The End
“It is all one; therefore I say, ‘He destroys the guiltless and the wicked.’” Job 9:22 NASB
Guiltless– You and I will be rewarded. We are followers of the King. We believe. Therefore, He will protect us. Right? All those terrible consequences that are destined to befall the wicked will not scratch us. We will emerge whole, perfected, saved. Right? We hope for the Messiah because he will stand with us and vouch for us at Judgment. Right?
Ah, then there’s Job. The big monkey wrench in the works. Andralamousia.[1] Everyone swept up in the judgment. Good, bad, ugly—all gone. Job experienced that. All his good didn’t keep disaster away. And it doesn’t seem to keep it away from us either. Whether you call it the result of randomness in the design of the universe or the necessary consequence of allowing other free agents to make choices, the undeniable fact of human existence is that “s__t happens.” Yesterday we looked at David’s statement that God hems us in. We are blocked behind and before. Not all options are really ours. Today we discover that Job underscores one of the uncomfortable implications of David’s observation. Somehow God is involved in all this mess. We don’t want to say that He is the cause of our calamities, but it’s hard to avoid this conclusion if He is, in fact, the Sovereign Ruler of everything. We would like to remove divine culpability by diverting blame to human choice, but it’s hard to see how that justifies the destruction of the righteous. For some reason that might just be incomprehensible to us, our world doesn’t play fair. When we ask why, heaven is silent.
Job scans the human horizon from the inside of his pain. He sees the futility of life. Everything he stood for, all of his devotion and charity, mean nothing now. Tām and rāšāʿ (the perfect and the wicked) are one, that is, they are treated the same. God’s judgment sweeps them all away. The verb Job uses is kālâ. It means, “to accomplish, cease, consume, determine, end, fail” or “finish.” The basic idea of the verb is “to bring a process to completion.”[2] So perhaps Job isn’t making a statement about moral judgments. What he is saying is that in the end, everyone dies. It doesn’t matter if you live a righteous life or a wicked one. The final result is still the grave. You and I might object. “No, there is heaven and hell. Things get sorted out in the afterlife. It really does matter.” But that would be an anachronistic insertion into Job’s world. Reward and punishment in the afterlife is a rather late invention. It doesn’t seem to be part of the thinking of the early books, in particular, the Pentateuch. There is no resurrection in Moses’ works. Life ends. Despite religious rhetoric, this is the observable reality. Life ends. That’s what Job finds so baffling. Why is it that the righteous come to the same conclusion as the wicked? It all seems so pointless.
Here’s your challenge today. Try to convince someone that, even if he will end up in the same cemetery as the wicked man, how he lives in this world makes a difference. Be Qohelet for a day (the Teacher in Ecclesiastes). Don’t employ religious affirmations about heaven and hell. Stick to the world that you can see. Show the difference. Show that God really takes care of the righteous and punishes the wicked here. And if you find this little exercise is incredibly more difficult than you imagined, then you might consider once more why the physical resurrection of Yeshua is so important to those who only had this world as their source of evidence.
Topical Index: andralamousia, tām, rāšāʿ, kālâ, heaven, hell, reward, destroy, Job 9:22
[1]Do you remember this Greek word used by Rashi? If not, check the Today’s Wordfrom October 4, 2018
[2]Oswalt, J. N. (1999). 982 כָלָה. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament(electronic ed., p. 439). Chicago: Moody Press.
Skip, you wrote: “Reward and punishment in the afterlife is a rather late invention. It doesn’t seem to be part of the thinking of the early books…” OK. So please explain what is probably the most quoted verse in the book of Job. Just as a good attorney never asks a question to which he doesn’t already know how a person on the stand will answer I know you are ready with an answer to this simple and obvious question. What about Job 19:25-27? “But I know that my Redeemer lives, that in the end he will rise on the dust; so that after my skin has been thus destroyed, then even without my flesh, I will see God. I will see him for myself, my eyes, not someone else’s, will behold him…
Sounds to me like a Job had an “anachronistic insertion” of his own. Apparently he did not read the rules to your challenge to “Stick to the world that you can see.” I, for one, am glad he didn’t.
start here
Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, Vol 15 article 2 (you can get the PDF on line)
LOL. I must have forgotten that you still teach classes at Louisiana Bible College here in the New Orleans area; thus you are like a law professor who refers his first year law school students to legal textbooks and case brief studies rather than to the LAW itself! But all the Rabbinic Talmud, Mishna, Gemara and Zohar together are not equal in power or authority to the least Word of the TaNaKh or Yeshua’s words.
OK, you’ve taken enough classes to know that CASE LAW is the basis of legal understanding in the Tanakh and in the whole ancient Semitic world. There is no juris prudence as we know it until much later than Job, sans Hammurabi or Solon. The PDF I suggested deals with the interpretation and translation of the Job TEXT, which has been a difficulty for scholars for a very long time. You may discover that the typical Christian Messianic reading of that text isn’t quite correct, or at least is suspect. It’s not about “authority.” It’s about what does this text really say, who says it, and how would the author have understood it in his time.
By the way, Judi Baldwin also commented on this and referred to Ps 51. I suggest that you look at the possibility that David is using a technique of divine theater (drama) in that Psalm, thus locating the meaning of the Psalm IN DAVID’S CULTURE, not ours. I already wrote something about this. Could not Job being doing the same thing?
Yes, I have “taken enough classes to know that CASE LAW is the basis of legal understanding”, but also enough to know that every human law is flawed by both the limitations of the words and wordings of the law and the paradigm of the interpreter. Thankfully the TaNaKh is “inspired” and YHWH does not need 9 humans to act as Supreme Court justices to uphold or interpret His Law. Yeshua our ‘Chief Justice’ has spoken and still speaks. Also, speaking of speaking and David freely using the technique of divine theater, there is no drama like courtroom drama and many scholars believe that is exactly what the Book of Job is all about. It is not about Job’s many physical and emotional “trials,” (aka Job’s trials) nor is it about Job being the defendant on trial to adjudicate his sin/guilt/ righteousness, but about Job taking YHWH to court for imposing upon him unjust suffering and not keeping His promises in a joint covenant agreement. Job is forced to defend his integrity with a lawsuit for what we would term ‘breach of contract’ since YHWH promised ( by an oath made to Himself?) to bless “righteous” people with, among many things, long life, protection, many children, blessings of the field and flock, etc. all of the areas which Job suffered great loss. Job approaches YHWH as an equal partner in covenant and demands legal redress by YHWH before the Divine Council and all the Heavenly Hosts. Now that would have made a CourtTV program worth watching.
Just one more note:
“meaning moves constantly in a story; how it is inhabited by conflicts, how it resists literal translation and rejoices in the larger resonances that are silenced by conclusive readings.”
