Notes on Hell: Valley of the Son of Hinnom

When Jesus talks about hell, he uses two different words: hades and gehenna.

We've explored the two possible meanings of hades - that Jesus is referring back to the Hebrew idea of sheol, and that Jesus is tapping into the popular cultural beliefs about the afterlife (ie. Greek and Roman tales of hades). It's my observation that Jesus uses both meanings of hades, depending on the point he's trying to make.

With gehenna, we explored the use of the word in context - it seems to be a real place - associated with the idea of judgment. In a previous note we observed that gehenna is Greek word for the Aramaic word for the Hebrew word Valley of Hinnom. So what is this valley and why is it used by Jesus as a place of judgment? What is this hell that Jesus refers to?

If you go to your Old Testament you'll find several interesting references to this Valley of Hinnom. First in Joshua 15:8 and 18:16 we are introduced to the valley, it's a sort of boundary, rather innocuously located at the southern shoulder of Jerusalem. (See also Nehemiah 11:30)

But then in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles we are introduced to a Valley of the Son of Hinnom where kings of Judah are burning their sons and daughters as a sacrifice to the local gods. Not only that but the Valley is a place for sorcery, necromancy, obsession with the dead and knowing the future. It becomes a very evil place.

In 2 Kings 23:6 we read about King Josiah trying to clean up this accursed valley - one polluted by his father and grandfather. "And he defiled Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, that no one might burn his son or his daughter as an offering to Molech." King Josiah had mixed success. His sons did not follow in his steps, nor did they listen to the prophet Jeremiah - who prophesied doom and bloodshed, judgment and destruction for this idolatry and murder."

In 2 Chronicles 28:3 we read about King Ahaz, the great-great grandfather of King Josiah and his introduction of Molech worship in the Valley of Ben Hinnom (Ben is Hebrew for Son): "and he made offerings in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom and burned his sons as an offering, according to the abominations of the nations whom the LORD drove out before the people of Israel."

In 2 Chronicles 33:6 we read about King Mannaseh, the grandson of King Ahaz and the grandfather of King Josiah: "And he burned his sons as an offering in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, and used fortune-telling and omens and sorcery, and dealt with mediums and with necromancers. He did much evil in the sight of the LORD, provoking him to anger."

This is evil stuff. I encourage you to read the whole chapter, read these verses in context. The kings were leading their nations forward into an idolatry that would bring economic havoc on the poor, vile religious prostitution upon women and preying men, association with political entities that subverted Israel's devotion to Torah, and desecration of the Temple, God's holy dwelling place amongst his people. God and neighbor were defiled. Moloch's name sounds a lot like the Hebrew name for king. A perversion of what a true Israelite king was to be doing in the name of God.

So now we know a bit more about the ugly history of Gehenna, of the Valley of the Son of Hinnom. What we also need to learn about is why it became a place to be cast for judgment. The prophet Jeremiah is the one to confront the kings of Judah, to turn them from their wicked ways and unveil to them the consequences of their sins. Three different prophesies against those that do evil in the high places of Topheth in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom:

Jeremiah 7:31-32 "And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind. Therefore, behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when it will no more be called Topheth, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter; for they will bury in Topheth, because there is no room elsewhere."

Jeremiah 19:2, 6 "...and go out to the Valley of the Son of Hinnom at the entry of the Potsherd Gate, and proclaim there the words that I tell you.
 6 therefore, behold, days are coming, declares the LORD, when this place shall no more be called Topheth, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter."

Jeremiah 32:35  "They built the high places of Baal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin."

Read these verses in context, read the chapter (the link is there for your convenience).

A couple of observations: 
Jeremiah renames the Valley of the Son of Hinnom the Valley of Slaughter. It's a place of judgment for Moloch worship, where bodies will be thrown, their corpses will rot in the sun - Babylonian arrows, swords and spears dripping with blood. The nation would be judged - and another nation would be used to do the judging.

There must be consequences when a king and a nation thumb their nose at God, they sacrifice their children in the fires, when the rich indulge in gross luxury while the poor have their noses ground into the dust. How does God turn Israel around? After a few hundred years of sending messengers announcing the need to repent, to return to God and Torah, the LORD had certainly gone out of his way to make his plans known. And still God was ignored. And so God used Babylon to bring an end to the disgrace Israel had become.

We learn that Potsherd Gate led down to the Valley of Hinnom. Some contend that in Jesus' day Gehenna was the town garbage dump. It's become a popular characterization for that valley, but it is unsubstantiated. The legend goes way back to the seventh century, but it can't be verified as true for first century Jerusalem. 

Potsherd Gate would indicate that somewhere in the region of the Hinnom Valley was a dumping place for potsherds. Pottery was used for most cookware and dining. When a jar of clay cracks and is no longer useful, it is cast out through the Potsherd Gate, in the general direction of the Gehenna. We can't verify whether the Valley of Hinnom was the city dump, but we can verify the legacy of that accursed place, the vile stories of burning children as sacrifices, of the Babylonian slaughter, of the judgment.

Becoming familiar with these stories in Kings and Chronicles, and of Jeremiah's sermons regarding the Valley of the Son of Hinnom helps add context to Jesus' use of the Gehenna. Jesus said people were in the danger of "the gehenna of the fire" if they didn't quit being angry and lusting. This is different then going to hell because you don't believe in Jesus.

Interestingly, the teaching on anger and lust are connected to Jesus' teaching on murder and adultery - killing and sex, this is what the Valley of the Son of Hinnom had become known for. Jesus also directed his threats of "the gehenna of the fire" towards the Pharisees - he even calls them sons of hell, or literally "sons of gehenna" or more literally: "sons of the valley of hinnom!" What were the Pharisees doing that induced Jesus to so vehemently denounce their work? It was their leading people astray from God! Which is exactly what the kings of Judah had done with their Molech worship.

Jesus' teaching on hell is rooted in his teaching on Gehenna. Rather then guessing what Gehenna means, we can go to the Old Testament to put the valley in context. Gehenna was a real place with a real history with a real accursedness. To be thrown into that valley was another way of referring to God's judgment brought by the Babylonians in the fifth century. And Jesus had another empire in mind, that would be used by God to judge Israel. Rome was the new Babylon.

Jesus could see where the nation was headed. Their political, economic, and religious leadership were headed towards a clash with Rome that would result in destruction, devastation, slaughter. In 66AD Rome initiated a siege of Jerusalem that resulted in annihalation of many citizens. By 70AD the Romans prevailed, the Temple was razed, and the Valley of the Son of Hinnom once again flowed with blood and bloated corpses.

