Showing posts with label hell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hell. Show all posts

Saturday, November 14, 2020

C. S. Lewis' The Last Battle

We read two pieces this week for the C.S. Lewis webinar with Peter Meilaender at Houghton College. Yesterday I posted my notes on his essay, "The World's Last Night" on the second coming.

Other works we have read so far include:
1. The Last Battle (1956) was the last of the Chronicles of Narnia both in the story world of the series and the last of the series to be written. On a popular level, this series is what Lewis is most known for, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (hereafter LWW) being the most famous.

Since I am a Philistine, I had not read any of these. I saw the 2005 movie of LWW. The lampost allegedly was modeled off a lampost down on Prebends bridge in Durham, just a few strides down on the Bailey from St. John's College where I lived and worked during my doctoral program. Man, those are pleasant memories.

I am not much one for novels, and I find it difficult to get momentum on those rare occasions I have read them. However, I will say that my pace quickened as I got about halfway through this one. I had divided my reading of the book into four days, 60 pages each. The first and second days were tough to keep myself going.

But the last two days of reading flew, and I was genuinely moved at the end.

2. I did not realize how rich a story world Lewis had created. I kept wondering if J. K. Rowling had taken some pointers from Lewis. There is a richness to a series of novels that creates a world. The hardest part is to get the world going. But once a group knows the backstory, a momentum exists that is very forceful.

When a series like Star Trek reboots, there is genuine excitement and richness when you meet old characters you know so well again. That's Uhura. That's Scotty. You can hear clapping as each familiar character takes the stage. Same with Avengers.

Despite how little I knew of the Narnia world, I felt this emotion to meet Reepicheep at the gates of heaven. I knew he had separated from the group in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. There is Mr. Tumnus from LWW. I genuinely didn't know that The Last Battle would culminate and tie together the entire series.

The Magician's Nephew involves the creation of the world of Narnia. In the same way, The Last Battle is the end of Narnia. It is not exactly the end of the world, and I was left with questions about Lewis' understanding of the second coming, even after reading "The World's Last Night." Those who are there at the end are those who have died in the material world. Spoiler alert--a train accident kills the whole lot at once.

I think Lewis believes in the actual return of Christ to the world. But in the story world of Last Battle, the material world still continues on. It is the material Narnia that has ended. Nevertheless, "all worlds draw to an end, except Aslan's own country" (111).

3. Let me get out Lewis' metaphysic here. Lewis' Platonic tendencies are in full display in Last Battle. The physical Narnia they have known, "it was only a shadow or a copy of the real Narnia which has always been here and always will be here: just as our own world, England and all, is only a shadow or copy of something in Aslan's real world" (211-212).

There you have it. I saw the 1993 movie Shadowlands about a part of Lewis' life. Now I know where the term comes from and what it means. It's Plato. The physical realm in which we live is a shadow of the real, heavenly realm. We are currently in the "Shadowlands" (228). In heaven, "you are now looking at the England within England, the real England just as this is the real Narnia" (226).

Digory puts its very clearly when he realizes what's going on--"It's all in Plato, all in Plato" (212). "This is the land I have been looking for all my life, though I never knew it until now" (213).

So Lewis seems to have a sense that the material world will be destroyed and will cease to exist in the end, and we will all go to live in heaven. This is the view I grew up with as well. In fact, I read it into the book of Hebrews in my scholarly work. Although I haven't published my change of understanding, I have increasingly realized over the years that this understanding simply wasn't existent at the time of Christ. Language of the world's destruction always involves a new creation.

So we have rightly seen a recapturing of the importance of embodiment these last twenty years. The New Testament seems to focus on a new earth and not merely a "cut at the dotted line" and remove the inferior creation.

4. There are a number of fascinating, possibly brilliant, and also some cringe-worthy elements in the story. I'll mention them in order.

