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

 Gehenna Part 1: Revisiting Matthew 5 – Fluffy Facts

Alex now reaches the first three verses in the New Testament that contain the word “Gehenna,” being 5:22, 29, and 30. Here they are again:

Yet I am saying to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to the judging. Yet whoever may be saying to his brother, ‘Raka!’ shall be liable to the Sanhedrin. Yet whoever may be saying, ‘Stupid!’ shall be liable to the Gehenna of fire.

Now, if your right eye is snaring you, wrench it out and cast it from you, for it is expedient for you that one of your members should perish and not your whole body be cast into Gehenna.

And if your right hand is snaring you, strike it off and cast it from you, for it is expedient for you that one of your members should perish and not your whole body pass away into Gehenna.

On these verses, Alex says,

“You mention how the context is the millennial kingdom. I agree. This, however, is fluff. It’s a non-sequitur. Jesus’ requests may be impracticable even in that millennium, being that there is a danger of judgment. This is a side issue, not relevant to the debate at large.

Now, you are not making an argument anywhere here for why Gehenna is a physical location. You are… trying to make a connection between the millennial kingdom and a physical location without offering a true justification for why that is pertinent to your argument. You just assume the answer is correct.”

It is because Alex dismisses the context (that Jesus is speaking of the coming kingdom – Matt. 4:23) as “fluff,” you can then see precisely why he believes that nearly a page of information concerning the context is somehow not relevant to the matter at hand.

Alex took issue, of course, with this, replying:

“As [Matt. 4:23] reads, Jesus is clearly doing this at a different time and place than the Sermon on the Mount. You cannot logically conclude that they have the same context. Just look at verses 24 and 25! There is a lot happening for this to be all in one day. Therefore, the context is different.”

To which I reply that a “day’s work” is not the context! For your reading pleasure, we will bind Matthew 4:23-5:1 together:

And Jesus led them about in the whole of Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and heralding the evangel of the kingdom, and curing every disease and every debility among the people. And forth came the tidings of Him into the whole of Syria. And they bring to Him all who have an illness, those with various diseases and pressing torments, also demoniacs and epileptics and paralytics, and He cures them. And there follow Him vast throngs from Galilee and the Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and the other side of the Jordan. Now, perceiving the throngs, He ascended into the mountain. And, at His being seated, His disciples came to Him.

While it is absolutely true, in context, that more than a day’s time passes, it is not true that the previous verse somehow has little to no bearing on Matthew 5:1. While 4:23 does not say, “Hey, you’re about to read the Sermon on the Mount,” it does indeed contextualize why the Sermon on the Mount is being given at all. He is in the midst of His ministry of the evangel of the kingdom. No rational writer (or human being) would tell you that the previous verse would not contextualize the next. We read from point A to point B - this is the nature of a book, and it is simply what occurs, here. I don't know how much clearer I'm supposed to put that, man.

To answer to his effectual claim, Jesus’ requests will be practicable in that millennium, irrespective of judgment. We know this because of God’s declaration of the new covenant that He will establish with Israel, in Jer. 31:31-34–

Behold, the days are coming, averring is Yahweh, when I will contract a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah – not like the covenant which I contracted with their fathers in the day I held fast onto their hand to bring them forth from the land of Egypt, which covenant of Mine they themselves annulled while I was Possessor over them, averring is Yahweh.

For this is the covenant… I will put My law within them, And I shall write it on their heart; I will become their Elohim, And they shall become My people.

If the law is written on the heart of the millennial-kingdom citizen, then they assuredly will be able to follow Jesus’ instructions proclaimed on the Sermon on the Mount. It will be entirely doable, as they will become Yahweh’s people.

Alex takes issue with this, saying,

“Wrong yet again. This implies perfection and there is none who is perfect except for God. And again, the fact that judgement could occur likewise implies failure to uphold these commands.”

This inference ignores the presented verse, Jeremiah 31:31-34, which speaks to the fact that the law will be doable to the Israelite during the millennial kingdom. Repeating the same claim will not suddenly prove your point, Alex. The Israelite believer will be given the ability to follow the law, which, yes, denotes perfection. At this time, there are none who are perfect. Believers, however, shall be roused incorruptible, and Israelites are affirmatively able to effect the law at a future date. Just because you do not accept the time and place being referenced does not mean it plays no role. And, in fact, “judgment” during this time would not imply an Israelite’s incapability to follow the law, but that they are capable of doing so – otherwise all of them would be being judged and put to death at the very beginning of the millennial kingdom.

Why Alex believes otherwise is beyond me. The context throws a big monkey wrench in the pop-religious notion that “believers today get heaven and unbelievers today get hell!” If this word, “Gehenna,” is in reference to a future location where the penalty of the Mosaic law is carried out, then the pop-religious notion folds faster than my teenage self’s Playboy magazine when my dad wandered into my bedroom.

(For anyone playing along at home, this is your big parenthetical sign that I am clearly showing you how the theological ‘hell’ doesn’t make sense in this passage, whereas Gehenna does, so it’s not as fluffy as Alex claimed it was.)

Anyway, the context that the word “Gehenna” is used in the three Matthew verses above shows us that The King is unveiling His righteous penalty for misbehavior in the coming kingdom that He is heralding. This simple context adds an overwhelming credibility to the notion that the ‘proper locative noun’ might actually be a proper locative noun!