Jesus came as a prophet, just as Jeremiah did, to turn the nation away from destruction, back to God. It was Babylon for Jeremiah, and Rome for Jesus. And both times the words of the prophet were ignored by the masses. But not all. The remnant that believed Jeremiah survived the slaughter, and endured into the Exile. And the remnant Jews that believed Jesus were the first and second generation Christians who heeded their Lord's words to both forgive their enemy and flee the slaughter. Gehenna was much more about the political, economic, religious and national judgment of God upon Israel then it is about a comprehensive teaching on hell.

Notes on Hell: Gehenna

There are four basic words in the Bible that form our understanding of hell - sheol in Hebrew, hades and tartarus in Greek, and the Aramaic word gehenna. (Click here for notes on those words.) The KJV translate these words as hell. When you explore these words in their original language and cultural context, they seem to all have different nuances. What is gehenna and how is it different from the other words?

Listed below is the references where gehenna is used by Jesus according to Young’s Literal Translation.

Following each given reference will be a commentary on how gehenna is used in this context.

Matthew 5:22 

but I -- I say to you, that every one who is angry at his brother without cause, shall be in danger of the judgment, and whoever may say to his brother, Empty fellow! shall be in danger of the sanhedrim, and whoever may say, Rebel! shall be in danger of the gehenna of the fire.

This first reference is found in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. In this particular pericope he is discussing the Torah teaching on murder. Not only will murder put you in danger of the judgment, so will being angry with your brother without cause. What are two examples of the judgment? the Sanedrim and the Gehenna of the Fire. So what does this tell us about gehenna? It's a place of judgment for those that murder and are angry without cause, comparable to that of the Sanhedrim (the 70 elders of Israel, the ruling council for observance of Torah). Since there is not much of a difference between the words "Empty Fellow!" and "Rebel" - they are mere examples of being angry with your brother without cause; it's hard to argue that there is much of a difference between judgment with Sanedrim and Gehenna of the Fire.


Matthew 5:29-30

`But, if thy right eye doth cause thee to stumble, pluck it out and cast from thee, for it is good to thee that one of thy members may perish, and not thy whole body be cast to gehenna. 30 `And, if thy right hand doth cause thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast from thee, for it is good to thee that one of thy members may perish, and not thy whole body be cast to gehenna.

This second usage of gehenna is also used by Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount, this time in his teaching on adultery. Looking at a woman lustfully is equated as adultery. How serious is Jesus about his disciples and Pharisees in accepting this teaching? He uses hypberbolic language to capture their imagination. Lust is about imagination, and so Jesus gives them images of gouged out eyes and hacked off hands as preventative measures for lusting and committing adultery. Jesus argues that it is better to use an eyeball or a limb then to have your whole body thrown into gehenna. Jesus isn't using literal language here - amputation doesn't stop adultery. Neither does the threat of gehenna. But Jesus promises that there will be judgment on the men who oppress women through their lusting and adultery.


Matthew 10:28

`And be not afraid of those killing the body, and are not able to kill the soul, but fear rather Him who is able both soul and body to destroy in gehenna.

In this third use of gehenna Jesus is instructing his disciples just prior to sending out the twelve to proclaim the gospel and heal the sick. Part of his instructions include a warning about impending persecution. He tells them to not be afraid of those who will persecute them. 

Here's how Jesus' logic goes: don't be afraid of those who persecute. IF you were going to be afraid of suffering, be afraid of God who can destroy your body and soul in gehenna. But God cares for you, so you don't have to be afraid of God destroying you in gehenna. Therefore you don't have to be afraid of those who can kill your body. What do we learn here about gehenna here? It's a place of destruction of body and soul, that God is the one that sends people there. And that Jesus' followers have nothing to fear about gehenna.


Matthew 18:9

`And if thine eye doth cause thee to stumble, pluck it out and cast from thee; it is good for thee one-eyed to enter into the life, rather than having two eyes to be cast to the gehenna of the fire.

This is another reference to gehenna by Jesus, similar to his usage in the Sermon on the Mount. Interestingly, instead of adultery being the context, it's being the cause for a child or young disciple to stumble. How serious is Jesus about people not being a cause for stumbling? First he says it's better for you to have a millstone hung around your neck and being cast into the depths of the sea. So the judgment of gehenna of the fire is compared with judgment of tossed into the chaotic sea. It's not a description of two different kinds of judgment, but a graphic attempt to make the same point. Do. Not. Cause. Kids. To. Stumble.


Matthew 23:15

`Wo to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye go round the sea and the dry land to make one proselyte, and whenever it may happen -- ye make him a son of gehenna twofold more than yourselves.

Matthew 23:33

`Serpents! brood of vipers! how may ye escape from the judgment of the gehenna?

In this powerful sermon against the Pharisees, Jesus declares seven Woes upon these religious leaders of Israel. It seems that he is purposefully drawing upon the imagery of the Old Testament Valley of Hinnom. You can read about it some in Jeremiah 7, 19, & 32. The old name of the landmark was Valley of the Son of Hinnom, south and west of Jerusalem. And in the one example, Jesus says that the Pharisees, by making proselytes, are making foreigners a Son of Hinnom even more than themselves. And in the second example, the idea of judgment is clearly linked with the idea of gehenna, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom. Reading the prophet Jeremiah's words to Israel give great context about what is the nature and purpose of gehenna. That is next week's lesson!

Mark 9:43

`And if thy hand may cause thee to stumble, cut it off; it is better for thee maimed to enter into the life, than having the two hands, to go away to the gehenna, to the fire -- the unquenchable --

Mark 9:45

`And if thy foot may cause thee to stumble, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into the life lame, than having the two feet to be cast to the gehenna, to the fire -- the unquenchable --

Mark 9:47-48

And if thine eye may cause thee to stumble, cast it out; it is better for thee one-eyed to enter into the reign of God, than having two eyes, to be cast to the gehenna of the fire -- where their worm is not dying, and the fire is not being quenched;

The usage of gehenna here is an expanded teaching of the same material found in Matthew 18:9 about causing children to stumble. In Mark's version of the teaching, the threat of gehenna and to the fire is repeated three times. Jesus, in this case, doesn't want anyone to doubt how serious he is about this issue of causing children to stumble.

Jesus does something interesting here - highlighting the connection between gehenna and fire - with the the fire, the idea of it being unquenchable. This is an obvious allusion to Isaiah 66:24, which is quoted in part in Mark 9:48. The description of judgment in Isaiah 66 matches the kind of judgment that Jeremiah prophesies will happen in the Valley of Hinnom, gehenna. Jesus is not attempting to give literal descriptions of what gehenna is like, but rather link the kind of judgment that will come down upon those who cause children to stumble - the judgment will be like that which God brings down upon Israel through the nation of Babylon as prophesied by Isaiah. And we know from history that Rome was used by God to judge Israel, much like Babylon had been almost six hundred years earlier.