The initial "bad guy" in the story is an Ape named "Shift." On one level does he symbolize shallow progress or evolution, as Lewis addresses in "The World's Last Night"? He is smarter than the donkey, but not morally. The donkey (named Puzzle), although not too smart, has the right moral intuitions. He lets himself get talked out of the right courses of action by the Ape.

There are of course moral lessons here. Lewis is exalting a less intelligent person with the right moral instincts over a more educated moral fool. As it turns out, the Ape himself is a pawn in an even higher level evil game. The Ape thinks only of himself and is thus weak, susceptible to the manipulation of a much viler--and cleverer--cat and the Calormene from the south.

5. The depiction of the Calormenes from the south will cause a contemporary person like me to cringe. Lewis makes the bad guys black, and King Tirian disguises himself in black face. At least the black men are bearded. There would be no thought of the imagery this reinforces in Lewis' day. His world was a thoroughly white one. I mentioned in the previous post that Lewis seemed to have no interest in racial justice or "the great campaign against White Slavery."

He thinks nothing of creating a world where the realm and servants of Satan (Tash) are aligned with black-skinned individuals from the south (Africa), the "Darkies" (150).

6. An interesting feature early in the story is the repeated mention that Aslan is not a tame lion. It is perhaps ironic that the unpredictability of God can make it difficult sometimes to discern whether something is the work of God in the world or the work of the Devil! Repeatedly, the "good guys" question their true moral intuitions by overthinking it. "Aslan after all is not a tame lion."

Nevertheless, it can take some time even for the righteous to figure out the difference between what is God and what is not, between what is right and what is not.

7. The proximity of the truth to what the Ape and the deceivers say is sobering. The Ape says, "You think freedom means doing what you like? ... True freedom means doing what I tell you" (39). This would be true if God were speaking. The Ape "apes" the truth.

Indeed, the Ape and his lot innoculate the Dwarfs from the truth. When King Tirian shows them that the donkey is not Aslan, they do not rally to the cause of truth. They are less likely to believe anyone now. "Tirian had never dreamed that one of the results of an Ape's setting up a false Aslan would be to stop people from believing in the real one" (92). "By mixing a little truth with it they had made their lie far stronger" (127).

This is a truly sobering statement and one worth some series reflection. One of the reasons it is important to disciple our children and the children of the church is because faith is much more easily instilled in a child than in a person who is already set in their intellectual ways. College students are often still very malleable when they are encountering ideas for the first time.

But a word of caution. If we set them up with something flimsy, flimsy faith, it will not be so easy to reinstall something more sturdy if it falls apart. And fundamentalist faith is very flimsy. The evangelical church right now is pursuing conspiracy theories and an alternative reality that will blow away with a puff of wind. And what will come of the faith of the children growing up right now in those homes? Will they become "nones"?

8. Lewis uses the cat Ginger and the Calormene Rishda to take faithlessness to a higher level. The Ape is simply out for himself. He is a selfish individual acting only for himself.

The Dwarfs have a group selfishness. "The Dwarfs are for the Dwarfs" (91). This is a slightly higher level selfishness because they are for each other. The Ape is just looking out for number 1. The Dwarfs are out for their group. They will fight any other group that threatens their herd independence.

But the cat and the Calormene leader are out for a higher level evil. This is, by the way, a fear I have for America. What if an Ape comes along, a bit of a buffoon just out for himself. He has no long-term strategy. He's just out for himself, but is clever enough to deceive a lot of good people to his ends. After all, Aslan is not a tame lion.

But what if after the Ape comes a cat with a more strategic and pervasive cunning. What if someone comes behind with the tools of the Ape but a more devastating end? We had been sort out what Aslan is really like before a day like that should try to come.

9. The Dwarfs are quite fascinating. Near the end of the story they appear to be in the same heavenly space as the kings and queens of Narnia. But they think they are in a dark shed eating horrible food (180-86, chapter 13). I'm sure more penetrating reflection has been done on who they symbolize, but I thought of humanism. The Roman Seneca once said in the first century, "The proper study of humanity is humanity." "The Dwarfs are for the Dwarfs."