Here’s the problem for me. When we retreat to “this is what the text says,” we are more than likely to read the text as WE understand it, not as it was understood by the author. So, as per your suggestion, we could just go back to the text (law) but that won’t help us much since we still need to know what the text (law) says and that will always be a matter of interpretation. We must watch for the red flags before we start proclaiming that OUR Bible gives us the answers. Whose Bible are we really taking about?
I found the work you reference, Skip, and here’s probably the crux of the matter (page 4 of document / 5 of pdf):
The footnote corresponding to the Greek translation and its LXX Greek is to Brenton’s (13), yet the English translation provided is stiff, incorrect, and woefully inadequate. Below is more proper exegesis, but first we must add verse 25 from the LXX: For I know everlasting is the one who frees/releases me.
ἐπὶ — γῆς ———– ἀναστήσαι — τὸ δέρμα μου τὸ ἀναντλοῦν ταῦτα,
upon earth may-it-be-raised-up the skin my the enduring these,
παρὰ γὰρ Κυρίου ταῦτά μοι συνετελέσθη
by — for — Lord these to-me finish/accomplish
Rearranging the parts of speech into better English, though keeping it as ‘literal’ as possible: My skin, the one that endures these (things), may it be raised up upon [the] earth—by [the] Lord these (things) are accomplished to me. This could be rendered in better idiomatic English, but I think you get the point. And the movement of “upon the earth” from v. 25 to v. 26 really makes little difference—it works with either verse (and verse numbering didn’t come in until the middle ages).
Perhaps the biggest issue here is a misunderstanding of the function of the verbs ἀναστήσαι and συνετελέσθη, both of which are in the aorist tense-form. Many assume strictly a past temporal reference for the aorist (as in the translation “have been accomplished” in Brenton’s above), but this is proven demonstrably false in a number of passages in Scripture. Greek is not time-prominent like English, but aspect prominent. The aorist is perfective in aspect (and the only perfective tense-form in Greek), over against other verb forms which are imperfective. The latter describes things as a process, the former as a whole, in summary.
With this understanding, the final verb can be construed as future: “will be accomplished to me”, though “are accomplished to me” is fine in this passage. The first verb is in the optative mood, which denotes a wish, something one wants to happen. So, “may it be raised” is the best translation. Thus, contrary to the writer of the journal article, the LXX makes an intelligible translation. It’s a bit ambiguous and may well be construed as strictly temporal healing/redemption. But then what about verse 27’s reference to seeing Him?
Moreover, the second-to-last sentence of the selection from the journal article assumes the MT as we have it predates the LXX—it may or it may not. Also, as I implied in a comment below regarding the Sadducees only accepting the Pentateuch as authoritative, while the Pharisees apparently accepted the Tanakh (presumably) as we (~) have it today, there was no universally accepted canon at the time of the Messiah (though the NT quotes of all books except Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon). And we know the LXX was originally translated by Jews beginning ca. 200 BC. Thus, it may well be that the LXX captures the ‘original’ thought here—maybe, maybe not.
The bottom line is that the evidence provided by that article does not convince me this is some later Christian interpolation. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. But, it makes me wonder if the writer is propounding an anti-Christian polemic for his own agenda.
Thank you, Craig.
The prophets of old were not just shown temporal realities, nor were their visions limited to the (first) coming of Messiah. Adam was taught that Messiah would “crush the head” of the serpent (which the first coming of Messiah only PARTIALLY accomplished), and what about our first great prophet, Enoch, who was shown the final dispensation of evil, and clearly got airlifted to eternity? We could go on to Moses and Balaam and certainly Isaiah and Daniel, as has been noted here. These prophets obviously described end times as well as the final end of sin and its corollary: death. Oops, I forgot: the prophecies of the Second Coming were conveniently hijacked by those temporally longing for victory over temporal enemies, such as the Romans, and Daniel got locked up in a bunch of curses. People who don’t think they need eternity (or deliverance from sin and its associated death) are not going to go looking for it. Paradigms worked in those days, too!
I’d not considered Enoch’s “assumption”. Certainly, that must have piqued curiosity and raised some questions relative to some sort of hereafter!
I really appreciate your reply, Michael. Additionally, we should all remember the words King David spoke in Psalm 51 after the prophet, Nathan, helped him recognize the depths of his sin (killing Uria so he could have Bathsheba.)
After the death of the baby, David is overcome with grief and repentance as he cries, “Create in me a pure heart, Oh God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me. Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of your SALVATION, and give me a willing spirit to sustain me.” Psalm 51
It’s the awareness of salvation, and the fear of loosing it that grips David as he realizes the fine line he has been walking. Reward and punishment were absolutely on David’s radar screen.
OK, but it is not reward and punishment that is the issue here. It is reward and punishment IN THE AFTERLIFE. The Tanakh is clear about consequences in this life, and the punishment for sins here, but She’ol accepts everyone without distinction and evidence of the afterlife in the Torah is so scare that the Sadducces refused resurrection altogether. Job is a man of the ancient world before the Greeks struggled to justify the lack of punishment for the wicked in this life. They proposed reward and punishment in the afterlife (perhaps Egypt too) and their influence in the Rabbis is clear, but Job isn’t a part of the rabbinic world. Try not to import our ideas (derived from Hellenism) into his words and see what happens.
Perhaps we’ll have to wait for the final evidence. In the end, everyone will have their “appointment” with the King, and will learn if reward and punishment is “an invention” as you suggest.
Regarding the resurrection…the Sadducces may not have believed in it, but the Pharisees certainly did…or should we discount that since they weren’t part of the “ancient world?”
Yes, the Pharisees did believe in the resurrection, but they were the “liberal” theologians of their age. And they also adopted a lot of Hellenistic ideas that made their way into the thinking of the first century in Israel. Not that this is “bad.” It’s just a matter of recognizing where the ideas came from and how they evolved.
The Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch as authoritative, whereas the Pharisees accepted Genesis through to the minor prophets. So it’s no wonder the former rejected the resurrection, while the latter accepted it, for the resurrection is explicit in Daniel 12:1-2. Thus, I don’t think we must point to Hellenistic influence for the Pharisee’s belief in the forthcoming resurrection.
“He destroys the guiltless and the wicked.”
Who among us is truly “guiltless?”
I think you left out the most important part of Job’s thoughts Skip. I agree he sees that everyone dies…so maybe it doesn’t matter how. But he shows the reason it doesn’t change him. Chapter 14 clearly shows Jobs expectations that to him out weigh anything that can happen in this fleshly life. He states in verse 14…I wait till my change comes. In verse 17…My transgression si sealed in a bag, and you cover over my crookedness….in Chapter 19 verse 25 & 26…For I know that my Redeemer lives and as the Last shall rive over the dust. 26 and after my skin has been struck off, then in my flesh I shall see Eloah!…
Clearly Job considers the way this life goes is not what it is all about. It is the life to come that is important.