Luke 12:5

but I will show to you, whom ye may fear; Fear him who, after the killing, is having authority to cast to the gehenna; yes, I say to you, Fear ye Him.

This singular usage by Jesus in Luke's account is similar to that of Matthew 10:28, but here used in a set of warnings and encouragement to his disciples in the midst of the crowds of thousands who gathered around Jesus.


James 3:6

and the tongue [is] a fire, the world of the unrighteousness, so the tongue is set in our members, which is spotting our whole body, and is setting on fire the course of nature, and is set on fire by the gehenna.

James, the brother of Jesus, is writing to Hebrew Christians about the dangers of the tongue. Like his brother, James knows how to use graphic language to capture imaginations and make his point. Everyone, especially teachers, will be judged for their use of the tongue. How many times have our words brought punishment on ourselves? The tongue can be a powerful tool for good, but it can also be a pervasive weapon of destruction - both for our own bodies and those around us. James effectively makes his point in his use of gehenna.


In all of these uses of gehenna, it is not obvious that Jesus is referring to an afterlife. The word gehenna is clearly connected the idea of judgment, but the idea of judgment is not obviously tied in these verses to an afterlife event. In context, Jesus makes a connection between actions now and the resulting consequences to come in this life. Just as the Valley of Hinnom became a real symbol of judgment in the lifetime of those who heard Jeremiah preach about it, so many of Jesus' listeners were around when Rome made the Valley of Hinnom once again a place of judgment.

An exploration next week will examine the Old Testament references to gehenna, or the Valley of Hinnom. This will help us keep Jesus usage of gehenna in context. To be sure, Jesus was serious about people changing their actions, about fueling their imagination with graphic details to compel them to repent and act righteously. The threat of gehenna did not come across to those first readers like the threat of hell is used in our modern age. The threat of gehenna meant something different then. And we'd be wise to consider what the threat of gehenna meant then so that we can better understand what it is to mean today.

My Review of Love Wins: Chapter Five

Dying to Live. 
Or, What Happened When Jesus Died On the Cross?
These are the themes of the chapter, the first is the title, the second is the key question.

The book is about heaven and hell and the fate of every who ever lived. What happened to Jesus on the cross, and what we believe about Jesus and what happened on the cross often become the key components of whether we end up in heaven or hell. So it's kind of important for us to examine what did happen on the cross, according to the Scriptures - and consider what we ought to believe about it. And how we ought to live in light of it.

In this chapter, Rob first explores how the New Testament described what happened to Jesus on the cross. Or, what Jesus did for us, or what God did for us, through the cross. Then Rob talks about resurrection, and then connects it to crucifixion. This leads to a summary of what it means for us today.

Rob opens with a story of seeing a cross hanging around Eminem's neck at a concert. What did this mean? It was a comeback concert of sorts. Was the cross a symbol - representing the death of the old Eminem and the arrival of the new? Rob is pointing out that the cross has come to mean many things - thus we gotta go back to the Scriptures to see what the original writers insisted happened on the cross.

The first idea he explores is that of animal sacrifice. The Hebrews, along with almost all of the other religions in the world, included animal sacrifice as part of their worship. God gave specific instructions to the Hebrews for their animal sacrifices which set them a part from the other nations. But the Jewish Christians saw in Jesus the end of animal sacrifice. In the Hebrews, a letter in the Bible to Jewish Christians, the writer says: Jesus "has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself." (123)

If your religion, if your way of relating to God, if your way of pleasing God and atoning for (or covering over) your sins had been tied up in animal sacrifices, it was a very radical notion to believe that what happened on the cross through Jesus means no more slaughtered lambs. This would open up a new way to relate to God. Instead of through butchered bulls, it was through a human, Jesus, that we could find favor with God. His death on the cross, his blood poured out as an atoning sacrifice for the world. This was less about the hassle of slitting goat necks and more about how to relate to God.

I think Rob highlights this example of what happened on the cross because it is central to our understanding of atonement. It's how many religions viewed atonement - through animal sacrifice. It's how the Hebrew people understood it. And most of the early Christians were Hebrews. But this isn't the only way that people talked about atonement, of how Jesus covered over our sins. They use other language - language that is connected to this sacrificial event, but it also points in new directions.

Rob points out what Paul wrote in his letter to the Colossians: "that through the cross God was reconciling 'to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.'" (125). So now we have two metaphors to describe what happened on the cross - Jesus is the end of the sacrificial system, and he is the one who reconciles us to God.

Rob then takes us to another one of Paul's letters where we hear language about justification. We learn that what happened on the cross resulted in being "justified by grace through faith in Jesus." (126) It's courtroom language to describe the effects of Jesus's sacrificial death on the cross and his reconciling us to God.

In another of Paul's letters to his friend Timothy, he writes that Jesus has "destroyed death" (126). He notes that John writes that "this is the victory that has overcome the world." (126). These are war and battle metaphors to describe what happened on the cross. And then there is Paul writing to the Ephesians that "We have redemption through his blood." (127) This is an economic term, added to the usage of the military term, and the legal term, and the relational term, and the religious sacrificial term.

"So, back to the question: What happened on the cross?"

Obviously Rob is pointing out that different metaphors and terms were used to describe one event. All the ideas mentioned in Scripture inter-relate. Rob is wanting us to become familiar with all the terms. Why? Because in some Christian circles there is what he thinks is over-emphasis on penal substitutionary atonement. This emphasizes that on the cross Jesus was a substitutionary sacrifce for us, paying our penalty of death so that we might live with God for eternity. Of course this is true, and it is an important theory of atonement, but it's not the only way to describe what happened on the cross.

So why are there different explanations of what happened on the cross? Rob is going to insist that those first Christians, as they preached about Jesus, about his death and resurrection, that they used different metaphors to try and help people understand what happened. They used metaphors from the sacrificial system, for the economic system, from the legal system, from the military system, etc.

Rob says that different ages and cultures of Christianity have emphasized different metaphors. The early church, being mostly Hebrews, used the sacrificial metaphors heavily for obvious reasons. The author of Hebrews is able to go all the way back to Torah to connect how Jesus is the fulfillment of the sacrificial system God set up long ago. But then, according to Rob, the church shifted to the "victory in battle" (128) metaphor, emphasizing that Jesus had conquered death.

So now, in our age, when we don't do animal sacrifices anymore, and through medicine have conquered death in ways, is there another metaphor from Scriptures that we can highlight that will resonate with our culture today? Well all of them can still relate in some way, and that is the point. Actually, Rob goes on to say that Jesus is the point.

