A Christian Objection to “Does God Predestine People To Hell”: A Response to Alex, Part IV

Before we begin, I was thinking about something last night. Who was that one guy in Scripture that demanded that everybody worship his god, or they would be condemned to a fiery furnace? Who was it?

Nebuchadnezzar? The Babylonian king?

Wow! That’s interesting. Well, it seems like God stood up to such barbarism, didn’t He? With Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego?

That’s what I thought! Fascinating. So why do we go around saying that God now demands that everybody worship Him, or He’ll inflict a worse penalty?

Gehenna Part 4: Worms in Mark 9

Ah, here we have Mark 9:42, 45, and 48 again, for your reading pleasure:

And if your hand should ever be snaring you, strike it off. It is ideal for you to be entering into life maimed, rather than, having two hands, to come away into Gehenna, into the unextinguished fire, where their worm is not deceasing, and the fire is not going out.

And if your foot should be snaring you, strike it off. For it is ideal for you to be entering into life maimed or lame, rather than, having two feet, to be cast into Gehenna, into the unextinguished fire, where their worm is not deceasing and the fire is not going out.

And if your eye should be snaring you, cast it out. It is ideal for you to be entering into the kingdom of God one-eyed, rather than, having two eyes, to be cast into the Gehenna of fire, where their worm is not deceasing and the fire is not going out.

“You say, ‘Now, the million dollar question, yet again: are these verses saying that an unbeliever will be burned alive if they do not believe God, or adhere to every last one of His laws?? Of course, the answer is no… Even in the KJV, this interpretation, or reasoning, is irrational. Not once does Christ say that you do not die, nor does it say that you are never quenched.’

It is interesting you should say this, because you are being inconsistent. So, a person who is able to keep God’s laws is able to enter into a life that I believe you and I would agree is eternal. But you can only enter life once you’re dead. I think you and I would agree on this concept of life.”

Pause. Is anyone else confused by what Alex is asking, here? I know I’m not the brightest, but I really can’t understand him. Is he saying that, when you die, you go to heaven or hell? Because if so, I definitely disagree, and already covered why in the soul/body/spirit portion of my original articles, and read death’s definition in Gen. 3:18-19, and Ecc. 12:7 – a portion of this study that Alex has suspiciously not commented on. Maybe he will in the future.

“Now, I do not think the verses have an unbeliever in mind, but an unrepentant sinner.”

Another pause. I don’t care. We’re arguing semantics over a fundamentally-flawed interpretation of the text. Even if you replaced ‘unbeliever’ with ‘unrepentant sinner,’ the simple fact is that it wouldn’t matter either way; the verse still doesn’t indicate in the slightest that ‘eternal torment’ is the punishment as opposed to ‘death,’ and it doesn’t answer to the objection I actually made, which Alex already quoted.

Furthermore, we are seeing if an individual faces eternal torment in their life after death. Keeping everything else I’ve said in this paragraph in mind, I ask: how can a person enter life ‘maimed’ if they are dead? Likewise, how can a person enter hell or Gehenna if they are dead?

It’s still difficult for me to understand what Alex is asking, here. There is no ‘life’ in ‘death.’ They are opposites. From what we know (and have studied out already, especially in our Romans study,) the eonian life promised to those who believe the evangel of the kingdom will begin at the former resurrection documented in Unv. 20:5. Jesus is saying, “You would rather be living with some battle scars at the beginning of the millennium, than have your body and soul shamefully disposed of in Gehenna, right?” There’s a ton of nuance to what Jesus is saying, but I don’t really know what to focus on, as I don’t understand what Alex is trying to be contrarian about.

“You say, ‘It is the worm (that is, the maggot) that does not die. And, it is the fire that is not quenched. The verse doesn’t even say that the fire is unquenchable, but that the fire is not put out. It is an active option of Christ to keep the fire burning for the millennial kingdom, as that is the length that this penalty will be in effect.’

I am not sure which point weakens your argument more; the fact that the Concordant does not agree with your analysis, or the fact that the KJV is not at all saying what you think it’s saying, here. Especially when you compare it to worms that we know have a set lifespan… why would a worm live forever but not the fire? Either way, the worm will eat a person – leading to the wailing and gnashing of teeth after all.”

“Hey, Person! I know you just gave me the answer to my question, but I’m going to tell you: no, both your evidence and my evidence disagree with you, and I’m not going to elaborate! Good day!”

I Need A Break

Boy, I need a break.