Finally, I want to point out one more thing: this whole ‘assuming my own answer is correct’ nonsense. Alex clearly hasn’t researched his opponent’s position, the Greek elements of the words in question, and dismissed the oldest Greek manuscripts along with the Concordant Version, because he himself has already assumed his answer. The beauty in this is found in Romans 2:1-2, where we find that, what Alex is blaming me in, he is condemning himself. He claims I am assuming my answer in order to hide the fact that he himself is committing this act.

To dismiss another’s argument as ‘fluff,’ when most understand that the context to a passage is critical, and then claim that your opponent is ‘assuming’ the answer, is disingenuous commentary that, again, never begets a necessary reply from the opponent. I am only pressing on at this point for the sake of a contrast (and the fact that I already told a few people that I would. Again, this is how your average ‘eternal torment’ believer responds to the evidence in the Greek text. Jesus is right – the love of many is cooling.

Alex will later claim that I am being “disrespectful” in much of my study, but I must ask: if every other point is going to be, “oh fallacy and also the actual grammar here doesn’t matter, just interpretations of the blue letter bible,” while he holds to the notion that an always-increasing number of humans, including many of our loved ones (or ourselves,) are being mercilessly flayed by God (especially with no evidence or established stance on the matter,) then who is really being disrespectful?

Alex continues:

“Next, you try to make a connection between Matt. 5:21-22 with Ex. 21:12. Yet the Exodus verse is speaking about killing a man and the subsequent punishment that should occur to the murderer. The Exodus verse you quoted is like today: you commit murder, and you get capital punishment.

Furthermore, that Exodus verse applied to the nation of Israel as they were leaving Egypt. You may be able to find something like it in Deuteronomy, or Leviticus, but it is not, as you say, ‘Jesus’ statements living right up with the law’s statements.’

Now, I do not mean that they both do not speak about murder. Rather, the context of Exodus is the Jews under the law without a notion of the millennial kingdom, or some sort of Gehenna. And Matthew is about the millennial kingdom, with some sort of ‘Gehenna’ or ‘hell fire.’”

Funny thing about all that…

It’s not true. I’m sorry, Alex. I don’t say this with glee, happiness, excitedness, or any other ‘ness.’ But you have to look at the whole of Scripture. The Israelites most certainly did have a notion of a millennial kingdom. Did they know it was ‘millennial?’ No. They had very few details about their promised kingdom (hence the need for Jesus’ exposition in Matthew 5-8.) But their ancestor was Abraham. They undoubtedly knew about the promise made to their ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Ex. 2:23-24, 3:8, 15:17, Deut. 1:8, 6:10-11, 11:21, etc.)

The Israelites were anticipating the kingdom promised to them. They did not know when or why or how it would come about, but they were indeed aware. Exodus 21:12 refers to the righteous penalty that came with breaking the sixth commandment of the law of their kingdom, given in Ex. 20:13. Scriptural revelations are progressive. Jesus expands on both the law itself and its punishment in the Matthew verses previously mentioned – both in getting to the heart of the issue of murder, as well as sharing how the penalty in the coming kingdom will be inflicted.

If Jesus is expounding on the coming kingdom, and says, “Hey, I know many of you have read the Mosaic law, so you already know that the penalty for murder is death, but I want to add something here – that you will also go to hell! Mwahaha!” Then He would have been charged right then and there for changing the established rulebook, and the Pharisees actually would have had something to persecute Him over!

We have no reason to assume that the penalty as laid out in the law is somehow greater all of a sudden – that death is not the penalty, but death plus extra punishment through death. None of these Matthew verses “prove” that ‘hell’ is some place of eternal torment, where people go for unbelief when they die – as is popularly pushed by John Piper, the man whom I was directly refuting for Gavin.

Alex, of course, doesn’t agree with any of this. However, he does not refute or rebut his point, instead saying,

“We do have ample reason to consider that those Matthew verses prove hell. The definition of the word Gehenna is one of eternal torment. That Greek word means that.”

Which is, as of yet, unproven by Alex, and the etymology, part of speech, history of the “Valley of Hinnom,” and each contextual use of the word geena points in the direct opposite of his firm assertion, here.

If you would tell me that these verses, in spite of these points that have been thoroughly proven with the grammar, the context, and even other citations, speak of an ambiguous fiery location where people that don’t believe in Jesus get sent to, then I ask: where is your proof, Alex? I believe I’ve spent a thorough amount of time clearly establishing my position on the matter, and I have shown a wealth of evidence and simple logic at my disposal. You called “hell” the “proper” translation at the beginning of this part, and yet… there seems to be an ever-increasing burden of proof on your end. Why must we translate this word as ‘hell,’ when there’s so much evidence to the contrary? Why keep the ambiguous ‘hell,’ when ‘Gehenna’ is crystal clear?

Well, unlike many of his other paragraphs, Alex seeks to prove his claim on ‘Gehenna’s’ definition above within the scriptural text, and cites Matthew 10:28 as a verse that proves that this word indicates a chamber for eternal torment. Let’s take a look.

Gehenna Part 2: Matthew 10 and Luke 12

Matthew 10:28–

And do not fear those who are killing the body, yet are not able to kill the soul. Yet be fearing Him, rather, Who is able to destroy the soul as well as the body in Gehenna.

If you have read my original articles (which I expect you to have done, so that this series isn’t dramatically extended,) then you know already that I showed Scriptural proof for the definition of “soul” as used in this verse, kept the context (Jesus revealing the coming kingdom,) and then pointed out that the body and soul are destroyed – not tortured – in Gehenna. I then ask a very important question: Have we seen evidence of a location of ‘eternal torment’ so far?