Rob transitions from his summary of what happened on the cross to teach us about what happened because of resurrection. He will argue that resurrection is "a symbol of elemental reality." (131) This is not a commonly held perspective. In fact, Rob declares that for those first Christians, it wasn't the miracle of resurrection that amazed them, but what resurrection represented. Rob insists that resurrection is "not a new idea." (130). That'll make some Christians gasp!

He points to nature, the turning of leaves, the changing of the seasons. "Death gives way to life. A seed has to be buried in the ground before it can rise up from out of the earth as new life" (130). As Rob explains it, the resurrection of Jesus wasn't a stumbling block to most people. Most people, so it seems, had no problem believing in resurrection because that is "how the world works." (131). So, then, what is the value in resurrection, for Rob?

Rob uses the storytelling of the author of John's Gospel to help explain the meaning behind resurrection. We know that in John's Gospel different events are marked as a sign. Rob takes us through the different signs that make up the storyline of John's Gospel. The seventh sign is the raising of Lazarus from the dead. The way John tells the story, it is very compelling. Each of the stories associated with the signs is fascinating. But then there is one more sign, an eighth sign - Jesus being raised from the dead. What does this mean?

Rob connects the seven signs of John's Gospel to the seven days of creation. If there is an eighth sign, what day is that then? It's "the first day of the new week, the first day of the new creation." (133) Resurrection itself wasn't the point - it was to point to something bigger - something God was doing in the world through Jesus. The stumbling block wasn't about whether you believed in resurrection or not - the stumbling block was whether you believed that "God has inaugurated a movement in Jesus's resurrection to renew, restore, and reconcile everything 'on earth or in heaven' just as God originally intended it." (134)

Part of the point Rob wants to make is that cross and resurrection is not just about people, it's not just about us having a relationship with God. It is that, but it is more than that - it's a God centered movement for all creation. We are saved from sin and death, but the story is bigger and grander than that. The cross and resurrection are about what God is doing in the world - and people who respond in love are part of that work - but it is not only about people.

When Rob referred to the resurrection as a symbol of elemental reality, this is part of what he's trying to get at:

...the cross and resurrection are personal. This cosmic event has everything to do with how every single one of us lives every single day. It is a pattern, a rhythm, a practice, a reality rooted in the elemental realities of creation, extending to the very vitality of our soul. (135)
When we say yes to God, when we open ourselves to Jesus' living, giving act on the cross, we enter into a way of life. He is the source, the strength, the example, and the assurance that this pattern of death and rebirth is the way into the only kind of life that actually sustains and inspires. (136)

Cross and resurrection as a pattern for life. Jesus tells us to take up our cross and follow him. To repent of our sins, to "leave behind the old ways." (136). We die to our self so that Jesus can pour new life into us. Our letting go of pride, the need to be right, rebellion, stubbornness makes room for what Jesus has to give.

"When we cling with white knuckles to our sins and our hostility, we're like a tree that won't let its leaves go. There can't be a spring if we're still stuck in the fall." (136)

Rob seeks to connect the spiritual realities of the cross and resurrection together, and then to connect them to the elemental realities of life: "Lose your life and find it, he says. That's how the world works. That's how the soul works. That's how life works when you're dying to live." (136)


The theologian in me wants to summarize Rob's chapter using clearly defined theological categories. What is Rob's theology of atonement? Salvation? Sin? It should be obvious at this point that Rob is not writing to scholarly theologians.

He is writing to cynical individuals who have deep questions about reality, about how God and Jesus fit into our post-modern world of technology, science, medicine, and violence. Rob is seeking to connect these skeptics and searchers with compelling elements of the Gospel, bypassing the oft contentious arguments about science vs. religion, are miracles real, and is the Bible a piece of propaganda?

Is this chapter highly controversial? Yes. Does it leave many theological questions unanswered? Yes. Does it cause conservative Christians to squirm at Rob's explanation of the elemental realities of the cross and resurrection? Yes. Does it cause liberal Christians to squirm at his insistence of the reality of the cross and resurrection? Yes. Does Rob create a compelling bridge for cynics with profound questions? Yes.

Who/What/Where Is God? Creation

You have questions for God. 
And about God.

Where can you go for answers?
Or better questions?

The History Channel can be an interesting source. Your buddy at work can be a good sounding board. Maybe another Christian you know who you like. But there just isn't any substitute for actually opening up your Bible and reading it.

There are plenty of people out there who can pick apart the Scriptures, pointing out all the violence, conflicting stories, and legalistic tomes. By not taking the Scriptures very seriously, it's easy to mock them or disregard them. But if you are interested about what you can learn about God from the Scriptures, there is hope. There is a way of reading the Bible that allows you to take the stories seriously, to take your own life seriously, to take your questions seriously.

This series of posts is designed to help you get to know your Bible better - and God. By taking the stories seriously, in context, it will help us navigate our way through our questions. Questions are good. Finding answers is hard, but worth it. You'll know how much you want better answers by how hard you're willing to look. And keep looking.

The Christian Bible is made up of two parts: the Old Testament and the New Testament. If you want to get to know God, you've got to start in the beginning. There are 39 books in the OT, and it's not always the easiest literature to read - some of it is over three thousand years old. But to get us started with the stories we find there, I've summarized them into five big stories. These are the stories that the Israelites passed down to us through the ages: stories of Creation, Covenant, Exodus, Kingdom, and Exile.

When we start at the beginning of the Old Testament (some call it the First Testament) we find ourselves reading the book of Genesis. In the first eleven chapters we find some unique stories that reveal to us how Israel viewed their God and the whole universe in which they found themselves. The big story of Creation is made up of smaller stories about the origins of the universe, an accounting for evil in the world, God's judgment for wickedness and rebellion.

In our post-modern era, we read this Creation stories and either a snicker or we close the book in bewilderment. With all we've learned through science about the galaxies and our Earth, about anatomy and social sciences, is there anyway that these stories in Genesis are true? We don't have to pit science against religion! Here's a fascinating piece below on how vast and grand is our universe:



First things: these Creation stories in Genesis are Israel's stories they told about God and the universe. Three thousand or more years ago, as they sat around their campfires under the Milky Way, they told and retold the stories of where they came from.

The stories you tell are powerful - and these stories in Genesis are compelling. The human body is an amazing, complicated...what? Creation? Machine? Something rings true when we acknowledge that there is something unique and gifted about the human being. We were created - specially designed with a purpose. We are not just biological machines. The vast cosmos - the best theory we have besides a Creator is the Big Bang. Either one takes faith. A story about a worldwide flood and the spread of languages - those stories teach us about how the Israelites understood God's work amidst evil people and nations. We still wonder - will God deal with evil societies, evil nations, evil corporations?