Now, if you are a Christian, and you are missing the point I’m making, look. I’m not judging you. I’m clowning on you a bit, sure (no more than I do to myself.) Probing at you. The goal with the poke is to get you to self-reflect, not mindlessly piss you off. I have no say in which direction God decides you go. Nonetheless, I will spell this out:

When you are disagreeing with someone, calling them inconsistent, their argument and prose lazy, and trying to point out any and all leaps in logic, you have to explain yourself. You don’t have to give a big, detailed theology in full color print with pictures and diagrams, but goodness, you have to give a little more than “nuh uh!” If all you give is “haha! No!” with no argument, people will laugh at you. I do not recommend anyone laugh at you – least of all myself. I wish and pray for all to come to a realization of the truth! But in this present day where faith takes precedent, you have to provide textual evidence and logistical support to substantiate your claims.

Alex, you’ve been telling me this entire time that I need to explain myself better, that I’m inconsistent, and that I’m “assuming” everything. Yet Alex himself is not following his own advice. What am I to make of that? And how does it paint his position, here? (What legs, Alex, do you think I think you stand on, by refuting me without evidence or an elaboration on what you think “should be” the correct viewpoint that reconciles all of the facts of the passages at hand?)

We’ll deal with the ‘gnashing of teeth’ stuff in a moment. In the meantime: Alex. Please, my guy. Look. I understand that I’m rather direct with my words, and my sarcasm, and I can be a little rough around the edges when I’m hangry (which, unfortunately for my poor ass, is most of the time.) I’m simply: human. Look past “you” and “me” for a moment, please, and consider the evidence so far! There are so many nuances to this beautiful Greek language, not to mention to each word, and not one of them so far have even hinted at an eternal torment. I wasn’t biased, man! I spent nine years in a Baptist church, and if anything, I favored the doctrine I’d grown into!

I very much believed in all “their” right things. I didn’t want to accept any of the evidence I share now! I believed in hell. You think I wanted to argue against friends and family when I came to grips with all of this? The information He imparts here shook me to my core. The Greek text simply does not agree with the belief system of this world, Alex! This world believes in a “hell.” It is not just Christianity. There are other religions, other gods, that are teaching the same torment in a different coat of paint. Why, after God spends so much time differentiating Himself from the gods of the other religions all throughout the Old Testament, are we suddenly being told that His version of an “afterlife” is so similar to some of his worst enemies??

I was duped. It sucks. I have been duped spiritually. And not by the people in the church, no – it’s not their fault for teaching this stuff. The doctrine itself, wielded by Satan, has duped most of mankind into believing the opposite of what God says. When I realized I’d been lied to, I wasn’t mad at “Pastor Joe” or “Brother Bill.” I was pissed, but it certainly wasn’t at them. No, I was pissed off for them! I don’t enjoy seeing people I love be lied to by anything.

I imagine you don’t like seeing it either. Does that not make this worth considering? If you have been given false information by an institution that simply doesn’t know any better, would you not want to know? The only way to know is by honestly considering the evidence presented, here! This Greek study is not just my own! It can be yours as well, if you would only consider what your Father would like to say to you! I can only plead to your better half, yeah? You are an intelligent man; I know that you’re dwelling, to some extent, on what I’m saying. These questions are not meant to spite you. It may not be what you expected, but if you trust Him…you may find that He has a much more detailed and fascinating story going on than one so bleak and war-ridden (much more akin to man’s present reality.)

“Lamentation and Gnashing of Teeth”

*sigh*

Yeah, yeah, I know. Back to reality. I do highly doubt Alex will listen to me. If any of you believers are wondering: yes, Alex did reply to the above, and no, it really wasn’t pretty. Just “hey you are the one being inconsistent and my arguments are perfectly fine.” It looks like this guy won’t be repenting of his view any time soon. He said something… well, peculiar, in his heartbreaking reply, and I’ll recite it here:

“The majority view is my view.”

Which is kind of what all of this comes down to, isn’t it? ‘The majority agrees with me, and I agree with them.’ To become devout against the majority view is… well, it will cause you to be reproached, as Alex has done to me here. It is, of course, no different than the apostle Paul himself, who expressed that he also was being reproached by the majority for teaching that God is the Savior of all mankind (1 Tim. 4:10.)

This “majority rule” is the saddest one, because it would force Alex and others like him to reflect on their time in the church, their time at Bible college, the many teachings they’ve inferred on this theory, how often they’ve integrated this horrifying news into the gospel, the times they’ve used this doctrine to indoctrinate someone into the majority view… and realize that it’s all a sham. What’s worse is… well, if an eternal torment isn’t true, and Alex were to become aware of it and herald it, then he would lose the privileges that come with being a part of the majority.