Perhaps Aslan gives us the key to them. "They will not let us help them. They have chosen cunning instead of belief. Their prison is only in their own minds, yet they are in that prison; and so afraid of being taken in they cannot be taken out" (185-86). I wonder if Lewis had some of his Oxford colleagues in mind here, so clever, and yet so imprisoned.

This scene also reminds one of Lewis' thesis in The Great Divorce. In that story, those in hell could in theory transfer to heaven, but they don't want to. They are blind to their own situation. They are the person whose immediate reaction to heavenly things is disgust rather than longing.

10. The cat and Calormene leader do not believe in Tash any more than they believe in Aslan (98). This is another striking thing about the story. Tash is real (103). The Devil is real.

We had an interesting discussion of this question in the webinar last night. Are the gods that the Romans or Norse people worshiped real, like Tash? If you're like me, you grew up thinking, "Those nice but stupid Romans actually thought Zeus was real."

But at some point I took home 1 Corinthians 10:20. Paul believed that the Greeks of Corinth were sacrificing to demons. So it is not that Athena was real, but there were demons associated with every temple to Athena. We would call them demons rather than gods, but Paul certainly believed there were real, evil spiritual powers associated with pagan temples. Tash is real.

11. Another mistake Lewis exposes is that of pluralism. The cat and Calormene merge Aslan and Tash together into one being--Tashlan (e.g., 126). Of course they don't believe in either. But Lewis is exposing the believe that all gods are more or less the same. You call him Zeus. I call him Yahweh.

Notice that this is different than what happens with the Calormene soldier Emeth ("truth" in Hebrew). Emeth believes in Aslan but calls him Tash (201-205). This is a problem of Emeth's mind rather than heart. Aslan very strongly rejects the hypothesis that he and Tash are one.

"Is it then true," Emeth asks, "that thou and Tash are one?" "The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but it was not against me) and said, 'It is false.'"

So Lewis soundly rejects the idea that all religions are the same or that all gods are the same. What Lewis is arguing is the concept Karl Rahner called, "anonymous Christians." These are individuals whose heart believes in Yahweh even though their head doesn't think so. In Emeth's case, he thought he hated Aslan. But it turned out that it was Aslan that he was worshiping.

"If any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted" (205). This statement by Aslan reminded me of a statement in Mere Christianity: "We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him" (II.5).

Bottom line is that Emeth "did not believe in Tash at all" (202).

12. Susan does not make it. "My sister Susan," Lucy says, "is no longer a friend of Narnia" (169). Then we have a cheap shot at lipstick, nylons, and invitations. I experienced this comment as a bit sexist.

Then eternity begins for them. "For them it was only the beginning of he real story... now at last they were beginning Chapter One of the Great Story which no one on earth has read: which goes on forever: in which every chapter is better than the one before" (228).

Sunday, October 16, 2016

The Nine Rings of Hell

In case you were wondering, here's what Dante said (good page here):

1. Limbo
Unbaptized babies and pagans who never had a chance

2. Lust
People driven by their fleshly desires in life

3. Gluttony
People who overindulged in food and drink

4. Greed
Those who hoarded possessions and those who overspend

5. Anger
The wrathful

6. Heresy
Those who had beliefs that contradicted those of the church

7. Violence
Murderers, suicides, blasphemers and rapists of the same sex

8. Liars
Panderers and seducers, flatterers, those who buy church offices, sorcerers and false prophets, corrupt politicians, hypocrites, evil counselors, the divisive, perjurers, [and surrogates for presidential candidates... just kidding]

9. Treachery
Those who betrayed their closest friends and family, including Judas

Monday, September 08, 2014

Biblical Words for Hell

I was a little surprised at how much discussion took place on Facebook yesterday when I mentioned that the "gates of hell" in Matthew 16:18 were not the gates of Gehenna, the hell of fire, but the gates of Hades, the gates of the dead.