Job’s belief rivals Abraham and is credited to both as righteousness.
Consider My servant Job, he is a perfect and upright man, fearing Elohim and turning away from evil.
One thing I left out, Job was a witness, and proved to be a true witness against satan’s challenge against Elohim. No one would serve You for nothing. Job proved that wrong. Y’shua also proved that wrong. Both served by caring for the creation of Elohim, not for gain but out of compassion….Praise Abbah for them both and all the other witnesses we see daily that serve Him and praise Him when their lives are seemingly falling apart.
When I revisited the October 4 post a few days after it was made, I went looking for the original to see how the abortion statistics had changed. Skip had chosen not to update them. They are shocking enough.
This (10/21/18) morning (with the suggestion to revisit that TW) I decided to check statistics. At the webpage worldometers ‘dot’ info ‘slash’ abortions ‘slash’ I found a meter and this info: “According to WHO, every year in the world there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions. This corresponds to approximately 125,000 abortions per day.” The counter on this page shows 33,751,755 this split second and is moving so fast that it is causing my computer – with only the browser open – to “lock up” and not allow me to click, move the page with the arrow keys, or choose another tab without waiting while several lives are terminated. This has been powerful for me this morning. Andralamousia INDEED.
Sacrifices to Molech continue now the god of convenience. YeHoVaH is still not pleased and will hold cultures accountable.
I belive I get Skip’s point. Yet we find ourselves drawn into this dark spot every so often. A place that discards most often “the rest of the story”. Like “Thus the Lord blessed the later years of Job’s life more than the former…So he died old and contented.”( KETHUVIM JOB 42:12-17 JPS.) The resurection of Yeshua is the most significant of events. Not for “those who only have this world as their source of evidence ” but also for those of us who trust and yes suffer as we wait and long for “the world to come”! The resurection, as I understand it is the message ! One becoming manifested in and through those who belive. But perhaps that is the real question? Do we actually belive in it or is it a construct of the minds of mankind? Is that what you are struggling with here Skip?
Amein!
It was Job who claimed that “HE destroys the guiltless and the wicked”, but let’s not forget that in the end he repented from his words saying : “I loathe myself and repent in dust and ashes”.
I am curious as to what you or anyone else mean when you refence hell since there is no word in Scripture for hell. Does hell equal judgment? I’m reading a book right now in which the authors seem to use judgment and hell interchangeably. But I see no Scripture that supports a place of eternal torment….
But the authors claim rabbinic teaching in this period would have supported a place called hell. And Jesus would have been influenced by this. Is there any literature out there to study this?
What bothers me is Jesus never says the word “hell” but it remains in his mouth in Scripture. I find that disturbing.
I guess I am surprised you would use this word. And another thought concerning the devil or Satan. Nahum Sarna states in the JPS Genesis commentary that Satan was not personified until 1 BCE?
Will there be a place of eternal torment in a restored world?
I agree with Sarna on the development of “Satan” as a person. As for “hell,” there is definitely a development based on the Hebrew Gehenna and a few other Greek words. It’s likely these concepts mixed with influence from Hellenism. There are other readers on this blog that have raised the issue with “eternal punishment.” Yeshua does talk about judgment, and paints some pretty scary pictures by way of metaphor.
Thanks for the information. I guess it depends on how you interpret eternal -for a period of time or never ending – punishment or correction.
I see judgment, but I don’t see eternal as in never ending conscious torment. I don’t see hell. But it seems the majority of Christians do.
And I would certainly welcome any feedback from other community members.
The word hell is not found in most Bible translations now, except in the New Testament. And sadly as you said, it is only found there in Jesus’s words except for a few other verses depending on the translation. Other translations where the word hell is used, the translators can’t even agree which verses have the word hell. The NLT has the word hell in Job. The NET has the word hell in Galatians. I guess I am confused as to why the word hell is used if it isn’t found in the text? Jesus never said the word “hell”. If we are exploring what the text says, would this not be an important one to explore.
I don’t love God and believe in the Messiah because I am afraid if I don’t, I will go to a place called hell. MOST people do. They go around telling people if they don’t believe in Jesus, they are going to hell. Really, where does it say that?
Judgment doesn’t equal a place called hell. I don’t find this in the Scripture either, but perhaps I am missing something?
Lee, most excellent questions! In the right question is its answer. As soon as we question WHY YHVH would consign people to ‘eternal’ torment, the answer is in front of us: of course not! I think my biggest problem with the Bible in times past lay in the way we have managed to change, add, subtract and twist all those good words to ‘mean’ whatever paradigm we got handed in our generations. “Judgment” becomes “condemnation”; “punishment”, etc. instead of the settling of accounts and making things right again. “Hell” becomes “conscious torment” instead of “sleep”. And we could go on. Skip is at his best, for me, when he insists on going back and redefining the words!
The paradigm of the West for this subject comes straight out of paganism. You will find Dantes Inferno lifted straight out of classic paganism, too: complete with purgatory (second chance at “correction”, even though you cannot find that ‘second chance’ at all in the Bible, which, instead, instructs us to “choose life” this time around), ghosts, unending torment, eternal life for sinners(!), NO RESURRECTION (no room for it for people who go straight to heaven or hell when they die), and on and on. The Bible teaches none of this, as you have noted.
What it does teach, with hundreds of verses (I filled a notebook once of every reference to life after death, end times judgment, etc.!), is that death, “hell”, “grave”, etc. is simply sleep until resurrection for both righteous and wicked at the Second Coming. “The dead know (experience) not anything”. At those resurrections (more than one of them!) the righteous (one resurrection) get “life eternal”; the wicked (separate resurrection at another time) get “eternal damnation”, and burning in a “lake of fire” is actually what that damnation is, but multiple verses in Old and New Testaments tell us that they will be “burned up” and “be left neither root (devil as the “root” of the wicked as Christ is the Root (Vine) of the righteous) nor branch”. Revelation tells us that death (disconnection and chaos) itself will be destroyed in that fire, too, for all breaks in reality will be dissolved and then there will be a new Creation of earth (we can watch it!) where there is no more sin and the Lamb will be our light; our source. The wicked and the devil and sin and death will all be “ashes under our feet” (Malachi), for the raw material will get reformed. And “affliction will not rise up a second time” (Nahum). Try finding all those verses and putting them together: they make a big picture that is VERY complete!
Thank you Laurita for your comments. This is a topic for me that I fail to understand why people want to hold onto a place called hell. I think one can take a verse and twist it to say what you want it to say. If you are going to a place called hell, you might want to cut off that arm or gouge out that eye before you commit the next sin. I’m talking about believers here.
I guess some of your comments just bring up more questions for me. Like those now who reject the Messiah, are they the wicked? You mention the devil? And Rev 21:22-27 could be interpreted multiple ways.