Second things: we can learn about God from these Creation stories. They are the stories we have, passed down through the years, about who God is and how he works in the world. We may not always like the stories, but they are what we have to work with. And they work. Unless you want simplistic answers for life and God.


When we think of the Big Story of Creation, here are some things we can learn about life and God:
The stories teach us - One God created sky, earth, sea, animals and humanity – and it is all good.
Amidst pagan nations that believed in a multiplicity of gods and goddesses, this was a radical notion. The other gods are "no-gods" compared to Israel's God. Creation did not come from the warring factions of Canaanite warrior gods. Creation is not a senseless roar of chaos. Israel's story of Creation is radically refreshing once you read it in context. One God, who creates as a gift, who declares it all good. That's a good story to live by.


The stories also teach us - Humanity is capable of goodness and rebellion - we bring curses upon ourselves and the world.

People are not just a mass to be herded and conquered. God created a man and a woman - and declared them to be good. He gave them good work to do, work that would cause the world to flourish. The fruitfulness of humanity would make for a blossoming world. Isn't that a great story? But how to account for life as we know it? It's as if this good world is cursed? And these first stories reveal how we bring these curses upon ourselves. God gives instructions for blessing the world, and the first humans rebel. Rebelling always leads to corruption. We know this to be true still today. We have something good, and then we ruin it. And yet God can still bring good out of it.
That's another good story to live by.


Some characters we read about in these first eleven chapters of Genesis, in this big story of Creation:
Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden - temptation, blaming, shame, judgment
Israel passes on to us stories about reality, about how people when given something good, still have a way of giving into temptation and abusing the gift, of blaming others when things go wrong, of holding on to shame and letting it subvert our life, of how we judge others unfairly. We can argue how scientifically the Garden of Eden story is untrue, or we can observe how the Garden of Eden story with Adam and Eve is still true.


Cain & Abel: East of Eden - anger, crouching sin, murder, judgment
Israel preserves a story about two brothers - the first brothers - and their relationship to each other and God. We'd like an inspiring story - instead we get a raw one fueled by all to common anger. Anger doesn't always make much sense, and it rarely makes things better. The crouching sin gets passed on to the next generation, but becoming more extreme. The death promised to Adam and Eve for eating of the fruit was experienced first by their son. The sins of the parents do get passed on. Cain was exiled to life East of the Garden of Eden, in the wilderness. We still know what it's like to wreck our life, to see others get banned for their sins. This story of Cain and Able is still true, isn't it?


Noah & Nimrod: A Good, Cursed Earth - floods and towers, remnant righteous and mass rebellion, intervention, judgment.

An ark full of animals makes for great images in the newborn's nursery, but it's really a terrible story of judgment. God regrets having made humanity. Israel tells the story that God started over again with Noah - a direct ancestor of Israel. We can focus on the scientific data of a real global flood, or we can explore what it meant for Israel to retell this story of Noah and the flood. Nimrod and the tower? We still build towers? We still seek to transcend languages so that we can collaborate to build bigger and more amazing structures. And it's still often done with no regard for God - or in defiance of him. Some stories are still true...

Here is a link to the sermonnotes for some more information and study-questions.

To read the big story of Creation requires you to submit yourself to the text, to the cultural context in which it was written. To get something out of it, you must first learn what those first audiences got out of it. It's not easy to glean wisdom from the Bible. But then it's not always easy to get wisdom from life. Sometimes we want our lessons to come to us conveniently. Life doesn't work that way. And neither does learning about God from the Bible. It's hard work, but it's good work.

What are the questions you have about the Creation stories?

Who/What/Where Is God?

Most everybody has questions about God.

Part of growing up is learning to ask better questions.

When there are big questions about God, - who is he, what is he like, where is he in the world - Christians would obviously point to the Scriptures for some answers.

Christians commonly refer to the Hebrew Scriptures as the Old Testament. This is to distinguish it from what we call the New Testament. We consider both Testaments to be Holy Scripture, authoritative for our life. Those two Testaments are our primary documents for discerning the nature of God and his work in our world. There are other ways to learn about God, but they all flow from what is revealed in the Scriptures.

Not only do most people have big questions for God, they also have a low regard for the Bible. It's common these days to distrust the Scriptures. There is a lot of fuzzy thinking about the origins of the Old Testament, and lots of suspicion about who wrote the New Testament, why it was written, and how it is often used today to control people. Which all adds to a general abandonment of reading the Bible to learn about God. And this makes it real hard to know anything about God.

Fortunately there are better ways to think about the Bible.

One helpful way is to start with the Hebrew Scriptures and think of them as Israel's big stories about God. Whether you believe the stories to be true or not is beside the point. The Old Testament is a record of stories compiled over many centuries, stories about Israel and their relationship with God. It's not propaganda - some of the stories are pretty embarrassing towards God and Israel. It's not barbarian fiction - there is plenty of archaeological evidence to back up events and places. It's not ancient religious prattle - this is sophisticated poetry, compelling narratives, and intriguing compilations of laws and regulations.

By approaching the Old Testament as Israel's stories about God, it allows us to read the stories at face value. It's not about pitting them against science or history or modern notions of religion. It's allowing the stories to speak for themselves and reveal to us what they believed about God and his work in the world. 

There are several different ways to summarize the big stories of the Old Testament - I've focused on these five:
Creation
Covenant
Exodus
Kingdom
Exile

Each story connects with the next, with specific people taking on significant roles. Fascinating characters who, when you are honest, kind of remind you of people today. Though the stories are very, very old, and contextually there is often some work we have to do to understand ancient Sumerian, Canaanite or Babylonian culture, people are people. What we learn about God and his interactions and instructions to people back then will often seem to have a very pertinent application to our life today. 

This series of posts will help you connect the dots on people and events you may be familiar with in the Bible. If you don't know much of anything about the Bible, this will be a helpful introduction to the big themes and stories that can still capture our imaginations today.

What are some of the big questions you have about God and the Bible and Christianity and Faith?

My Review of Love Wins: Chapter Four

Does God get what God wants?

That's the first big question of the chapter.
And the last big question of the chapter is:  
Do we get what we want?

Yes. To both. But not a simple yes, rather a tension, drama-full yes.