I suggested that Matthew's audience would have immediately associated the "gates of Hades" with stories they had heard ranging from Odysseus to Hercules. The realm of the dead in that frame of reference did not distinguish between the righteous and unrighteous but had all the mindless dead mixed together.

Then someone mentioned underlying Aramaic. We didn't go down that rabbit hole (For example, is there an underlying Aramaic for this verse in Matthew?). But in Hebrew/Aramaic, there was still a distinction between Sheol as the general realm of the dead and Gehenna as a place of fiery destruction.

To sum up the main words (e.g., I've left out abaddon):

Sheol: The Hebrew word for the realm of the dead. The OT has no concept of an eternal place of punishment (Dan. 12:2 comes closest). Sheol is basically a poetic way of referring to the realm of all the dead. "He will not abandon my life to Sheol" in Psalm 16:10 originally meant, "He will not let me die."

Hades: Hades is the Greek equivalent to Sheol and also does not distinguish between righteous and unrighteous. It is a way of referring to all the mindless dead. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church means that death will not prevail against the Church.

Gehenna: The Aramaic word arose in the late intertestamental period in reference to the trash heap outside Jerusalem in the Valley ge Hinnom. It was thought to be the place where the bodies of the dead would be burned after an apocalyptic battle and thus came to be used in reference to the place of eternal fire for the ungodly. It occurs primarily in Matthew.

Saturday, March 17, 2012

Restoration (Wes Theo Series)

This weekend I want to finish my sketch of what my outline/overview of a Wesleyan theology looks like.  This is not the Wesleyan theology, but one that I think is forward looking.  Here's ground that I have covered so far:

1. Faith (Introduction)
2. God
3. Creation and Alienation
4. Revelation
5. Reconciliation

In this second to last post, I look at Restoration.

7.1 Christ's Resurrection
The physical resurrection of Jesus points to the beginning of the end and to the restoration of humanity.  In his full humanness, the resurrection body of Jesus points to the what humanity will be in the final resurrection.  However, we do not have to wait for the resurrection to see the restoration process begin. Sanctification in its common sense refers to the work that the Spirit is already doing to restore us now, in this age and in this life. We are being transformed from glory to glory now (2 Cor. 3:18).

The resurrection indicates the power of Christ over death and demonic forces in this age, begun in Jesus' own exorcist ministry on earth. "We do not yet see everything under his feet," but the day is coming and the day is begun.

7.2 Second Coming
Christians have continued to believe throughout the centuries that Jesus will still literally return to earth at some point to save those who are his own and to judge the rest of the world. The notion of a rapture, that Christians will be removed from the earth to go to heaven, leaving everyone else behind, is a more recent twist. Biblically, it is more likely that eternity will be on a restored earth and that Christians will participate in the final judgment in some way (cf. 1 Cor. 6:2-3). We meet Jesus in the air to come back down for the final judgment (1 Thess. 4:17). Nevertheless, Wesley believed we would spend eternity in heaven.

7.3 Final Salvation 
The salvation of the world is not historically limited to humanity but includes the created realm as well. For humanity, salvation means in the first instance an escape from the judgment coming on the rest of those on earth. Full salvation means the transformed body of the resurrection. For the creation, salvation means restoration from the forces of decay and corruption brought on by the Fall. If one accepts evolution, perhaps one might still look to some transformation of natural law in these areas at this time.

7.4 Final Judgment
Christians have historically believed in some sort of eternal punishment for those who are not in Christ.  Traditionally, we have pictured an eternal burning.  However, various Christians have seen some of these images as pictures rather than literal understanding. A significant strand sees hell as an eternal place without the presence of God and does not venture to say exactly what that looks like.  Another looks to some sort of final annihilation of those who by their own decisions are not redeemable. Finally, some look to universal salvation or hold out the possibility that those in hell might switch destinations even there if they truly repent.