Alex replies,

“I must admit that the verse says nothing about torture explicitly. However, I wonder… if a person is killed first, and then sent to your definition of Gehenna, then sure! There’s no torture. But if a person is not killed first, and then sent to your definition of Gehenna, there is indeed torture. Would you have any evidence of a person first being killed and then being sent?”

If this is a question that is meant to make me go, “Oh, doh, I guess I must be an idiot,” then I will be very much disheartened. I really like this question! And, if it’s genuine, then I honestly would say that Alex is very wise to ask it, because it’s one we should all be asking. Will God kill people by tossing them into Gehenna, or will He take their spirit immediately?

Here’s Jesus’s answer. Luke 12:4-5–

Now I am saying to you, My friends, be not afraid of those who are killing the body and after this do not have anything more excessive that they can do. Now I shall be intimating to you of Whom you may be afraid:

Be afraid of Him Who, after killing, has authority to be casting into Gehenna. Yea, I am saying to you, of this One be afraid!

God is very clear that He kills, and then casts into Gehenna. It’s so clearly stated, in fact, that, knowing that no verse is a mistake, I am astonished to find that God wants to stress this point so clearly. As we’ve studied in the previous series of articles, we haven’t seen the word “torture” or “torment” occur at all in passages with ‘Gehenna’ in it.

I don’t believe this to be an accident.

Alex, of course, thinks otherwise, in his reply:

“I need you to understand that, in quoting the verse you did, you just destroyed your whole argument. Here is the thing, Stephen: if Gehenna is a physical location and life is a physical thing, then killing an individual and dumping their body into Gehenna is not something to be afraid of. Who cares about that? Might as well dump it in the river, or give it a proper burial, or leave it out for the wild animals. Why should one be afraid of an individual who has the power to kill you first and then casting you into Gehenna if you just have the one life and no after life? Here is where the concept of my understanding of Hell is solidified.”

And, if we wrenched this verse from its context, then sure! There would be sufficient evidence to believe that we are dealing with a location of eternal torment.

But I’m not going to wrench this out of its context :)

The verse is in reference to the Vale of Hinnom, which, as we read in Matthew 5, does not seem to indicate a location of “eternal torment,” but is referenced as a location of punishment during the kingdom which Jesus was heralding by the time the Sermon on the Mount came to pass (Matt. 4:23-5:2.) In the kingdom, the bodies of criminals will clearly be cast into its flames. The distinction in Luke 12:4-5 (and Matthew 10:28,) is drawn between the believer, whose death (especially if endured for the Lord’s sake,) will make him eligible to a high place in the kingdom at the former resurrection of faithful Israel (Rev. 20:5,) and the rebellious, who, even if they should be in the kingdom, would suffer the condemnation of its laws.

In other words, the enemies of Christ can kill His followers, and thousands have been slain as witnesses to the truth – yet their act has an effect exactly opposite to what they intended. Instead of remaining dead, these resurrected saints will have an even greater place in the coming kingdom. On the opposite end of the spectrum, when God executes judgment, and tosses the bodies of the kingdom’s criminals into Gehenna, there will be no kingdom for these folk to be given after their death; their soul is destroyed, until the great Day of Judgment, which takes place after the millennial kingdom has come to pass (Rev. 20.) These criminals will not be dying for a good cause, but in rebellion to established righteousness.

With the context in mind (being Christ’s ministry to evangelize the coming millennial kingdom, and not some blind, blanket threat to “get saved” across all periods of time,) we are left to understand that the punishment being explained here is for the millennial kingdom, and will remain as such. The body of Christ’s own may be destroyed, but their soul will return with greater glory. In contrast, Christ’s enemies will not receive their soul with greater glory – instead remaining dead during the millennial kingdom (Rev. 20:5) and being sent to a second death to miss out on the new heavens and new earth as well (Rev. 20:14-21:1.) Thus, their soul will also be destroyed (Greek element: “LOSE”,) or, “lost,” until the end of the story, remaining instead in the unseen (Ps. 9:17.)

So… if we haven’t seen these two in the same sentence together, then why, pray tell, should we assert that ‘torture’ would occur? God tells us He is loving. Is “torture,” “eternal punishment,” loving? Would He be righteous for eternally burning His enemies, after telling us, both through Jesus and Paul, that we should be at peace with our enemies, loving them and turning the other cheek when they mistreat us? Is that the heart of God? If so, how are we supposed to treat our enemies with such a forgiving love if God can’t follow His own advice, tormenting/abandoning someone trapped under Sin’s thumb for eternity??

‘Vale of Hinnom’ Word Study, Part I

“By the way, the blue letter bible makes note of the word ‘Gehenna’ meaning my definition or understanding of it, which is a figurative sense of hell fire. Yes, it says it’s an actual location, but it figuratively means hell fire as I understand it. It’s like saying, ‘I am down in the dumps.’ Am I actually at the city landfill where trash gets burned and destroyed? No. I am saying that I am sad (a fitting adage for our conversation.)”

*sigh*

Hey there, kids! Do you want to prove something in Scripture? That’s great! But there’s an issue, right? Yes, I thought so! You want to believe in hell, you want this to be a core theological belief! But there’s this one, nagging issue… you don’t see it anywhere! Well, today, right here, I have the one trick that will solve all of your problems! With this trick, you will never run into this issue again. Are you ready?