Rob is going to make a case from Scripture that God "wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." [1Timothy 2]

And so the big question of the chapter: Does God get what God wants? Or in the end, "will God shrug God-sized shoulders and say, 'You can't always get what you want.'" (103)

It is pointed out in Luke 15 that "the God Jesus teaches us about doesn't give up until everything that was lost is found. This God simply doesn't give up. Ever." (101) Rob insists that God accomplishes what he purposes to do, and that the Scriptures point to a God who "will be united and reconciled with all people." (100)

Some will say, though, that we only have this lifetime on planet Earth to make a decision that will effect our eternal life in heaven or hell. They emphasize the nature of love - that it requires freedom. (103) God allows people to choose, God allows people to get what they want. If people want God in this life, they will get him in the next; if they don't want God in this life, why would they want him in the next? And thus there will be eternal reward for those that love God in this life and eternal torture for those that didn't love God in this lifetime.

Though this has been the majority view, Rob goes on to point out other perspectives Christians have held to over the years. Some, like C.S. Lewis, proposed the idea that a person's humanity just ebbs away after refusing to love God in this life and the next. A few have suggested that we maybe God gives us a second chance after death. Or endless chances, believing that "the love of God will melt every hard heart." (107)

What Rob will do then in the rest of the chapter is increase the tension between believing that both God and people get what they want, that "love, then, wins and all will be reconciled to God." (109) Rob upholds the free-will nature of love, that God allows people to reject him, but also that God never stops inviting people to repent - in this life or the next.

At the heart of this proposal is a focus on three main texts - here's how Rob writes it:

And so beginning in the early church, there is a long tradition of Christians who believe that God will ultimately restore everything and everybody because Jesus says in Matthew 19 that there will be a "renewal of all things", Peter says in Acts 3 that Jesus will "restore everything", and Paul says in Colossians 1 that through Christ God was pleased "to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven." (107)

Because there are Eastern Church Fathers who upheld a belief in the reconciliation of all things and people, and these three texts as well as the one initially referenced in 1Timothy 2 are in the Scriptures, Rob wants Christians to be gracious to one another when it comes to the eternal destiny of mankind. He points out that within the Christian texts and tradition there has always been "that vast a range of perspectives" (110), and that "one has to admit that it is fitting, proper, and Christian to long for it." (111)

It's Rob's way of saying that he could be wrong, or that you could be wrong. Either way, we're still Christians, we're still Christ-centered, and we can still accept one another. The problem can arise when one group of Christians are convinced they are right and that the other group is wrong - even heretical. Interestingly, the early Eastern Church was more reluctant than the Western church to condemn and declare an idea heretical. And it is in the Eastern Church fathers that we find more openness to the idea that through Christ God will save everyone.

In chapter three Rob argued that the purpose of hell was correction, that it was form of judgment intended to bring about repentance. In this chapter Rob is arguing that the correction and judgment will be effective - not because of the torture but because of God's love for them and how he works in their heart. Rob is insisting that those who go to hell when they die will not stay there because of what Christ accomplished on the cross. Since love requires free will, God will not force his love on people, nor will he ratchet up the torture to coerce confession. Rather the emphasis seems to be on letting people live out the consequences of their actions - both in this life and the next, while at the same time being continually loved by a God who doesn't ever give up. As the Apostle Paul says, "Love never fails."

The chapter ends with an overview of Revelation - a book of the Bible that is highly influential on people's understanding of heaven and hell, who is in and who is out. It's a book "written by a real pastor in a real place to a real congregation going through very real suffering." "At the heart of the letter he paints a picture for them of God acting decisively to restrain evil and conquer all who trample on the innocent and the good." "But the letter doesn't end with blood and violence." (112)

Here is Rob's three summarys about the final two chapters of the book - and the Bible: 
 "God must say about a number of acts and to those who would continue them: not here you won't." (113)
He also observes that the gates of the New Jerusalem will be open. He wonders if this implies that for those that continue to choose hell in the next life, God keeps the gates open, that repentance will always be an option. "Will everybody be saved, or will some perish apart from God for ever because of their choices? Those are tensions we are free to leave fully intact. (115)
Finally, "God announces, 'I am making everything new.' That is what God love does. It speaks new words into the world and into us." (115-116) This leaves open the possibility for God to do a new thing - even for people in hell.

In Revelation, death and Hades (hell) get thrown into the "lake of fire." Rob doesn't really ever explore what is this lake. It's a metaphor for something. The end of hell? The end of the judgment and correction? The end of wickedness? The beginning of something new? The emphasis has been on the torturous nature of the "lake of fire." But what if is supposed to emphasize a cleansing, much like a raging forest fire is necessary for an old forest to become renewed? It's this kind of direction that Rob seems to be pointing.

His final paragraph:

That's how love works. It can't be forced, manipulated, or coerced. It always leaves room for the other to decide. God says yes, we can have what we want, because love wins.

Rob seems to believe that people get a second chance, that hell is corrective, that people choose their own hell now and then, he thus also believes that God seeks to save people from their sins both now and then. God's love compels him to rescue people from their hell now, and their hell in the life to come. 

God will give people as much time as it takes for them to repent. He'll let them live with the consequences of their sins as long as they want. When they're ready to turn around and love God and neighbor, he'll be there to help them start over again. So love wins - love waits, but love also actively works. Love is both the end and the means.


Where Rob is most vulnerable in this chapter is his interpretation of Scriptures. To keep the book accessible to a wide audience, he can't do thorough exegesis of each Scripture he points to that supports his ideas. And he can't address every Scripture that would seem to undermine or challenge his suggestions. For those who don't know their Bible well, his use of Scriptures may or may not be helpful. For those that do know their Scriptures - well, it's up to them to do their own comparing and contrasting.

Rob is a savvy writer and pastor - part of his argument hinges on people considering the consequences of their own life now. As they consider whether or not they believe in hell or a loving God, he's attempting to get them to look at their life now. It's not really about whether a loving God sends billions of people to a torture cell for a billion years. The real issue is that you have to live with the consequences of your actions. 

For Rob, speculating about heaven and hell distracts you from actually becoming the kind of person who loves God and neighbor. God is holy, God is just, God is righteous, God is lots of things - including love. And the Great Commandment is not "Be holy as I am holy." It's not, Be without sin as I am without sin. It is: Love God and love your neighbor. And love always perseveres. And thus it is permissible for Rob to point people to a God who doesn't quit in this life or the next.

A logical response to this chapter and idea: what if Rob is wrong? What if it is only in this life? What if people read this chapter and decide to procrastinate on making a decision for Christ because they think they can repent in the next? What if more people go to hell because of Rob's book? What if Rob is leading people astray by this teaching? Is the risk worth it if Rob is wrong?

This a very Evangelical Christianity kind of question. And so it's true - he could be wrong. But since it's mostly American evangelicals that will be reading this book, and since most American evangelicals aren't actually evangelizing, the concerns of American Evangelicals may not be so warranted. I don't like it when Rob uses a straw man to support his arguments, and I don't like it when others use a straw man to undermine Rob's points.