Sorry, I know I have posted a bunch today. The God I serve is a loving Creator who made order out of chaos. The word hell does not belong in Scripture even if it is referring metaphorically to judgment.
Lee,
Let me see if I can provide you fodder for some self-study. The Hebrew word hinnom is rendered in the Greek as gehenna in the NT, while the Hebrew sheol is rendered hades. The former is translated most often in the NT as “hell”, the latter mostly as a general term for the abode of the dead.
Gehenna (“hell”) is found in the following NT passages: Matthew 5:22; 5:29,30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mark 9:43, 45, 47; Luke 12:5; James 3:6.
Hades (‘abode of the dead’) is found in the NT: Matthew 11:23; 16:18; Luke 10:15; 16:23*; Acts 2:27; 2:37; Rev 1:18; 6:8; 20:13; 20:14.
*For those who say this is within a parable, note that this would be the only time Messiah uses names within a parable.
[continued]
Thank you, Craig for your thoughts. I have actually studied these verses. The word Gehenna is actually two Hebrew words that refer to the Valley of Hinnom outside of Jerusalem. So again, Jesus never said the word, “hell”. Jesus is talking about judgment, not a place called hell.
The burning of the First Temple and the devastation of Jerusalem at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar (see 2 Kings 25:8-9). In my NIV Bible, the word Hades is replaced with depth in some verses and hell in others.
My problem is with the word hell. It is not found in Scripture. And I am sure you know Hades was the Greek god of the underworld. And it refers to the underworld as does the Hebrew Sheol. Sheol is the grave, the pit, the place of no return.
The Vally of Hinnom or Gehenna is about judgment, not a place of eternal torment.
I think we’ll agree that gehenna is a euphemism. And most words have a range of meanings, determinable by individual contexts.
Compare these two in Matthew:
5:29: blēthȩ̄ eis geennan = thrown into gehenna
18:8: blēthēnai eis to pyr to aiōnion = to be thrown into the fire the eternal = eternal fire. (This is a double accusative construction, in which the latter [the eternal] further describes the former [the fire] = eternal fire.)
We can see that the basic message in both contexts is the same, but the former states that the result is to be thrown into gehenna, whereas the latter uses into the “eternal fire”. Importantly, see my comment below (October 24, 2018 9:07 am) for “eternal life” as compared to “eternal fire”. Essentially, if we construe 18:8 as some time less than forever, it would follow that believers get the same duration for “life” (zōē). Conversely, if we accept that believers receive “eternal life”, then the fire above must be “eternal” (and the same for Matthew 25:41; cf. Rev 20:10), for these are virtually the same grammatical constructions.
Death is eternal.
Revelation 20:14 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.
Yes, “death” and “hades” will be thrown in the ‘lake of fire’. Note that in Rev 20:14 there is no mention of “hell” (gehenna). Also, in Rev 20:10 you must account for the fact that the devil, beast, and false prophet “will be tormented day and night eis tous aiōnas tōn aiōnōn” in the ‘lake of fire of sulphur’.
I think it would be helpful to readers if some words are transliterated (γέεννα > ge[h]enna) rather than translated.
Another problem we have is that for a new Bible translation to be copyrighted, it must have a certain amount of changes. Therefore, I think some make changes for the sake of making changes in order to get copyright royalties. Mammon…
But does the word translate or transliterate into the word “hell”?
It obviously doesn’t transliterate, but, arguably, it translates as “hell” in today’s vernacular (the term wasn’t coined until ca. 800 AD).
I am sure that if you want to get copyright royalties -money, fear is a way better promoter. But whatever your point is with that, does ge[h]enna translate into the word hell or does it translate into the valley of Hinnom? Straightforward question, I think.
I hope we agree that Jesus wasn’t referring to the literal Valley of Hinnom, but that he was using it in some metaphorical sense. But, again, context must be the final determiner of meaning for any word. What do you make of the parallel in Matthew 5:29 and 18:8?
To answer your direct question, see my response to Libby @ October 24, 2018 4:01 pm above. It looks to me that gehenna and “lake of fire” are synonymous in Matt 5:29 and 18:8. Thus, I see nothing wrong with seeing “lake of fire” as “hell” (given my other comments here in this vein regarding Rev 20:10), and, hence, translating gehenna as “hell” in certain contexts, if someone wishes. If you prefer to just call it gehenna, then I completely understand, and I think leaving it like that in modern Bibles is preferable to “hell”.
You asked a number of questions, and I tried to answer them. I cannot see Rev 20:10 as anything but an explicit statement of eternal torment–answering one of your questions. And this is what I attempt to illustrate here in my comments. If you don’t think so, then I ask how you would exegete this verse.
My point regarding translations is merely that some change words merely to make changes in order to receive royalties. It was a general statement. This may be why the NET adds “to hell”–words absent in the Greek–in Galatians 1:8 and 1:9. The Greek merely reads, “…let him be anathema“. In my mind, “accursed” is a good translation, and the NIV 1984’s “eternally condemned” works well as a dynamic equivalent.
I think Yeshua was referring to the literal valley of Hinnom. To me it is as straightforward as it gets. He was using it metaphorically for the coming judgment. Jerusalem and the First Temple were destroyed–fire and destruction -JUDGMENT NOT HELL.
[2Kings 25:8-10 NIV] On the seventh day of the fifth month, in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, Nebuzaradan commander of the imperial guard, an official of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. He set fire to the temple of the LORD, the royal palace and all the houses of Jerusalem. Every important building he burned down. The whole Babylonian army under the commander of the imperial guard broke down the walls around Jerusalem.
The second death is death. Period.
I’m curious as to why you think Jesus wasn’t referring to the literal Valley of Hinnom?
Jack C,
I think this may be one of semantics. Jesus referred to “Gehenna”, which refers to the Valley of Hinnom, but he didn’t mean that individuals would be literally sent there for their transgressions. He meant it as symbolically representing judgment.
Yes, the Valley of Hinnom is symbolic of judgment. That is the point. Hell is not a place you can find in Scripture.
Are you talking about Lazarus? the name within a parable?
You must be referring to Luke 16:23. However, like the asterisked remark states, if this is a parable, it is the only one including a name. In any case, it depicts Sheol/”Hades” in a way not inconsistent with Jewish thought. Lazarus was in the section called “Abraham’s bosom”, while the rich man was in the place of fiery torment.
I’ll quote from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:
I’m not clear why Orr thinks this doesn’t correspond with rabbinic thought. The only thing stated in Luke’s “parable” that may not have been explicit in Jewish thought was that one group could see the other and vice versa. If Sheol/”Hades” is simply the abode of the dead, then I don’t see why “Abraham’s bosom” is not contained within it–though obviously very separate from the place of fiery torment. Yet it’s possible Jesus knows more than the rabbis regarding the afterlife, and he was clarifying it within this “parable”.