Claim it’s figurative!

With this one, simple, easy-to-use tactic, you should be able to take whatever verse you please, and turn it into whatever you want!

An example? Sure! Here’s John 13:2, the night before Jesus’ crucifixion:

And at the coming of the dinner, the Adversary already having cast into the heart of Judas, son of Simon Iscariot, that he may be giving Him up…

Now, obviously, if we take the verse literally, then Judas is not responsible for giving Jesus up, for the verse claims that it is the Adversary that has cast into the heart of Judas! But the problem here is that it conflicts with our pre-supposed idea of “free will!” We want to hold Judas responsible, but God, in His own words, simply isn’t giving us that leeway. So, what do we do?

Make it figurative!

That’s right, folks, by just claiming that this is figurative, we can change what the verse said! For example, I think that this sentence is… hmmm… oh! Symbolism! I like that. It’s symbolic. So what’s it symbolic for? Well, it’s symbolic of my pre-supposed theology, of course! What it means is that Judas decided he would rather care about the Adversary, instead of Jesus. That way, Judas is now an aggressor with Satan instead of being the victim of Satan’s abuse! Problem solved!

Okay, let’s get serious. This figure that Alex proposes seems to be a simile, or symbolism, as far as I can tell. “Gehenna, the place for garbage incineration in olden-day Jerusalem, is like the fiery location that you will go when you die if you don’t accept that Jesus is Lord.” You could even argue that Alex (and many others) think it is simply a metaphor for this fiery location. Here, for example, is a quote from Milton’s Paradise Lost, lines 404-405–

“The pleasant Valy of Hinnom, Tophet thence

And black Gehenna call’d, the Type of hell.”

However, when we honestly consider the functionality and role that the location Gehenna has played throughout Israel’s history, we cannot safely assert that this place is representative (in simile or metaphor alike) for the eternal torment of the damned. To showcase this, I will briefly conduct a study that I did not perform in my original articles, taking a brief look at the valley of Hinnom in the Old Testament.

The phrase “valley of Hinnom,” or “valley of the sons of Hinnom,” occurs thirteen times in the Old Testament, and I will display them for you here for your convenience. First, Josh. 15:8, and 18:16–

The boundary then ascended into the ravine of the son of Hinnom along the southern flank of the Jebusite city, that is, of Jerusalem. And the boundary ascended to the summit of the hill that is adjoining the ravine of Hinnom on the west, at the northern end of the vale of Rephaim.

Then the boundary descended to the fringe of the hill adjoining the ravine of the son of Hinnom, at the northern end of the vale of Rephaim; it descended the ravine of Hinnom along the southern flank of the Jebusite city and descended to En-rogel…

This first four uses of “Hinnom” clearly concern less of an “event,” and are simply described as a geographical location. I find this beautiful, for it means, simply, that God is declaring the exact same thing that I’ve been trying to say to Alex and Gavin this entire time! The “vale of Hinnom” was a place. A location that was notable enough to mark the boundary lines between countries.

There is one more geographical display here, in Neh. 11:30–

So [some of the sons of Judah] encamped from Beer-sheba unto the ravine of Hinnom.

Alex does not seem to care for the fact that God, in His first five references to the ‘ravine of Hinnom,’ establishes it as an earthly location. Instead, he would change the subject, saying:

“You said, ‘First, in the Concordant Version (and the original Hebrew, and even the flawed KJV,) Neh. 11:30 and Josh. 15:8 make it clear that the vale of Hinnom (or “valley” of Hinnom) is a location that people dwelled by. This is important for both points we are considering here, about Gehenna (Greek for “Valley of Hinnom,”) and God being disturbed by hell.’

Man, have you read the Old Testament and how God destroys and utterly annihilates people who are ungodly? He has no problem with eradicating evil.”

As a matter of fact, I have read the Old Testament, Alex, and I thank you for checking in with me on that. What I will “clap back,” as you say, is that God, per His own admission in Rom. 9:22, is very patient with unrighteousness, knowing that the contrast is how the story is being told (more on this later.) For as clear and decisive as God is when He forcefully deals with Sin (most displayed in the death of His Son,) He does not decide to just ‘throw up His hands and eradicate evil’ on a whim. The all-knowing God plans things! Go figure!

Of course, there is a symbol that Gehenna comes to represent (for Jesus did not choose that location as His body-incinerator without exact cause,) so let’s press on. Something extremely dark and sinister takes root in this valley. I’ll let 2 Chron. 28:1-3 and 33:1, 5-6 do the talking:

Ahaz was twenty years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem sixteen years. Yet he did not do what was upright in the eyes of Yahweh like his father David. He walked in the ways of the kings of Israel; he even made molten images for the Baalim. It was he who fumed incense in the ravine of the son of Hinnom, and caused his own sons to be consumed by fire, according to the abhorrences of the nations whom Yahweh had evicted before the sons of Israel.

Twelve years old was Manasseh when he became king, and he reigned fifty-five years in Jerusalem… He built altars to all the host of the heavens in the two courts of the House of Yahweh. He also caused his own sons to pass through fire in the ravine of the son of Hinnom…

Yes, you should know the story by now. The Israelites followed their pagan gods by burning their children alive in this ravine. They defiled it with such works, these kings, and brought shame on Israel and their own names, for the eons.