This shocking, painful revelation is too much for most in the majority to take (hence, why they are called ‘the majority.’) This is how Sin maintains a tight grip on humanity – popularity. Our Lord expresses this concept, in Matt. 7:13–

Enter through the cramped gate, for broad is the gate and spacious is the way which is leading away into destruction, and many are those entering through it.

The Many, then, will enter through the broad gate – that is, the majority will stick to their perspective, to their own detriment. So, while the majority have their view, I do not believe Scripture is defined by the whims of the majority, but stand on their own as a declaration from God, which the few come to accept in this present era (1 Kings 19, Col. 3:1-4.)

“Speaking of which – all those verses, the verses concerning ‘wailing and gnashing of teeth,’ demonstrate my definition of hell. Go check them out – Matt. 8:12, 13:42, 50, 22:13, 24:51, 25:30, Luke 13:28. These complement all these verses you’ve pointed out quite nicely, contributing to the understanding of hell that I have. Why? Well, because, for there to be wailing and gnashing of teeth, there must be some sort of torture.”

Babe! Babe, wake up! 7 new “eternal torment” verses have dropped!

Before we begin, I will remind you, dear reader, that we have looked at every single use of the KJV’s ‘hell’ in the oldest Greek manuscripts, and have not found a single verse that actually explicitly expresses that, when you die, you go to “hell” for unrepentance. We have studied ge’enna, tartaroo, and hades, and did not read of the eternal torment chamber of the universe one single time.

It follows: if the location is not mentioned in Scripture, then we have no reason to believe in it. Thus the “weeping and gnashing of teeth” is in reference to another concept, not eternal torment.

Let’s check out some gnashing. Matt. 8:11-12, Jesus speaking–

Now I am saying to you that many from the east and the west shall be arriving and reclining with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of the heavens, yet the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkeness. There shall be lamentation and gnashing of teeth.

The idea that this is “hell” stems from the pop-religious notion that you either go to “heaven” or “hell” when you die. The Many believe that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are currently alive, right now, in The Many’s version of “heaven,” and they believe that the above verse confirms their belief. The Many then theorize that, if Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are in heaven, then the “outer darkness” must, naturally, be the opposite of heaven – the very “hell” that Alex proclaims there must be “torture” in because of the “lamentation and gnashing of teeth.”

Such a view is, it pains me to say, understandable. I don’t say it’s understandable because it’s true, but because I myself have been subject to this view point, and I know how strong its pull is. For the longest time, I felt that this was proper; the good guys win, the bad guys lose. That would be it, right? The end? It’s really not that hard to grasp, and it’s such an easy correlation to make that you would be forgiven for shaping your world-view around it.

In truth, however, the “kingdom of the heavens” is not the golden afterlife land that you go to the moment your heart stops beating. This is indicated by recalling that Jesus is preaching the evangel of the kingdom (Matt. 4:23,) which is the kingdom promised to Abraham back in Genesis 12. This is shown in the very first use of the phrase “kingdom of the heavens,” found in Matt. 3:2, where John the Baptist states that this kingdom had drawn near to the Israelites. If this kingdom had drawn near, then it was undoubtedly not “heaven” as popular theology taught it, or John the Baptist would be… well, more of a gangster, I think, subtly telling people they were about to die.

Why did Jesus pick Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as His examples? Because these are the first three patriarchs of Israel, the first of whom was promised a kingdom. When we keep Matthew’s theme in mind, being the heralding of the promised kingdom to the Hebrews, we can see, then, that Jesus has an event in view that will happen while that kingdom is in effect.

Many, from the east and the west (east and west of heaven??) will be arriving and reclining with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In Revelation, during the 1,000 year kingdom, we see that the nations surrounding the kingdom are subject to Israel, and will not have the same blessings as the Israelites. Many from these nations seek to join Israel, and many will, to partake in some of its blessings.

In contrast, some from the kingdom, who, as we have discussed before, will have the law written in their hearts (Jer. 31:30-32,) will, upon transgressing, be sent out into those nations, deemed “the outer darkness” in comparison to the kingdom. Such a contrast will, absolutely, cause lamentation and gnashing of teeth.

A.E. Knoch puts it well, concerning these verses in his commentary:

“Like the centurion’s servant (8:10,) the nations who believed, when the evangel went forth after His resurrection as recorded in Acts, had no personal contact with Him, and never knew His presence. They are saved at a distance, by a faith unequaled in Israel. So, also, there will be many in the future who will find a place in the kingdom, while many even of the priests will be left out.”