Or he could have just been quoting a popular story of the day for the purposes of making a point. We read it as if he wanted to tell us about a literal place (hell) but if you read the point he does go on to make, he was doing nothing of the kind. We get distracted by what we WANT him to be saying and forget to finish reading the point he was actually making, which was about something else entirely (see, I bet you never noticed what that point is). Context.
Of course I understand Messiah’s larger point, which is made in 16:29-31. But, this does not necessarily negate what could well be the relative truth behind the disposition of the rich man as compared to Lazarus. “Abraham’s bosom” is found in the Talmud (and though I think the Talmud was written later, that’s not to say the oral teaching regarding this wasn’t well known in 1st century Israel). Given that Sheol/”Hades” was recognized as the realm of the physically dead, then wouldn’t it follow that in this realm are two different areas for the two different classes of people: the just and the unjust?
Just one comment on this thread, which seems to be going on for awhile now.
Does it really matter?
Does speculation about what happens AFTER WE DIE really matter?
Skip,
You stated on another thread that you’d not researched this specifically. At the least, I’ve provided you some substance to your position regarding a “hell”, as you’ve stated in this post and in The Emotional Mind post. I find that Jewish thought supports the notion and that the NT does, as well.
Thanks for your efforts. Saved me a lot of time.
The story implies sentience in those realms, among other literal or physical impossibilities, even by the Jewish standards of the day. I don’t think even they would have tried to take it literally. It was in the popular style of a story that taught certain things, and, judging by the audience, a story they would have already been familiar with. It is highly unlikely Yeshua was the originator; he just adapted it to what he was trying to get across, which was NOT about what literally happens after we die!
As Meet the Rabbis demonstrates, very few of Yeshua’s parables are original.
Here is the ISBE’s entry for Sheol. Bold for emphasis, backing up the points I made:
Sheol shē′ōl (שְׁאוֹל):
1. THE NAME
This word is often translated in AV “grave” (e.g. Gen 37:35; 1 Sa 2:6; Job 7:9; 14:13; Ps 6:5; 49:14; Isa 14:11, etc.) or “hell” (e.g. Dt 32:22; Ps 9:17; 18:5; Isa 14:9; Am 9:2, etc.); in 3 places by “pit” (Num 16:30,33; Job 17:16). It means really the unseen world, the state or abode of the dead, and is the equivalent of the Greek Αἵδης, by which word it is translated in LXX. The English Revisers have acted somewhat inconsistently in leaving “grave” or “pit” in the historical books and putting “Sheol” in the margin, while substituting “Sheol” in the poetical writings, and putting “grave” in the margin (“hell” is retained in Isa 14). Compare their “Preface.” The American Revisers more properly use “Sheol” throughout. The etymology of the word is uncertain…[some think it derives from] the root שָׁאַל, “to be hollow.”…
2. THE ABODE OF THE DEAD
Into Sheol, when life is ended, the dead are gathered in their tribes and families. Hence, the expression frequently occurring in the Pentateuch, “to be gathered to one’s people,” “to go to one’s fathers,” etc. (Gen 15:15; 25:8,17; 49:33; Num 20:24,28; 31:2; Dt 32:50; 34:5). It is figured as an under-world (Isa 44:23; Ezk 26:20, etc.), and is described by other terms, as “the pit” (Job 33:24; Ps 28:1; 30:3; Prov 1:12; Isa 38:18, etc.), ABADDON (which see) or Destruction (Job 26:6; 28:22; Prov 15:11), the place of “silence” (Ps 94:17; 115:17), “the land of darkness and the shadow of death” (Job 10:21 f). It is, as the antithesis of the living condition, the synonym for everything that is gloomy, inert, insubstantial (the abode of Rephaim, “shades,” Job 26:5; Prov 2:18; 21:16; Isa 14:9; 26:14). It is a “land of forgetfulness,” where God’s “wonders” are unknown (Ps 88:10–12). There is no remembrance or praise of God (Ps 6:5; 88:12; 115:17, etc.). In its darkness, stillness, powerlessness, lack of knowledge and inactivity, it is a true abode of death (see DEATH); hence, is regarded by the living with shrinking, horror and dismay (Ps 39:13; Isa 38:17–19), though to the weary and troubled it may present the aspect of a welcome rest or sleep (Job 3:17–22; 14:12 f). The Greek idea of Hades was not dissimilar.
(1) Not a State of Unconsciousness
Yet it would be a mistake to infer, because of these strong and sometimes poetically heightened contrasts to the world of the living, that Sheol was conceived of as absolutely a place without consciousness, or some dim remembrance of the world above. This is not the case. Necromancy rested on the idea that there was some communication between the world above and the world below (Dt 18:11); a Samuel could be summoned from the dead (1 Sa 28:11–15); Sheol from beneath was stirred at the descent of the king of Babylon (Isa 14:9 ff). The state is rather that of slumbrous semi-consciousness and enfeebled existence from which in a partial way the spirit might temporarily be aroused. Such conceptions, it need hardly be said, did not rest on revelation, but were rather the natural ideas formed of the future state, in contrast with life in the body, in the absence of revelation.
(2) Not Removed from God’s Jurisdiction
It would be yet more erroneous to speak with Dr. Charles (Eschatology, 35 ff) of Sheol as a region “quite independent of Yahwe, and outside the sphere of His rule.” “Sheol is naked before God,” says Job, “and Abaddon hath no covering” (Job 26:6). “If I make my bed in Sheol,” says the Psalmist, “behold thou art there” (Ps 139:8). The wrath of Jehovah burns unto the lowest Sheol (Dt 32:22). As a rule there is little sense of moral distinctions in the OT representations of Sheol, yet possibly these are not altogether wanting (on the above and others points in theology of Sheol).
See ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
(3) Relation to Immortality
To apprehend fully the OT conception of Sheol one must view it in its relation to the idea of death as something unnatural and abnormal for man; a result of sin. The believer’s hope for the future, so far as this had place, was not prolonged existence in Sheol, but deliverance from it and restoration to new life in God’s presence (Job 14:13–15; 19:25–27; Ps 16:10,11; 17:15; 49:15; 73:24–26; see IMMORTALITY; ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT; RESURRECTION). Dr. Charles probably goes too far in thinking of Sheol in Ps 49 and ch 73 as “the future abode of the wicked only; heaven as that of the righteous” (op. cit., 74); but different destinies are clearly indicated.
3. POST-CANONICAL PERIOD
There is no doubt, at all events, that in the post-canonical Jewish literature (the Apocrypha and apocalyptic writings) a very considerable development is manifest in the idea of Sheol. Distinction between good and bad in Israel is emphasized; Sheol becomes for certain classes an intermediate state between death and resurrection; for the wicked and for Gentiles it is nearly a synonym for Gehenna (hell). For the various views, with relevant literature on the whole subject, see ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT; also DEATH; HADES; HELL, etc.