Molech is the name of the god that Israel worshipped by passing their children through fire. This is shown in the next five verses, all of which are found in Jeremiah. You will recognize a few of these verses, for we did cover some in the original study. Jer. 7:30-32–

For the sons of Judah have done what is evil in My eyes, averring is Yahweh. They have placed their abominations in the House over which My Name is called, to defile it. They have built the high-place of Topheth which is in the ravine of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in fire (such as I did not instruct, nor did it come up on My heart.)

And again, in Jer. 19:2-6–

Thus says Yahweh… Go forth to the ravine of the son of Hinom, which is at the portal of the Artisan’s Gate, and proclaim there the words that I shall speak to you. You will say: ‘Hear the word of Yahweh, kings of Judah, and dwellers of Jerusalem! Thus says Yahweh of hosts, Elohim of Israel: Behold, I shall bring such an evil on this place that… anyone hearing about it? His ears shall tingle.

Because they have forsaken Me, and are making this place foreign, and are fuming incense in it to other elohim that they have not known (they or their fathers or the kings of Judah,) and they have filled this place with the blood of innocents, and because they have built the high-places of Baal to burn their sons with fire as ascent offerings to Baal (which I did not instruct nor even speak of, nor did it come up on My heart,) therefore, behold! The days are coming, averring is Yahweh, when this place shall no longer be called ‘Topheth’ or the ‘ravine of the son of Hinnom,’ but rather the ravine of killing.

And, finally, Jer. 32:34-35–

They placed their abominations in the House over which My Name is called, to defile it. And they built the high-places of Baal which are in the ravine of the son of Hinnom, to have their sons and their daughters pass through fire for Molech (which I did not instruct them, nor did it come up on My heart), to do this abhorrence that it may cause Judah to sin.

Each of these uses clarify that this location has been defiled by Molech worshippers, who would, again, sacrifice their children by fire. That is – unlike God, Who will kill, and then burn up, transgressors of His kingdom – these folk tossed them in while they were alive. They did not merely ‘kill’ their children, or put them to sleep first. They were left to burn at the hands of their parents, who would worship a demon while they did it.

On these verses, Alex says,

“You continue, ‘That was pretty direct, wouldn’t you say?? You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to recognize that God has explicitly said that passing someone through fire while they are clearly living is not in His name. He did not instruct it. It did not come up on His heart. It is an abhorrence to Him. And He attributes it to a demon.’

Time for some clap-back. Apparently, you do have to be a rocket scientist to understand the context of the verse… God is talking about child sacrifice that people were doing in honor of a demon. Given that He is saying He never asked for it, one can only speculate that these false prophets were doing it and saying it was done in God’s name. Read verse 34.

Also, I see yet another logical fallacy that you’re committing against me. I never said that hell fire is for people who are alive such as you and me. You are making a strawman out of my argument.”

What?

No, really… what? I’m confused. So first, it sounds like Alex is dismissing the method by which Israel was inflicting this devil worship – being the passing children through fire while claiming it honors God. What difference does it make if Molech or God is being attributed, here? God says that the act of passing children through fire was not something He instructed of them, nor did it come up on His heart. I don’t want to blindly assume that Alex is saying the issue here is the devil worship, and not the method of the devil worship, but that is the sense I’m getting from his commentary on the verse.

Alex, unfortunately, made my suspicion worse by saying, in his rebuttal,

“You want to use said verses to show that God is against burning people alive. However, whereas that is true, it is true for a specific context. That context is people who are bone and flesh alive walking on earth and when it is done without His approval.”

So… wait a second.

Interlude: Wait a Second

“You want to use said verses to show that God is against burning people alive. However, whereas that is true, it is true for a specific context. That context is people who are bone and flesh alive walking on earth and when it is done without His approval.”

Are we saying that it’s okay when God burns people alive, but it is not okay when God’s enemies burn people alive…?

As in… the only difference between whether or not ‘burning a person alive’ is okay is… when God does it? Just… because He’s “righteous?”

Well… hold on. This is bringing me to another point of contention with Alex. Can we define “righteousness?” Surely it doesn’t mean, “The One Who’s always right,” and I think Alex knows this. I also think he knows that it doesn’t mean “the One Who gets to do whatever he wants to do, however He wants to do it.” To be “righteous” is to be just. To have an upright moral standing in all.

I would like to bring this up, then: when Alex says things like, “God is just,” it follows that the things God declares unjust (i.e. “this did not come up on My heart”) should not be considered just when God does them, or He was wrong to call them unjust in the first place.

Alex, I believe, may not understand this, for he makes such claims as, “God is love, but He is also just.” This has been his main argument in favor of the eternal burning of an eternal number of people (with ever-changing reasoning.) Unfortunately, the argument falls apart in a plethora of ways.

First, we must establish that this “just punishment” is actually a thing (i.e. if ‘hell’ is not described in Scripture as an eternal torment chamber, but, say, a geographical location sitting near Jerusalem, then the burden of proof remains on the eternal torment theorists to prove, in Scripture, the location for such a thing, as well as the description of the eternal torment itself.)

Second, this sloppy claim is an attempt to distinguish and separate aspects of God’s character in a hierarchal fashion. “His justice is stronger than His love,” when neither of these attributes are ever limited in relation to Him in Scripture (Ps. 145:17, 1 John 4:8, 16.)

Third, this tries to erase what God said concerning His salvation, which is to and for all (Rom. 1:16, 1 Tim. 4:10,) and will be accepted by all (Rom. 10:8-13, Phil. 2:9-11.) If God’s sense of punishment is stronger than His salvation (indicated by how many will go to hell as opposed to heaven, according to pop-Christian theology,) then the punishment is what is for all, and the salvation is the exception, not the standard.

