnom Valley. So it seems to me that Jesus was likely referencing the historical implications of Hinnom Valley to the Jews, the fact that it spoke of the judgment/destruction of Jerusalem. And if Jesus meant a place of ECT in his warning of Hinnom Valley, then it seems to me that both Mark who wrote to the Romans and Luke who wrote to a Greek would both have likely quoted Jesus using the word Tartarus, the hellish realm of Hades in Greek mythology, “IF” they thought Jesus meant ECT in warning of Hinnom Valley. But they didn’t. And John doesn’t even quote Jesus warning of Hinnom Valley. And of course neither does Paul.

One must understand Jesus’ warning of Hinnom Valley through the lens of the historical significance of that valley to the Jews.

#40

Thanks Sherman, you capture quite nicely my own perception, which I think is consistent with Jerzak’s as well.