One more thing: Luke 13:28 covers this same phrase, and this same idea, in regards to some being sent out of the kingdom for unrighteous behavior. For the sake of time, I will be skipping past this, and any other repetitious uses of the term in relation to the same subject.

*   *   *

Do dentists recommend we gnash our teeth?

I don’t know. I don’t assume so.

Hey! Take a look at Matt. 13:41-42 and be afraid! Boogidyboogidyboo!

The Son of Mankind shall be dispatching His messengers, and they shall be culling out of His kingdom all the snares and those doing lawlessness, and they shall be casting them into a furnace of fire. There shall be lamentation and gnashing of teeth.

Yes, yes, on its surface this verse is the secondary source of ‘eternal hell’ (Luke 16 being the ‘primary.’) Believers are not here to source our view, however, but believe what the verse says without denying its context. And, in context, Jesus has been elaborating on the meaning of a series of parables (that He had told a throng) to His disciples, privately (Matt. 13:36-51.) If we lose sight of the whole of the passage, then we will lose sight of what Jesus is saying and inadvertently make up a place of eternal torment that, up until this point in Matthew, had not been discussed.

So! What is the Son of Mankind speaking of, here? The parable of the darnel of the field (Matt. 13:24-30, 36,) indicated in the above verses by the word “culling,” which is what you do to darnel to remove it from your field. Jesus does not blindly say that this “happens forever,” or at “the moment you die,” as many who believe in hell would proclaim. Jesus says that the “darnel” represent sons of Satan, the enemy, that are culled first during the harvest (that is, the conclusion of the eon – 13:39.)

This is explained, figuratively, in the above verses – the Son of Mankind shall be dispatching His messengers to cull the lawless during the harvest. If we were to apply this figure literally, then these offenders would actually, literally be burned in a furnace. Really?? A furnace? I thought it was eternal hell! No one called hell a “furnace!”

Since the darnel is a figure, so must the furnace and the fire be figurative. Please keep in mind that Matthew has been concerned with the future kingdom of Israel. Even in this passage, we see Jesus referencing it in 13:41, as the location where the “darnel,” or, the wicked, are culled. As He explained earlier in Matthew 8:12, these people will be cast out into outer darkness, which is why they will be lamenting and gnashing their teeth (against their dentists’ instructions.)

The furnace is a figure for the rest of the nations at the conclusion of this eon, where the final seven years as documented in Revelation and Dan. 9:25-27 will take place. The furnace is representative of the seven bowls documented from Rev. 15:5-16:21, which will be destroying the wicked by the conclusion of the eon.

We now have a clear, Scripturally-rooted alternative to Christianity’s dark claim, and we didn’t have to change anything. The Greek language lines up with our conclusion, and our view aligns with all of the evidence, appealing to both our loving and moral sensibilities.

The next use of this phrase, in Matt. 13:50, considers the same period of time with the same judgment into the kingdom that 13:42 and 22:13 considers (simply under different parallels, and highlighting different features through those specific parallels,) so I will be moving past them for the sake of time.

Matt. 24:48-51, Jesus speaking–

Now if that evil slave should be saying in his heart, ‘Delaying is my lord,’ and should begin to beat his fellow slaves, yet may be eating and drinking with the drunken, the lord of that slave will be arriving on a day for which he is not hoping, and in an hour which he knows not, and shall be cutting him asunder, and will be appointing his part with the hypocrites. There shall be lamentation and gnashing of teeth.

Once again, as we have no admission from Scripture as to a location where people are “eternally tormented,” we are corrected in that we can only consider the context under a proper translation. We saw, in the previous portion, that the hypocrites will be excluded from the kingdom! When this happens, Israel will be lamenting and gnashing their teeth, as Jesus stated before would occur.

Matthew 25:30 covers this same idea – the slothful slave that believes his Lord is too slow will be lumped in with the hypocrites.

With that, we have covered all seven verses that use the phrase, “lamentation and gnashing of teeth.” While it is indeed an unnerving phrase, we have no justifiable reason to believe that this is some reference to “eternal torment.” Look, again, I try my best not to remain biased, even for the position that I’m arguing. But I, myself, am attracted to sense (specifically, common sense.) I am a very, very stubborn man when it comes to logic. If something doesn’t make sense to me, I concede that one of two ideas is possible: either I am not understanding something that makes complete sense, or the concept that someone is pushing onto me is nonsensical.