And, finally, this idea proposes that “love” is the purpose of “salvation” in the evangel, while “righteousness” is the purpose of God’s punishment in the evangel. Yet this is directly contrary to Paul’s claim in Romans 1:17–

For in [the evangel] God’s righteousness is being revealed…

Here we see that Paul claims that his evangel (which is God’s power into salvation, cf Rom. 1:16,) is what reveals God’s righteousness – not His punishment.

To force the notion that we must accept God’s hand first in order to be saved “from hell” also forces the notion that we must recognize that God is righteous before accepting His salvation! You can’t know that God is righteous before accepting the news that reveals God’s righteousness – yet it is this very idea that “hell” is mounted on! How on earth are we supposed to recognize God’s righteousness before being shown the evangel which declares God’s righteousness?

Thankfully, for God, this discrepancy doesn’t exist. Paul simply, unequivocally disagrees, instead claiming that his evangel into salvation is what reveals God’s righteousness. The only way that the doctrine of eternal torment could have any redeeming quality is if it were found in Romans (the very same book that reveals Paul’s evangel concerning Christ, with its ability to save and its intent to reveal the righteousness of God, sourced in the verses I cited above.) Well, friends, search high and low, but you will never find eternal torment in Romans without hardcore inference, assumption, and language-shifting – none of which are legs for any so-called “scriptural” doctrine to stand on.

With all of this in mind, it is nigh impossible to claim that “God is only upset with burning people alive in a certain context, but in other ways it’s okay.” It sounds as though it is simply Alex who believes that, at some point, it would, from his perspective, be righteous to eternally flay someone (the way the Greek and Roman gods did, mind you, as well as Molech, who was causing the Jews to declare it righteous to flay a loved one alive) under some extreme sense of justice.

Moreover, there is no verse where God says, “Hey, by the way, I like to do all the things My enemies like to do, but it’s okay when I do it, because… well, they are the enemy and I’m not! Tee hee!”

To quote Dean Hough, in U.R. Vol. 91, p. 65,

“It is impossible to see God’s righteousness with any clarity at all in a message that includes a doctrine of everlasting torment in hell or hopeless annihilation. Such corrupt doctrines lie at the root of the failure to associate God’s righteousness with His work of saving sinners through the faith and faithfulness of Christ. The idea that Gods indignation and fury will forever engulf a certain portion of humanity, of whom God is the Creator, while the rest are spared that fate, in God’s grace, and granted everlasting bliss, makes the whole subject of divine righteousness an insolvable mystery.”

“Here is my thing: you believe God can kill. But does the method of how He does that even matter? What if God kills through floods? Hurricanes? Earthquakes? What if God kills through lightning? What if God does it Himself, as He has done so in scripture with people (such as Onan?) What if He sends an angel or whatever? You’re okay with every other method except for fire? And if you say you are okay with fire, then what difference does it make for hell?”

This would, in the future, Alex, be a much better question to ask without the previous sentence attached to it. Please, goodness, don’t try to justify hell with “God is only upset with burning people alive in a certain context, but in other ways it’s okay.”

Alex has many questions as to the method of God’s kills, but I think he failed to take into account the second half of the verse he’s quoting:

Yahweh is putting to death and is keeping alive…

God does not solely put to death without purpose. He is the same God which is keeping alive. The same God that claims that the last enemy, death, will be abolished (1 Cor. 15:26.) The same God that claims that this experience of evil has a humbling goal (Ecc. 1:13,) not a cynical, torturous one. The same God that claims that all shall see His Son and acclaim that Jesus is Lord (Phil. 2:9-11,) irrespective of race, creed, or class.

This is His righteousness. He does not solely put to death, but, like a true Leader, corrects as well. He resolves issues; He does not solely inflict bad things on us. He is telling a story, which will have a definite – not open-ended – resolution.

God’s issue, as He stated, is passing living children through fire. The righteous God does not claim that passing a child through fire is ever a good thing. Alex can ask these questions for myself, and I can answer! But it does not change that God expressly takes issue with this method of punishment.

As for my answer: my claim has, and will continue to be, that God is indeed unjust if He sends anyone to a place of eternal torment. This is because He would, for many, be conducting the “killing,” and not the “making alive” part of the story. Most don’t get to learn from their mistakes, but will be eternally burned over them. Most won’t be corrected, but abandoned. It’s a bleak outlook, unfortunately, and there’s no sugar-coating it. This is the claim that the largest religion on the planet makes today – and Alex would tell me that there is no issue with it! How is this good news? How is this a happy ending if these people are not punished relatively, and saved at the end? What is the worth of the story of the Prodigal Son? Of Lazarus? Of Jesus Himself?? Death, sadness, loss… these precede life, happiness, and gain. They are not the conclusion, but the setup.

“[Your claim] is simply not true. For all the verses you quoted in Jeremiah, all you need to do is keep reading to see how God decides to deal with His own people.”

Okay? Where? How? When? What example are you referring to? Any reference? How would it prove that God is okay with eternally burning people alive? Since you’ve pre-supposed your own answer, Alex, it’s hard to get a straight answer out of you on any of these questions. Throughout this whole reply, the most you’ve done to verify your viewpoint in Scripture has been citing seven verses, where you disconnect “lamentation and gnashing of teeth” from the context and plug in your own view (which we’ll get to, folks.) How about you prove your point as you criticize, instead of just criticizing an argument that is providing a plethora of textual evidence?