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Hell in the Bible (10)

continued from yesterday
_________
It is well above my--or your--pay grade to determine what God does with hell.  What we might do is clarify a little what the Bible seems to say and what it doesn't likely say about it. First, as far as the Bible is concerned, hell is a distinctly New Testament idea.  The vast majority of the Old Testament is either silent about the afterlife or explicitly denies any meaningful existence after death.

Job 7:9-10 captures the Old Testament understanding well: "one who goes down to the grave does not return. He will never come to his house again; his place will know him no more." I used to think that Job's wife was horrible when she was urging Job to curse God and die.  To me, she was wishing him to go into hell forever.  But she actually was urging him to put himself out of his misery.  In her way of thinking, after he cursed God, God would kill him and then he would no longer be in pain.

"Sheol" in the Old Testament is thus not a place of eternal torment.  It is merely the place where all the dead go when they die.  It is a place of generally mindless, shadowy existence. Psalm 6 prays, "save me because of your unfailing love. Among the dead no one proclaims your name. Who praises you from the grave?"(Ps. 6:4-5). Ecclesiastes of course puts it in its starkest terms, "The dead know nothing... never again will they have a part in anything that happens under the sun" (Eccl. 9:5-6).

Death in the Old Testament can thus be a punishment for sins in life, but it was not understood at that time as a gateway to eternal punishment.  When Achan and his family are stoned in Joshua, that is the end of the matter as far as Joshua is concerned.  The Israelites did not think they were sending Achan's family to hell. Their death took care of the sin.

The only real exception is Daniel 12:2-3, the only passage in the Old Testament that everyone agrees clearly teaches resurrection. [1] In Daniel, some (not all) are resurrected for reward and some (not all) are resurrected for "everlasting contempt." Daniel does not tell us what everlasting contempt is. I hold many individuals from the past in everlasting contempt as a category of shame.

As with so many key Christian concepts, the crucial background to the New Testament came in the two to three hundred years immediately preceding Christ. It is during this time that an understanding of hell developed in Jewish apocalyptic literature (1 Enoch, the Dead Sea Scrolls).  And it is this literature rather than the Old Testament that is the primary background for the kind of imagery of Gehenna that we find in the New Testament.

We have already seen some of the imagery of hell in the gospels. The gospels clearly teach that there will be a judgment of the wicked dead at the judgment.  However, given some of the questions people are asking about hell right now, it might be useful to revisit them with the question of "how long" they say hell will last. And here we only find the one statement in Matthew 25:46 about eternal punishment.

What is eternal punishment? We probably rightly take it to mean a punishment that goes on in real time forever. Others might try to interpret it differently. For example, annihilation is a final punishment that continues forever.  It is a kind of eternal punishment. I doubt that is what Matthew 25 means, but I can see someone trying to interpret the statement in that way.

The other passages are more ambiguous when it comes to duration. The other references to Gehenna in Matthew and Luke talk about being thrown into hell but don't mention how long the torment lasts. Mark 9:43 and 45 speak of the fire of Gehenna never being quenched. Does this mean that the torment of an individual never ends? It probably does.

The word "Hades," on the other hand, is the Greek equivalent of Sheol and refers to the place of the dead in general without specific reference to reward or punishment. The fact that Capernaum will be brought down to Hades could only mean that it will be destroyed in the judgment (Matt. 11:23).  However, despite the generality of the word, the overall context of Matthew probably implies everlasting punishment.

Paul never mentions hell in any of his writings. Revelation of course speaks of the lake of fire, into which the beast and those who worshiped him are thrown alive (19:20).  Similarly, all the dead rise and are judged, with the wicked thrown into the lake of fire, along with death itself.  It is specifically stated that Satan and the beasts of Revelation are then tormented day and night forever (Rev. 20:10). The best assumption is that this is also true of the other wicked, although Revelation does not explicitly say so.