I almost always prefer the former explanation – that there is something wrong in my thought process that should be rectified. When someone told me that my thought process, being “eternal torment,” did not match the evidence on display, I did not immediately submit it to my friends to have my viewpoint re-affirmed (like Gavin.) I combed back through the Greek language carefully, under consideration of the alternatives, and found that I was over-extending. I preferred my idea of punishment/torment/destruction, over God’s multi-step plan to save the wicked (which Alex admits, in replying to all of this, is something he finds “many issues with,” though God explicitly states that this is His direct will and course of action with Christ – Rom. 5:8-10, 1 Tim. 2:4.) I found that, though my theory about hell was indeed popular among many religions, it was not popular among the oldest three manuscripts we have in connection with the original transcripts of the New Testament.

In other words: me and God were in direct disagreement. I had taken “weeping and gnashing of teeth” out of its context (specific places during a specific rule,) and implanted my own theology into the text. I submit that, because of the simple evidence that we do not have any description of an “eternal torment” place, nor even a reference to it, as well as the fact that we have clearer alternatives to where these instances of “weeping and gnashing of teeth” actually occur, that Alex (and especially Gavin, who could not even read the evidence from the text speaking to the contrary,) are currently in disagreement with God, as I was. They prefer the lie. The evidence speaks to the contrary, but they prefer to correlate God with His opponent’s mentality.

This is Alex’s god. Alex’s god tortures those who disagree with him. Alex’s god does what Israel did when they worshipped Molech, and what Nebuchadnezzar did concerning the fiery furnace, and what Hitler enacted against the Jews during World War II. Alex’s god does not ‘turn the other cheek’ on his enemies, having grace or forgiveness (or hell, even the slightest bit of mercy) on them. No, Alex’s god leaves the vast majority of humanity in sin, forces an ultimatum, grabs the few that were “able to repent before his ambiguous time limit ran out,” and perpetually tortures the rest of his enemies by keeping his worst enemy, Satan, employed in earth’s basement. Alex’s god allows Satan to stay in business, by eternally keeping this part of the story running. Satan keeps getting new members to eternally torture, and Alex’s god is either unable to close the loop, or doesn’t want to close the loop (thus, endorsing Satan.)

How righteous!

Gehenna Part 5: Final ‘Gehenna’ Comments

“You stated, ‘I want to show you the verse in James 3:6, as it really highlights what I’m talking about above, with you being fed a lie.’

You know, this is kind of aggressive. The more aggressive you are, the more clap-back you’ll get from readers who disagree with you. Keep in mind that everything should be done in love.”

I will kindly remind Alex and my readers that “love” does not mean “lax.” No one would argue that Jesus didn’t have a heart of love, and yet Jesus Himself made a whip out of ropes and threw out the liars in His Father’s sanctuary, whilst being incredibly harsh with His words (John 2:15-16.) And for those who believe this comparison to be false in premise (because I’m a man but Christ is the Image of the invisible God,) I will point to Paul, whose words I have learned the most from, throw clear and direct criticisms at his opponents – that their reasonings are stupid and vain (Rom. 1:22, 1 Cor. 3:20,) that they should be gagged (Titus 1:11,) that enemies of the cross of Christ worship their own bowels (Phil. 3:18-19,) that they are fraudulent workers who worship a false Jesus (2 Cor. 11:13-15,) and even calls them the maimcision instead of the circumcision (Phil. 3:2.) The scriptural teachers are radical because of the decisive, swift clarity of their message. “God is the Savior of all mankind,” says Paul, to a group of people that believed they were entitled to God’s favor.

While I am not as physical as my Lord and Brother, Jesus, I absolutely will criticize such an abhorrent lie about my Father. Alex, you and Gavin both are calling my Dad the ultimate Pyromaniac while blindly ignoring most of His words in His chosen language, and share this overwhelming fear with anyone you can! The pharisees that Jesus insulted many times would say the same thing! Yet I’m lacking a heart of love?? Please. This is “projection.” What you are blaming me in, you are condemning yourself (Rom. 2:1-2.)

“Anyways, you go on to say, ‘And just knowing that ‘hell’ here is really “Gehenna” in Greek, the location, and not the eternal fire damnation place. So what are we looking at?’

You’ve been begging the question all throughout your article thus far. I have yet to see you prove that Gehenna as used by the biblical authors means the actual location that both you and I know exists. I have shown you evidences that it could very well be a metaphorical manner of saying ‘hell’ in the way I know it. You have yet to prove your definition.”