Alex, of course, thinks this is all projection, but the fact remains that Alex does not gives us the verse he is referring to “see how God decides to deal with His own people.” And, in fact, it’s senseless for Alex to even say this, since God does deal with His own people radically differently! We already read some of it earlier, during the “Sermon on the Mount’s orders aren’t able to be followed in the millennial kingdom” claim earlier, but observe them again! Jer. 31:31-34–

Behold, the days are coming, averring is Yahweh, when I will contract a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I contracted with their fathers in the day I held fast onto their hand to bring them forth from the land of Egypt…

I will put My law within them, And I shall write it on their hearth; I will become their Elohim, and they shall become My people.

No longer shall they teach, each man his associate, and each man his brother: “Know Yahweh!” For they all shall know Me, from the smallest of them to the greatest of them, averring is Yahweh; for I shall pardon their depravity, And I shall not remember their sin any longer.

Sounds like a lot of forgiveness, and not a lot of eternal burning. Of course, they do still receive a punishment, but it has already been fulfilled. Observe what God says after calling out Israel for worshipping Molech–

Now therefore thus says Yahweh, Elohim of Israel, as to this city of which you are saying, It is given into the hand of the king of Babylon by sword and by famine and by plague. Behold, I shall convene them from all the lands where I have driven them away in My anger and in My fury and in great wrath, and I will restore them to this place and make them to dwell in serenity.

And, later, in verse 42–

For thus says Yahweh: just as I brought on this people all this great evil, so I shall bring on them all the good which I am speaking concerning them… For I shall reverse their captivity, averring is Yahweh.

The anger is a precursor to great correction through the evil, and blessing in effect. It truly is this simple; God does not make someone suffer the experience of death and then make them retain their senses and continue to suffer beyond it.

“Another thing; there are examples of fire consuming people alive in Scripture. Read about Elijah, Sodom and Gomorrah, the strange fire offered unto God. So on and so forth. Either you do not read your Bible, or you blind yourself to the truth.”

This furthers my point! Ah, yes, let’s read of the few instances of God’s indignation, where He kills those who deserve death, by swiftly (as in, not eternally) ending their lives, and use that as a platform to proclaim that, after their death, God then placed them in a torture chamber where, to this day, He’s left them to methodically and perpetually burn at the hands of His worst enemy, Satan!

You know, that actually leads me to a funny point. Technically, isn’t almost everyone in the Old Testament in hell right now? According to Gavin and co, you must accept Jesus as your Savior and repent. Most of these people in the Old Testament don’t have a clue Who ‘Jesus’ is, nor did they repent! So most, from Adam to now, before and after the flood, seem to have been burning alive for a long time, now – nearly 6,000 years! Do you think they’ve learned their lesson, Alex, or could you just be forcing your idea of an “eternal torment” into a text that has given not one mention to it?

Alex has since replied that I’m forcing this conclusion, and that Romans 2:11-16 shows that it is possible to be saved outside of Christ. This, unfortunately, means that Alex believes that there is some other source of salvation than Christ, which would mean that there is another way to be saved than Christ. I steadfastly disagree, and have already gone into detail on Romans 2:11-16 in my Romans study; not one of them say that humanity is saved in some other fashion, here, but are actually proclaimed to perish because, whether they have the Mosaic law or not, the law of conscience (which everyone has broken) condemns them to death. This is, of course, the exact opposite of salvation. I’m shocked Alex would even imply this line of reasoning to be credible in any fashion.

‘Vale of Hinnom’ Word Study, Part II

There is one more use of ‘Hinnom,’ in 2 Kings 23:10, and then we can discuss what we can gather from each of these verses. After this extended period of evil rule in Israel, there came to be one King Josiah, who found this whole burning people alive business to, you know, actually be a bad thing, and liberated Israel by destroying all of these practices and altars built by Molech worshippers in Gehenna:

[King Josiah] defiled Topheth, which is in the ravine of the sons of Hinnom, so as to lure no one to make his son of his daughter pass through fire to Molech.

And just like that – we see the point, and we see why Alex’s ‘symbolism for eternal torment’ idea does not work in this valley. Two reasons:

1)    The very act that Israel was committing, which was considered abhorrent to God, was burning loved ones alive in the name of other gods. It would be horribly hypocritical of God to abhor and punish Israel for such actions, and then turn around and enact such a punishment Himself.

2)    The rule that this ‘fire’ had over the ravine of Hinnom was temporary. It ended when King Josiah defiled Molech’s temples. If it was an impermanent fire, during a set period of time, then we have no reason to force the idea of an eternal torment into Gehenna’s symbolism.

Alex replies to this with another strange argument:

“My whole point with hell has never been that people are burned alive there (at least, not in a physical sense.) It is a false dichotomy to say that just because one thing is done to the flesh and bones as people breathe that that same thing has to be done to the soul/spirit. In other words, you are severely straw-manning my position. Hell is not a place where people like you and me go to. It is a realm for the dead. The dead are the ones who are tortured and burned. I have to make this distinction because you are either not being clear enough with what you think my position actually is or you are severely erring against my argument.”

This is contradictory to everything Alex has been proclaiming about the word ‘Gehenna’ so far. As my readers will recall, he says that ‘Gehenna’ is the figure for ‘eternal torment,’ and that the ‘Vale of Hinnom’ is a figure for this place of eternal torment.