Therefore, after looking at the Bible on hell, we find at least two instances where the punishment seems to be never-ending (Matt. 25:46; Rev. 20:10). Over the centuries, this understanding of hell has crystallized and solidified in Christian teaching. Indeed, the place hell holds in our thinking may come as much from medieval Christianity as from the role it plays in the Bible itself. In the end, you and I cannot decide what hell is, so our best bet is to avoid it at all costs and to share the good news of Christ to as many others as possible in hope that they will avoid it as well.

[1] Other passages are debated, of course, like Isaiah 26 and Ezekiel 37.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Christians and hell (9)

Continued from yesterday
__________
A serious question, however, is what "eternal punishment" is.  Does Matthew want us to see the wicked suffering forever and ever?  Certainly this is the understanding of hell that most of us have grown up hearing.  Hell is a place where those who do not believe in Jesus suffer forever.

This is a very sensitive topic, and we should make a couple things very clear from the very beginning.  First, there is a right or wrong answer, and it is not a matter of a vote.  Like the question of whether God literally exists as a being who thinks, acts, and exists completely independent of us, the answer has nothing to do with us.  Either God literally exists or he doesn't.  In the same way, hell is either a place of never ending torment or it isn't. Whether I like it or not has nothing to do with it.

The second point is that the questions so many seem to be asking right now about hell are not simply some problem with our culture or lack of spirituality.  They are real and difficult questions. Hell as we traditionally think of it is a place of infinite punishment.  But even the sins of Hitler, Stalin, or the worse serial killer of all time at least seem finite. How could hell be just if God gives an endless punishment for finite crimes?

Some Christians have coherently answered that even one sin against God is an infinite sin and thus that even one violation of God's law is worthy of eternal hell.  Yet this is an idea that comes from someone reading between the lines.  The Bible doesn't actually say this.

It's even harder for us to put ourselves in God's place and imagine sending someone to never ending torment.  How long would any of us let our worse enemy suffer in a fire, and what state of mind would it take for us to prolong it? If someone murdered my daughter, how long would I let them suffer in a fire before I mercifully told the executioner to put them out of their misery? An hour? What attitude would it take me to let that murderer go on suffering in a fire for a day or a week? It's hard for me to imagine how much hate I would have to have to let my enemy burn for a year.

Of course God is not a man.  We at least must think of hell more in terms of justice than of vengeance. But again, in human terms, how cold and unfeeling would I have to be to let someone burn in torment for a whole month, even as a punishment for horrible crimes?  We like to think that God is sad for people to go to hell--"I'm not sending you there.  You're sending yourself, and I'm sad to see you go." But is God not God? Is he a slave to some abstract concept of justice?  Does he not have the authority to pardon someone after a thousand years of torment, after a million or a billion years of torment?

What we are saying is that these are not just the questions of an unbeliever.  They are the kinds of questions a believer might ask precisely because they believe God is "a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity" (Jonah 4:2). We cannot wish hell away. We cannot get together and vote it into non-existence. But it is at the very least understandable if we find some tension between our belief that "mercy triumphs over judgment" (James 2:13) and the traditional interpretation of eternal punishment.

It is well above my--or your--pay grade to determine what God does with hell.  What we might do is clarify a little what the Bible seems to say and what it doesn't likely say about it...

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Jesus and Hell (8)

continued from here.
____________
The traditions of Jesus as we have them thus do not focus on hell, but clearly indicate that he believed it existed and that many would end up there.  Of course we might debate the potential difference between what Jesus said historically and the way the gospel writers present him, but in this particular case such debates will likely end up in speculation rather than clear certainty.  The comments on hell in the Jesus tradition go deep.

For example, there are the statements we mentioned earlier in the chapter about those among the living who will be thrown directly into Gehenna from the earth (Mark 9:47; Matt. 10:28).  These two statements fit some of the criteria that the most skeptical historians have used to try to distinguish between things Jesus said and things they do not think he said.  Here, these two sayings come from what most experts would consider two different layers of Jesus tradition, two separate sources of material.  Mark is one source.  Then Matthew 10:28 and Luke 12:4 represent some other, different source. [1]

Matthew and Luke have other material about hell in common.  The queen of the south and the Ninevites who repented will rise from the dead at the judgment and condemn Jesus' generation for not repenting and believing (Matt. 12:41-42; Luke 11:31-32).  Things will go better for ancient Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom in the judgment than for Bethsaida, Chorazin, and Capernaum, which largely did not accept Jesus (Matt. 11:20-24; Luke 10:13-14).  They all will rise for the final verdict.  Interestingly, there seem to be levels of punishment.