To which I ask: where? Where on earth have you shown me evidence that it’s a metaphor for eternal torment, Alex?? Whereas I have gone through each and every verse in the oldest Greek manuscripts, considered the inflections of the words, shown a proper example of the figure of temporary judgment that the physical location represents, based on its history and other harmonious verses, and much, much more, you have not shown me one single verse where Jesus says, “If you do not believe in Me, Me and My Father will leave you to burn alive for all eternity at the hands of Satan.” You have not shown me how your figure makes any sort of sense, where the inflections of the Greek language indicate that Gehenna is a mask for some eternal location, or why we should want to accept the idea that God tortures His enemies, when the Greek does not impart it in any way!

This is, again, projection. Alex already supposed his answer was true, having a confirmation bias on this topic, and believes that, by saying “nuh uh, I believe it’s a figure,” that he has now magically proven his position, and the burden of proof is somehow on everyone else, and not him.

Alex: this is why I’m being what you would call “aggressive.” Whether I spoke to you like Uncle Iroh or Azula, you are assuming you are right and others are wrong, simply because the majority agrees with you. Where’s that verse again…?

Enter through the cramped gate, for broad is the gate and spacious is the way which is leading away into destruction, and many are those entering through it. Yet what a cramped gate and narrowed way is the one leading away into life, and few are those who are finding it.

Oh! Right. It sounds like God really favors the majority.

“Next, you go into a lot of background information [on James] which is simply not relevant in these couple of paragraphs dealing with the James 3:6 verse. I’ll be skipping all the fluff.”

This is the second time that Alex has dismissed a consideration of the context of a verse, and it’s leading me to think that Alex does not care to distinguish these things. You would think, if one cares so deeply for this doctrine, that they would be caring about the context, which is quite literally integral to apprehending the piece of work as a whole.

All Alex had to say on the actual evidence provided for a right translation of James 3:6 is,

“With that said, if you read from James 3:1 and on, I have no idea how you think this is not talking about the sinful tongue having the capacity to send us to hell. Well… all sins have that capacity!”

Which is not a refutation of the evidence provided, but an affirmation of the same claim that Alex has been making. This confirms an ignorance to the evidence provided. Alex would have an idea how I think that this is not talking about the sinful tongue sending people to “hell” if he had considered the evidence presented in the original articles. Of course Alex would find this article unconvincing if he did not actually read of the evidence in the original Greek that I had shared.

Alex replied to this by citing my original articles, and then saying,

“What difference does it make to our discussion that this letter was written to the Jews? I know this. I am a dispensationalist. I believe the book of James is speaking to the Jews and not to Christians per se. Yes, it is in contradiction to the Pauline Epistles especially with regards to salvation by grace through faith. So, why can I recognize these parts as facts and still tell you it is fluff? Which word did it use in the Greek? Gehenna. Which word did we debate on a lot already? Gehenna. It makes no difference. Furthermore, just because one may view this as instructions to a certain group of people during a certain time period does not take away from the fact that the same Gehenna is being spoken about. Thus, the background information is fluff.”

While this is great for Alex, it would not be great for many other readers who may not be aware of this information, and as such, it is important to identify the context instead of pre-supposing that everyone must know the same information that I do. This has to be read-able for anyone, and that includes explaining things for those who may not be following the arguments as easily, or who may need assistance in apprehending the structure of scripture.

Moreover, the only times that we have seen reference to the term “Gehenna” has been outside of Paul’s letters, which highlights a necessity to know James’ audience. James is written to the Jews, just as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are. Notice that the location for the kingdom’s penalty is documented most in Matthew, the book which reveals Christ as the King? Notice that James writes to the very dispersion that this kingdom has been revealed to? These are not purposeless or unfounded connections, as Paul, who, as Alex points out, teaches justification by Christ’s faith in grace, does not mention Gehenna one single time (for believers in his evangel are not allotted a “place” in the kingdom of God, but inherit the kingdom of God itself, ruling and reigning with Christ, and being seated at the right hand of God (Rom. 5:17, Eph. 2:5-6.)

Thus, the background information, serving both as the context for the verse in discussion and pointing out the distinction between the Jews’ kingdom and Paul’s separate message which he was severed for, concerning Christ, is very influential in distinguishing between a relative punishment for the eon (Gehenna,) with the eventual vivification of all mankind – life beyond the reach of death, post judgment, for all (1 Cor. 15:22-28.)

(to be continued)

- GerudoKing