So… what happened in the Vale of Hinnom? It was, of course, passing children through fire. And, moreover, when Jesus first speaks of Gehenna in the New Testament, it is correlated with fire (Matt. 5:22.) The notion that burning someone would not play a role in this “figurative hell” would be contrary to the very nature of the figure, would it not?

Then Alex made this weird claim that people who go to hell are “dead,” but at the same time their spirit is still alive and carries soulish sensations? And they can feel torture? This is completely unfounded, and never elaborated on, so the burden of proof remains on his side to… well, to provide citations and explain whatever the heck that one means.

Alex continues:

“You clearly did not read the verses I told you to read. Sodom and Gomorrah. Elijah. You know? So your first reason is wrong.”

a)    Whether I read a verse or not does not change the bearing on whether the reason is right or wrong.

b)    God does not state, in either Sodom and Gomorrah’s case, or Elijah’s case, that He plans on eternally tormenting people. In fact, God actually makes the opposite claim concerning Sodom and Gomorrah, in Ez. 16:53-55 – that He will restore Sodom and Gomorrah, just as He will restore the shamed Israelites throughout their own history (which, I believe, would include those whose lives were taken in Elijah’s case as well, thank you.) Again, it is the death that precedes life – it does not consummate it.

Gehenna Part 3: The True Figure For ‘Gehenna’

For Alex: hi, Alex! I pray you’re still with me, and I pray that you’re having a good day, and I pray that the Lord has uncovered your eyes. I understand that you are an intelligent human being, and as such you can very much see that I have now thoroughly proven that there is no reason to assume that this very real location, Gehenna, is somehow figurative for eternal torment. I think you can see it, because you yourself noted much earlier that I’ve given you far more evidence than many, many others on this matter, who have not been able to answer to your objections as concisely as I have.

However, I understand that you still have one major, glaring issue: what is Gehenna symbolic of, then? If it’s not eternal torment, then what is it?

The answer is found in Matt. 23:33, which we covered in the original series of articles. Here is the verse again:

Serpents! Progeny of vipers! How may you be fleeing from the judging of Gehenna?

It is judgment that Gehenna represents. The burning up of the already-dead bodies cannot reflect a punishment, for one thrown into Gehenna is already dead (Luke 12:4-5,) nor can it reflect torment, for… one thrown into Gehenna is already dead (Luke 12:4-5.)

Alex claims that I am being illegitimate again:

“You had issue with me when I conveyed it was a symbol for eternal torment… My objection is that you had issue with making it a symbol but when it is convenient for you, you do that which you accuse me of.”

I will re-affirm here that I did not take issue with the fact that Gehenna is a figure, but with the theory that Gehenna is a figure for eternal torment. The figure exists, but its nature is different. It is not hypocritical to point this out (and it is overwhelmingly helpful that the word “judgment” sits right there in the verse.)

The righteous punishment for sin is death (Rom. 1:32, 6:23.) This death does not have an asterisk that adds “plus liability to somehow maintaining your senses even though your body is incinerated and regenerated at the same time as you experience eternal conscious torment.” This is a forced and twisted conclusion. When God condemns in judgment, He puts to death, not to torture. Mankind puts to torture – not God. It is man’s heart to play with their victims; not God. The doctrine of eternal torment is appealing to the sinful reasoning within man, and no one is just (Rom. 3:10,) which is why all of the unjust find ‘eternal torment’ to be just – they fundamentally do not know any better.

This judgment is also not eternal, for this Gehenna will be dissolved. It will not last, because Peter expressly points out, in 2 Pet. 3:12, that all of the elements will decompose by combustion! Observe:

[remain devout,] hoping for and hurrying the presence of God’s day, because of which the heavens, being on fire, will be dissolved, and the elements decompose by combustion!

This earth will go boom! When it go boom, Gehenna go bye-bye. No more Gehenna, and no ability for anyone to remain liable to Gehenna, having dealt with its judgment!

Kaplooie!

We’re not out of the woodwork on Matt. 23:33, yet. Alex, after telling me he ‘believes Gehenna is a figure for eternal torment,’ then disagrees with the word ‘judging,’ saying,

“Looking at the Concordant, it states that the pharisees ‘won’t be able to escape the judging of Gehenna.’ The word ‘judging’ is interesting, because it indicates a continuous action which is to be taking place in the future.

Meaning? There is continuity to the punishment. And, if there is continuity, it only demonstrates that I am correct, and you are wrong. That’s just how English works. Can’t do much about that.”

Couple of things. First, we should be studying the Greek and its inflection, not the English and its imperfect inflections. English emulates – it is not the root.

Second, I don’t know where Alex gets the idea that ‘judgment’ is perpetual for the pharisees, here. The Greek, unlike the English, has a third voice (called the “middle” voice,) as well as an “aorist” tense (usually not considering ‘time.’) If the word ‘judging,’ krima, held either of these inflections, I would say that Alex has a point.

Of course, this word does not hold these inflections! Alex does point out that the “may you” verb in this verse is in the 2^nd aorist, which is true, but it is in reference to an individual escaping the judgment, not the duration of the judgment itself. With this, we have no grammatical reason to assume that this reference to judgment would be ongoing.

In truth, the only way you could assume that the pharisees’ judgment is perpetual is if you have already pre-supposed that the judgment in view will lead to torment as opposed to death. Hypocrisy, or guesswork? I’ll let my readers decide.

(to be continued)

- GerudoKing