James Orr, “Sheol,” ISBE, paragraph 52815.
[continuing]
Another key to answering your questions are the Greek words aiōn and aiōnios: age, long time, eternal. In the NT, ‘eternal life’ is zōēn aiōnion (the accusative of zōē aiōnios) or some variation; so, with this in mind, compare these:
Matthew 18:8 (and 25:41): …eis to pyr to aiōnion into the fire, the age / eternal; into the eternal fire
1 John 1:2: …tēn zōēn tēn aiōnion… the life, the eternal; (the) eternal life
Matthew 19:16: …hina schō zōēn aiōnion in order to have life eternal; in order to have eternal life
1 Timothy 6:12: …tēs aiōniou zōēs… (in the genitive form rather than accusative); the eternal life
Now see Revelation 20:10: …eis tēn limnēn tou pyros kai theiou…kai basanisthēsontai hēmeras kai nyktos eis tous aiōnas tōn aiōnōn
…into the lake of fire and sulphur…and tormented day and night into the ‘ages of the ages’, or ‘forever and ever’
and see here: gotquestions dot org/sheol-hades-hell.html
ADDED:
In essence, if zōēn aiōnion means “eternal life”, then eis to pyr to aiōnion and eis tous aiōnas tōn aiōnōn must mean “eternal fire” and (~) “forever and ever”, respectively. In other words, if there’s no eternal punishment, then there’s no “eternal life” for the believer.
Also notice that it is DESTRUCTION that is pronounced “forever and ever”; in other words, there will be no reversing it. Sodom and Gomorrah also were destroyed with “everlasting destruction” in other words, they are still destroyed today, and are used as a corollary, too (Jude 7). There is no reversing it. If the popular picture of hell were so, the Bible would have said that the word for destruction would be in the continuing tense, as in “everlasting DESTROYING”, but destruction is described in the past tense; completed, not to be undone. A lot of difference! “Ashes under feet” (Malachi) is a lot different description than souls writhing in torment on and on.
First I must correct an error in the comment above (October 24, 2018 9:07 am) . (I had a devil of a time submitting both the above comments for some reason, and I kept re-editing/truncating.) The verb in Rev 20:10 is future, which means it should be: …into the lake of fire and sulphur…and shall be tormented day and night into the ‘ages of the ages’, = ‘forever and ever’. More importantly, note ‘day and night’, which implies continuousness.
I’m not clear regarding which verse you refer to with “destruction”. Could you clarify?
2Peter 2:6 NASB and [if] He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing [them] to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly [lives] thereafter;
Death is eternal. That’s all I read regardless of Greek tenses. Eternal fire seems to be nothing more than symbolic of judgment. I don’t see how you can read anything more into it.
1) “Day and night” implies more than a one ‘n’ done event.
2) The Greek words here roughly translated as ‘the ages of the ages’, mean either: an age, some duration of time, a long time, or eternity. No matter which definition one chooses, this implies at the least some period of time. Yet the terms are both in the plural (the same word used in “eternal life” is singular); so, it’s at a bare minimum a long period of time.
This isn’t reading anything into the text, but drawing meaning from what the bare text says.
Revelations is a book that many scholars and believers interpret differently. Is the whole story about future events or about what was happening during the Roman empire in the first century? Multiple interpretations for generations now.
I’m not a scholar. I don’t know what judgment will be like for the wicked? Who are the wicked? Hitler comes to mind for many of us. What will happen to him? Torment? How long?
But again, death is death. Hard to read anything else into that.
Mathew 25:46 is another verse scholars want to debate about the word eternal/aionios. But again fire is a symbol both literally and figuratively of judgment. Do they go away for a age/period of correction? There are Bible translations that support this interpretation.
The End. October 21, 2018.
I agree with you Lee. No hell. I wish I had known this so many years earlier. False ideas cause so many problems in so many ways. I first heard a Messianic rabbi say this a number of years ago. Someone in Arizona. I didn’t necessarily reject what he said but it wasn’t what we typically hear so I wasn’t sure what to think. He said that he didn’t believe a living God would make someone suffer eternally. Later I read on Jerusalem Perspective two articles addressing the same topic and both basically said that people will be destroyed. That makes sense.
And connected to this subject is the belief that someone goes up or down at the point of death. RIP makes sense, a sleeping state. Christians might feel some comfort thinking that their loved ones are up in heaven but it’s a kind of deception (how I would describe it) that might encourage someone not to live life fully here or to give up too soon. This is it. At least until the end end.
Around this time I also learned about Satan from an ex many things. His articles on the Book of Revelation were great and how I came to his site. (No longer online.). Satan isn’t even in Genesis! Satan is an angel. Not a fallen angel. It’s very hard for a lot of people to accept this idea because they are always blaming Satan for everything and have a Star Wars idea of things on our flat earth! Like this great battle. The Jewish articles about the role of Satan tend to be good. Rabbi David Fohrman has a series on Aish too. I like what he says and how he really spends a lot of time dissecting everything which is why I like Skip’s talks. Guardian Angel is a great example. I share this talk and series all the time! It’s not easy for people to get brainwashed ideas out of their minds, especially if they are comfortable with the ideas they have and aren’t really questioning anything. It’s really sad but we are living in a time where things are much more complicated than ever because of behavior modification caused by brain damage.
Most believers believe too that Yahshua will be coming back soon for a peaceful final 1000-year period. And they look at the weather or the crime or whatever to support their belief system. A fb friend from Australia is like that. I can be open with her about how I disagree and we can remain fb friends. For some that wouldn’t be possible. The cognitive dissonance is too great. We are rejected as heretics (a positive meaning I learned from Skip recently) in their minds. Just for keeping the Sabbath. ‘Are you really a believer?’ I was asked this once by someone who said what I said about the Sabbath was tough to accept. I think he has a frontal lobe problem. Another subject. The idea of Yahshua coming back soon is another idea that makes absolutely no sense to me and I don’t believe it.
I used to go to Christian services after I started keeping the Sabbath in April of 2005 but hardly ever now. Not sure if I should again (maybe I should) but I think I might feel the way I did when I went to a Catholic mass once many years after I left the church (for my mother) and just knowing how strange I felt. I used to have a lot of problems with a lot of what was said or done in Protestant services before. I did try a SDA service once and it was even worse. The people were nice to talk to after the grueling experience (the sermon) was over but never went back. I only know a few people in all of Japan who keep the Sabbath but they are in Tokyo and also have typical beliefs like belief in the Trinity etc.
I still would love to write a book on lies all Christians believe. (I think 13 on my list). Might not be a big seller! Ha ha
A little long but so many of these false ideas are related.
Living in Japan gives you two invaluable perspectives. First, you see the amazing versatility and depth of a pictorial language and second, you have an outsider perspective about Christianity as it is practiced in Japan. You’re lucky.