Matthew in particular repeats numerous times the imagery of "weeping and gnashing of teeth" for the condemned, often taking place after being cast out into "outer darkness" (Matt. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30).  In one place, we hear that this is an eternal punishment (Matt. 25:46; cf. 18:8), that the wicked are going to a place that was originally prepared for the Devil and his angels (25:41). The other gospels do not mention that hell is a place where the wicked go forever...

[1] This other source is sometimes called "Q," which is short for the German word for source, "Quelle."  However, it is not important for us here that Q be a real document.  Clearly Matthew got this saying from some source other than Mark, because the saying is not in Mark.

Saturday, January 07, 2012

Jesus and Gehenna (7)

... continued series on Jesus and judgment.
________
So Jesus preached that judgment was coming for those living on the earth, including the wicked within Israel.  My hunch is that Jesus did not emphasize this judgment in his teaching, even though it was always there in the background.  It makes sense that it may have featured more prominently in Jesus' final days on earth than it did in the bulk of his ministry. In this last section, I want to discuss another element in Jesus' equation of judgment, namely, resurrection and hell.

Again, Jesus probably didn't speak very much on either topic.  For example, we don't have too many statements by Jesus in the gospels about the resurrection. There is his well known debate with some Sadducees in Mark 12:18-27.  The Sadducees were "conservative" when it came to the subject and sided with the silence of the bulk of the Old Testament. They rejected the fairly new idea of resurrection and its sometimes revolutionary implications. [1]

Jesus disagreed. The gospels remember him teaching that there would be a resurrection involving Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (e.g., Matt. 8:11; Luke 13:28).  Certainly he also speaks of his own resurrection at points in the gospels.  Interestingly, this is surprisingly little from Jesus on a subject that is a core item of our faith. But of course the resurrection had not begun yet at that point.  Jesus was the beginning of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20), and so the resurrection has now started.

The gospels have more to say about hell, especially Matthew. We saw a couple passages earlier in the chapter where Jesus talked about those who die in the judgment being cast, body and soul, into Gehenna (e.g., Matt. 10:28; Mark 9:47). It is tempting for some to see Jesus only referring to the Valley of Hinnom outside Jerusalem. [2] It is where they burned trash so that its fire never went out and its worms always he something to fee on (Mark 9:48).

The word ge-hinnom in Aramaic originally meant "Valley of Hinnom"--this is where the word "Gehenna" originally came from. At first, some time before Jesus came to earth, the word perhaps was used of the place where the bodies of those who died in the final conflict between good and evil would be burned. However, words usually do not stand still in their meanings, and this word went on to refer to a place of eternal torment for the wicked beneath the surface of the earth...

[1] The only place in the Old Testament that all agree refers to resurrection is Daniel 12:2-3, although there are other possibilities (e.g., Isa. 26:19).  Other passages explicitly deny a meaningful afterlife (e.g., Job 3:16-19; 7:9-10; 14:14, 21; Ps. 6:4-5; 30:9; 88:3-6; and Eccl. 3:19; 9:4-5). The idea of resurrection probably did not really gain force within Judaism until the 100's BC.  There it was perhaps first associated with those who die a martyr's death out of faithfulness to the Law (e.g., 2 Maccabees 7).  It meant that those who stand up to foreign powers out of devotion to God will come back and see the judgment of their adversaries.  Cf. J. H. Charlesworth, ed. Resurrection: The Origin and Future of a Biblical Doctrine (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2006).

[2] Rob Bell, Love Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived (San Francisco: HarperOne), 67-68.