Rob is reaching out to people who already have rejected some form of Evangelical Christianity. And in doing so have left behind church, a vibrant faith, and some even their faith in God. They are already doomed to hell, according to American Evangelicals. Rob is trying to help them find a new way to connect to the God of the Scriptures - which is a very Evangelical thing to do. For Rob, everything centers on Christ - that's very orthodox. But for Rob, he doesn't hold to the Evangelical version of hell - and that's unacceptable for many.

So how great is the risk? Would you stop evangelizing if people didn't stay in hell forever? Would you cease to invite friends to church if you knew that in Christ all will someday go to heaven? Would you stop encouraging people to follow the way of Jesus if you knew that God has already forgiven all our sins? Would you quit reading your Bible and neglect growing in Christian maturity if you knew that God would let you into heaven anyway?

My Review of Love Wins: Chapter Three

Hell is real.

That's my initial summary of the third chapter in Love Wins. For Rob Bell, as he works his way through the whole Scriptures, hell is real for Jesus.

Not only is hell real, it is a real experience that begins now, in this lifetime, for far too many people. It can be an individual experience, or it can be the torment of a whole society. For Jesus, hell is a future destination for those that refuse to repent from their sins - for those individuals who stubbornly live according to the evil in their hearts - for those societies that fuel chaos and corruption. It's a future destination as soon as tomorrow - and as far away as the day of your death.

Hell, for Rob, is a consequence for our sins. Jesus makes that really clear. But it also seems to be clear in Scripture that God intends consequences to be corrective. God brings judgment and punishment to us for the consequences of our sins so that their might be repentance and restoration. And Rob deduces that God purposes the same for the experience of hell - in this lifetime and in the one to come.

The chapter gets broken down into two main sections: an exploration of the Scriptures that explicitly refer to the place of hell. The second section refers to those Scriptures that are clearly about judgment and punishment, but don't mention hell. In his summary of this Scriptures, Rob is searching for what is the revealed purpose of hell, who goes there, and where is it.

In the first section he briefly examines the Hebrew word Sheol and then the Greek words Gehenna, Tartarus, and Hades. These are often translated as hell in the KJV and most modern translations. Rob comments that Sheol and Hades carry similar connotations - a murky underworld, a dark abode of spirits of some sort. The Hebrews are very imprecise about the nature of Sheol, mostly using words like grave and pit to describe it. The Greeks have a vivid and rich mythology surrounding Hades and Tartarus, but at the end of the day, it is netherworld of sorts for all people like Sheol.

Then there is Gehenna - the real place known as the Valley of Hinnom on the south and west side of Jerusalem. Rob focuses on the legend that Gehenna is the city dump. This is an unproven theory. What is known specifically is that it was the place of child-sacrifice by Jewish kings where they burned up in the fires a son or daughter to idols. Their practices were an abomination to God and the cause for threats of impending judgment and punishment. Rob would have been better off citing the Scriptures own reference to the Valley of Hinnom as a valley of graves, a place of slaughter, a place of curses with a legacy of abominations and wickedness.

Those are the references to hell - only one of them points to a real place, the others point to ideas that get loosely translated as the grave. A far cry from the vivid imagery we've come to believe about the terrible flames of hell that are the dancefloor for a prancing devil with his pointy tail and jabbing pitchfork.

Rob asks: How should we think, or not think, about hell? (70)

He is not about to waver from a belief in hell. He challenges those who say they don't believe in hell or that are uncomfortable with the idea of sin. "My first response is to ask, 'Have you ever sat and talked with a family who just found out their child has been molested? Repeatedly? Over a number of years? By a relative?' Some words are strong for a reason. We need those words to be that intense, loaded, complex, and offensive because they need to reflect the realities they describe." (72)

This is an important point for Rob: the repulsiveness of hell is intended to reflect the repulsiveness of our own personal and collective sins. We are repulsed by a notion of hell as punishment - but Jesus intends for us to see how repulsive is our individual sins and the chaos of cultures in decay. We need detestable visions of hell to help us see the detestable nature of our unconfessed and stubborn sins. They wound and hurt others - and hell helps us imagine the consequences for us, for how our sins ruin others.

Sure Jesus uses hyperbole. Cutting off limbs will not prevent more lusting. But it makes the point. And so do the Lord's hyperbolic descriptions of hell. Rob uses the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus as an example of this. The point of the parable isn't to describe the literal physical features of hell, but to point out the consequences of not loving one's neighbor. God will judge and punish those who don't love their neighbor. The rich, though they consider themselves blessed, will be punished for their refusal to love their poor neighbors. And Jesus reminds them of this old prophetic theme by using imagery of Hades.

There are individual hells, and communal, society-wide hells,
and Jesus teaches us to take both seriously.
There is hell now, and there is hell later,
and Jesus teaches us to take both seriously. (79)

This is really the point of the chapter - pointing to ethical behavior that reflects the heart of Jesus' teachings to the disciples and Pharisees and anyone else who would listen.

The second part of the chapter focuses on those passages about judgment and punishment. Before he gets into specific Scriptures, he makes two observations that will help keep this whole conversation in context. He discusses the political context of Jesus' teachings, as well as the religious audience to whom most of his words about hell and judgment and punishment were directed.

Judgment and punishment for not loving one's neighbor, for Israel rejecting the Messiah, for individuals not embracing God's way of peace and insisting on resistance to Rome - this all came to pass in 70AD. Jesus' warnings had "now" implications. To reject him, to not repent of their sins, to continue in their rebellion to God's ways would lead them to a confrontation with Rome which result in their destruction. Slaughter in the Valley of Hinnom could have been avoided had the religious leaders and others followed the ways of Jesus.

Teachings of hell and judgement and punishment were most often made to the religious people - to those who thought they were "in" and part of the covenant people, the believers. God didn't refer to coming destruction as incentive for pagans to convert, but to religious people who failed to obey God's word to them in Jesus.

In this political and religious context, Rob points out Jesus' use of Sodom and Gomorrah as examples of judgment and punishment. He'll go on to refer to Scriptures from the Prophets. The point he will be making is that God's judgment and punishment is corrective and redemptive in purpose and effect. His example with Sodom and Gomorrah is a bit weak and unconvincing. Rob effectively makes the point that Israel will be judged more harshly than Sodom. I suppose one can then deduce that since the harsher punishments that Israel will receive are still corrective in nature, so it is for Sodom. Sodom's sins of inhospitality and injustice to the poor are similar to the evils of Israel - except that Israel had God incarnate come and instruct them, and still they hardened their hearts.