The End. October 21, 2018.
I am not sure about that (my understanding) but I do understand more about this culture than I ever thought I would. It’s very complicated but to say that the situation here is going downhill fast could be an understatement. I always wondered why people were so selfish, why lying wasn’t a problem, why kindness had a whole different meaning. (Give to get.) Organized crime is very organized. Jake Adelstein has a lot to say regarding it. It’s a big part of this culture. I don’t blame the people per se regarding what has developed. They are victims too. A huge paradigm shift for me recently.
Chiune Sugihara was an amazing man. I respect him a lot and I can’t help but think that if the Holocaust (that one) happened in this day and age, there wouldn’t be a Sugihara to do what he did. I don’t think he was a believer in God as his only remaining son has said but he still had his conscience intact. He was more of a Schindler than Schindler. There was no benefit to him to issue visas so that Jewish people could escape but he did what he could. There are many people who have shared their stories about being saved because of him. I have found out that there are a lot of mistakes in what’s been said about him but there is also a lot of mystery too regarding his personal life. Apparently Wikipedia is pretty accurate according to the son who is still alive.
About kanji, yes, there are books written about kanji and how it relates to the Bible. Like the kanji for boat. Has the number 8 in the kanji. The kanji for righteousness can’t be a coincidence. The lamb covers you! As far as my purpose for coming and staying in Japan, I thought God had a purpose for me here. (I can’t say I really wanted to come after making the decision.). My purpose? It was just the best place for me. That’s it or the thought I had a few years ago. I still believe there’s more to come. Things keep changing!
The End. October 21, 2018.
Mistake. Not a living God but a loving God.
Also my mother never said anything about me not being Catholic anymore but a number of years later I did go to mass with her. She, however, agreed to allow me to have the Protestant pastor from the Living Word church (LaCrosse, Wisconsin) that I became connected to when my pastor at a local Living Word church (Arcadia, Wisconsin originally) suddenly died of a heart attack just before my wedding. I had started going there anyway because it was where my spouse to be was living at the time. Just about a week before she passed away, she asked me in a very quiet voice in the middle of the night in her hospital room to ask the pastor to come back to pray for her. Never mentioned a Catholic priest.
A contact from the Tokyo fellowship was outed by the group for not believing in the Trinity. I attended once and felt it was a very typical except for understanding the Sabbath. (Their daughter-in-law is Jewish but they were skiing that Sabbath.)
Thank you, Jeanette.
Lee,
Regarding “Revelations”, even if one interprets The Apocalypse of John with a preterist perspective (as if past, i.e. 1st century), one must still wrestle over the grammar of Rev 20:10. Has the devil, the beast, and the false prophet already been thrown into the lake of fire; and, if so, are they still being tormented “day and night” and ‘into the ages of the ages’, or has this time already ceased (and where is the devil now)?
Earlier you asserted, then you wrote just above:
But, what is “death”? The first death was physical death, yet we cannot say that this meant a total cessation of being, for all will rise to either (a) life (zōē) or (b) “judgment” (krisis), according to John 5:29. So, how can you state with absolute certitude what the “second death” entails?
Since you brought up Matthew 25:46, let’s discuss this further. Here it is in combination English and Greek–the Greek transliterated–illustrating the dis/similarities of these two phrases in parallel:
We know that the Greek in the second part of the verse is “to eternal life”–not ‘some-time-less-than-eternity’, but eternal life. Why would we think that aiōnion in the first part of this verse would mean a time less than eternity when the two are clearly set in parallel, in order to compare and contrast with each other? The obvious meaning here is “to eternal punishment”.
But, I specifically brought up Matthew 25:41–just five verses prior to the one you mentioned. I’ll do the same English/transliterated Greek for illustration:
The only difference in the Greek is that the articles (to) are used to indicate a particular “fire” = “to the eternal fire”. This is obviously another name for the “lake of fire” used in Revelation (the one in which the devil, beast, and false prophet “will be tormented day and night” eis tous aiōnas tōn aiōnōn).
Craig, you still haven’t addressed whether “forever and ever” applies to continuing tormentING (continuing action in a present (which is what “eternal” means) tense) or to never-reversed DESTRUCTION (completed action in the past from a future perspective).
There is no way that “torment” does not mean “payment” for sin, and for some (devil and his minions, for example) that’s a lots of payment – “day and night” lots – surely it is reasonable to assume. “Destruction” means “death” – annihilation – for sure, too. BUT does “eternal” refer to the payING – even a lot of paying – or “torment(ING)” on and on and on with no end in time for sins committed in a finite time period (which is not justice, in my book, as the payment does not happen to fit the crime – even the crime of the devil), or does it refer to the end result – DEATH: destruction – of that payment? I think Revelations is rather clear that there is a finite end to the payment (“torment”) for sin, and that end (or, “death”) is the end (or, death) of death, too. The subject of death will never come up again.
The way I read it, this interpretation, is, of necessity, missed IF the word “eternal” is applied to “torment”, for if it is applied to that word it cannot also be simultaneously applied to the END (death) of that torment. Eternal end of torment or death is very different than eternal NON-end of torment or death! Opposite conclusions are therefore drawn by what you decide to apply the word “eternal” to.
Most ‘hell’ statements I see (in contemporary culture, anyway), somehow turn a simple word – “torment”, or, payment – into a continuing present (“eternal”) action forever and ever (never-ending). I want to ask, where does this slight of hand happen in the text? You still have not answered that question for me. Thanks.
Laurita,
As I prepare a reply, can you clarify to what verse you refer with the word “destruction”? I want to answer you as completely as possible, but I’m unclear as to your reference on this.
(Incidentally, have you changed your email address?)
Laurita,
The verb translated “shall be tormented” in Rev 20:10 is in the future tense-form, which is neither ‘continuous’ (imperfective in aspect; as a process, in progress) nor ‘non-continuous’ (perfective in aspect; as a whole, in summary). Thus, by itself, it does not provide guidance. However, “day and night” is a hendiadys (a phrase meant as added emphasis, usually found with a conjunction in between two words), in this context meaning a 24 hour day, and by extension, “unceasingly” or “without interruption”, implying continuousness. John the Revelator uses this same exact phrase in a similar manner in 4:8, referencing the proclamations of the ‘four living creatures’.
As for the last phrase of Rev 20:10, eis tous aiōnas tōn aiōnōn, the first bit eis tous aiōnas (which is the plural of aiōn as compared to the singular of aiōnios which is used for “eternal life” [zōēn aiōnion]) is found otherwise in the NT in a number of verses in which the context clearly means eternity:
Luke 1:33 = Messiah’s Kingship
Romans 1:25; 9:5 = God (/Christ?), who is forever praised.
Romans 11:36; 16:27 = God be the glory forever
2 Cor. 11:31 = Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever
Hebrews 13:8 = Jesus, the same yesterday, today, and forever
Hebrews 13:21 = Jesus be the glory forever (some manuscripts add tōn aiōnōn)
1 Peter 5:11 = God be the power forever
Jude 1:25 = God, through Christ, glory before all (singular) the age (ho aiōn; singular), now, and eis pantas tous aiōnas, to all (plural) the ages (plural).
Rev 1:6 = God be the power forever (some manuscripts add tōn aiōnōn)
The following verses utilize the full phrase eis tous aiōnas tōn aiōnōn:
Galatians 1:5; Phil. 4:20; 1 Tim 1:17; 2 Tim 4:18 = God be the glory forever and ever
1 Peter 4:11 = God, through Christ, be glory and power forever and ever
Rev 1:18 = Messiah is alive forever and ever
Rev 4:9; 4:10 = the One Who sits on the Throne Who lives forever and ever
Rev 5:13 = the One Who sits on the Throne and the Lamb be praise, honor, glory, and power forever and ever
Rev 7:12 = Praise, glory…to our God forever and ever
Rev 10:6 = the angel swore to Him who lives forever and ever
Rev 11:15 = He will reign forever and ever
Rev 15:7 = God, the One Who lives forever and ever
Rev 19:3 = the smoke from the great prostitute rises forever and ever
Rev 22:5 = the throne of God and the Lamb shall reign (future tense-form) forever and ever
Regarding Rev 22:5’s future tense-form “shall reign”, we certainly wouldn’t construe this as non-continuous, of course.
And I left this for last, Revelation 14:11, though it lacks both articles in the phrase. The verbs are present tense-forms, which denote continuousness (imperfective aspect). Note that it also contains the phrase “day and night”:
kai ho kapnos tou basanismou autōn eis aiōnas aiōnōn anabainei
And the smoke of the torment of-theirs to ‘ages of-ages’ rises-up
kai ouk echousin anapausin hēmeras kai nyktos hoi proskynountes to thērion
And not have rest day and night those worshiping the beast
kai tēn eikona autou kai ei tis lambanei to charagma tou onomatos autou.
and the image of him, and if one receives the mark of-the name of-him.
Thank you, Craig!
To develop the idea of what “forever and ever” means:
Jer. 17:27 curse on Jerusalem: “fire” “and it shall not be quenched”. Jerusalem was burned; nobody put the fire out (i.e. kept it from perishing completely) 2Chron. 36:19. Fire burns until all the fuel is gone: fire is not a thing, but a process of transition for things. Without things there can be no fire, but fire IS the dissolution of things, by definition. If we are to change the meaning of the word “fire” to NOT dissolving things, we need chapter and verse!
Jude 7 and Luke 17: 29, 30 tells us that Sodom and G. are the definitive “example” of the “vengeance of eternal fire”; “Even thus shall it be in the day when the son of man is revealed”. Knowing what we a: know about fire, and b: know about S. and G., can we reasonably conclude that c: “the smoke of their torment” “forever and ever” is a continuing action throughout all eternity? Matt. 25:41 consigns the cursed “into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels”. The question is, is this “everlasting” fire, which we read as “eternally burning” really a continuing action for all eternity, or just until there is no matter left to burn? Is the action eternal, or are the RESULTS “eternal”, or, “everlasting”? 2Thess. 1:9 reads “who shall be punished with EVERLASTING DESTRUCTION”. Define “destruction”: is it talking about the PROCESS or about the results?.
Matt. 25:46 “And these shall go away into everlasting punishing, but the righteous into life eternal.” Notice that only the righteous are accorded “life eternal”, but if punishing is eternal, the punished would also have to be given LIFE, but they are never promised that life.
“Everlasting destruction” is found in 2Thess. 1:9 “punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord”.
Rev. 7:7-20 and 14:17 “tormented day and night for ever and ever” and “smoke of their torment ascends up forever and ever”. Define forever and ever. SOMETIMES it means eternally, as in praise to God, but sometimes it just means the results are not reversed, as in the example of S. and G that we have been told to look to in this specific matter.
We have been told over and over that God will destroy evil. Nahum1:9-15; Obad. 16; Ez. 28:19 about the “anointed cherub “and never shall you be any more”; Ps. 37, the whole chapter needs to be read in this light – vs. 20 says “into smoke shall they consume AWAY” vs. 38 “but the transgressors shall be destroyed together the end of the wicked shall be CUT OFF”; Ps. 9:6; 73:27; Rev. 20:14 is about the destruction of all destruction, or, “death”, and 1Cor. 15:26 also says “the last enemy that shall be destroyed is (“The” – definitive not found in English translation) death”; Is. 13:9 promises that God will “destroy the sinners out of it” (the land); Mal. 4:1-3 says that the wicked shall be “burned UP” to “ashes”.
Lots of verses about total end of death, or dissolution of matter that must be contrasted with, well, how many verses that can possibly be read that matter (sentient beings included) shall NOT be “as though they had not been”? Perhaps three or four, from what I have found, anyway, and even in them we have to notice whether we are talking about the process (burning) or about the results of the process. As usual, the paradigm we bring to the reading is going to determine how it is read.
Craig, I appreciate your willingness to dialogue. I guess it boils down to what is literal and what is figurative. I choose to believe that it is possible when Jesus comes back, that there will still be a chance to become part of the Kingdom. In Mathew 25:31-46 the sheep don’t know they are serving the Lord. And the goats don’t know they are refusing. I think that is something to question. It is not about what we do. It is about what Jesus did for us. It seems to be more about grace than punishment.
Lee,
By chance, were you influenced by Rob Bell’s Love Wins?
I have read some of his books, including Love Wins. The book I used for this reference is Kingdom, Grace and Judgment by Robert Farrar Capon
But isn’t that beautiful? It’s not about anything we do!! Grace is beyond our understanding. I am in love all over again with Yeshua! How can you not be?
Isn’t there a scripture that says Sodom will be restored?
Not as far as I know!
how about Ezek 16:55 “Sodom and her daughters will return to their former estate”?
This is my last comment on the topic of “hell”, and I do apologize for monopolizing the website. Almost all Bible translations do not use the word “hell” in the Old Testament (Torah) anymore. I think that says all I cannot say. Yeshua does not say the word “hell” in the New Testament. He was Jewish and he would have SAID the Valley of Hinnom. That is what the people would have heard. Recalling the burning of the First Temple and the destruction of Jerusalem would have been symbolic of judgement. The audience would have understood this. I was NEVER suggesting a literally throwing of people into the valley. So I do think that the actual words Valley of Hinnom should be used in those verses. It is really only three concepts found in about thirteen verses(NASB). I don’t think eternal conscious torment or eternal burning would have been on the 1st Century audience’s mind. The book of Revelations was not written yet. But regardless, use the ACTUAL WORDS Jesus said, not the word, “hell”. Thanks to all who shared.