For people are not cast off
by the Lord forever.
Though he brings grief, he will show compassion,
so great is his unfailing love.
For he does not willingly bring affliction
or grief to any human being. [Lamentations 3v31-33, TNIV]

Return, Israel, to the LORD your God.
Your sins have been your downfall!
Take words with you
and return to the LORD.
Say to him:
“Forgive all our sins
and receive us graciously,
that we may offer the fruit of our lips.
Assyria cannot save us;
we will not mount warhorses.
We will never again say ‘Our gods’
to what our own hands have made,
for in you the fatherless find compassion.”
“I will heal their waywardness
and love them freely,
for my anger has turned away from them. [Hosea 14v1-5, TNIV]

The LORD has taken away your punishment,
he has turned back your enemy.
The LORD, the King of Israel, is with you;
never again will you fear any harm.
On that day
they will say to Jerusalem,
“Do not fear, Zion;
do not let your hands hang limp.
The LORD your God is with you,
the Mighty Warrior who saves.
He will take great delight in you;
in his love he will no longer rebuke you,
but will rejoice over you with singing.” [Zephaniah 3v15-17, TNIV]

Judgments have a purpose, punishment is for the sake of correction, for inducing repentance.

In the New Testament Rob points out the Apostle Paul handing Hymenaeus and Alexander over to Satan [1Timothy 1v20], a punishment intended to bring about correction. Another similar example is given in 1Corinthians 5v5.

This punishment is to allow them to live with the full consequences of their choices, confident that the misery they find themselves in will have a way of getting their attention. (90)

Finally, Rob deals with Matthew 25 and the idea of eternal punishment. Interesting that those that get eternal punishment are those that do not give a cup of cold water to Jesus. One would think that it would be for not confessing Jesus as Lord, or believing in him, or praying to receive forgiveness of sins. Rob points out that the Greek word used for punishment carries with it the meaning of pruning or correcting. And as for the idea of eternal, he goes back to his insistence that it doesn't mean unending, but rather something like a period of time. Aside from the unconvincing ideas on eternal, the point remains that the punishment will go on as long as there is stubborn refusal to repent. Resisting correction requires the punishment to go on and on and on.

In summary:
For Rob, hell is real. 
It is both a present experience and a future one.
Hell is the consequences for our individual and society-wide sins.
Jesus gave us hyperbolic descriptions of hell to catch our attentions - to reveal the true nature of the effects of evil within us and around us.
Our repulsiveness to hell should result in a repulsiveness towards the effect of our sins upon our neighbor - and thus prompt repentance and restoration.
The consequences of hell are to be corrective. Judgment and punishment are from God, as an act of justice, to stop the horrific sinning, and to provoke repentance and restoration.

Notes on Hell: Hades, Tartarus & the Underworld

What does the Bible teach about hell? 

If you've got an old King James Version of the Bible, you'd find over a hundred references to hell. Except that in the original languages, there are a few different words for hell. And they don't all carry the same nuances. And so the vision of hell gets a little more complicated.

First we looked at the Hebrew word sheol that the KJV often translates as hell. Then we looked at the Greek word hades, which the KJV translates as hell, especially those uses that seemed to be similar in usage to the Hebrew word sheol. However, there are other uses of hades that don't seem to refer back to the Hebrew idea of sheol.

For example, when Jesus tells the parable about the Rich Man and Lazarus, Luke records the story by having Jesus use the Greek word hades. The parable has the Rich Man and Abraham having a conversation. Granted it is a parable, but it's not one that is referring to a Jewish idea of the afterlife. So which hades is Jesus referring to? Maybe the one of popular culture, the idea of hades that floats around in the minds of people who have been influence by Greek and Roman culture for the past three hundred years?

In sheol, dead men don't talk. In a Roman vision of hades, they would. So it seems that here we have Jesus using the popular notion of hades to make a point about how the rich ought to treat the poor. Does this mean that Jesus is giving us a literal description of what hell is really like? Or is it more likely that since Jesus is telling a story, he's referring to the legends of hades? It doesn't mean he's affirming that the Roman view of the afterlife is correct, but rather that he is using those stories for great effect.

Another example: Peter in his two letters refers to Tartarus and to a prison. In Virgil's map of hades (as seen in Alice K. Turner's book: The History of Hell) there is a prison of Tartarus that is separated form the Elysian Fields by a great river of fire. Tartarus is a deep abyss, an inescapable prison where there are terrible torments and endless torture. Peter says that God sent rebellious angels to Tartarus. He also says that Jesus went and preached the gospel to these spirits. So is Peter saying that Tartarus really exists? Or he, like Jesus, is using a common notion for the after life to make bigger points about judgment and the scope of Jesus' ministry.

Paul writes in his letter to the Philippians that there will come a day when every being in the heavens, upon the earth, and under the earth will bow down before Jesus. The ancients believed in a three tiered universe - so this is Paul's way of saying that every being in existence will acknowledge Jesus as Lord. But Paul also seems to be asserting that there are beings in the Underworld that exist - which is not a Jewish idea. Paul seems to be referring to notions of classic hades rather than sheol - and this is a big deal. In sheol there is nothingness, but in hades there is a shadowy existence. Whatever beings are there, they will someday confess Christ as King.

Hades does not carry the same meanings as sheol. Often times the gospel writers used the words hades when quoting an Old Testament verse that originally used the word sheol. Did that writer mean to change the meaning? Or was it a "dynamic equivalent" situation? Hades was the closest meaning available in Greek? Simple research shows that what the ancients believed about hades is not the same as what the Jews believed about sheol.

So there seems to be a shift within the Bible, from the Old Testament to the New Testament in ideas about what happens after you die. In sheol, everybody is in the grave or the pit, eaten by worms and no hope for the future. In hades, everybody goes down to the depths to a shadowy existence crossing the River Styx maybe into the Elysian Fields. Some part of the man or woman, the soul or spirit, continues existence in hades, not as punishment or reward, but a listless abode of the dead. And some New Testament Scriptures seem to affirm that there is some kind of place that exists, which is in conflict with what the Old Testament teaches.

Up to this point in the study, we've examined the use of sheol and hades. It's not revealed anything definitive about hell as we moderns understand it. It's not a place of torment for everybody. It's not a place of punishment, it's not the destination of sinners - it's just where everybody goes after they die, according to Greek and Roman notions about the afterlife.

In Revelation it describes death and hades being thrown into the lake of fire. Since hades has been our understanding of hell up to that point in the Bible, it makes you wonder what John means when he prophesies that event happening. How does death and hell get tossed into a lava pit? What happens to death and hades in a pool of flames? Is this a reference to sheol and classical hades? Is this a reference to general pagan notions of death and the afterlife? What is the lake of fire? It can't be our definition of hell, since hell gets thrown into it. Rather then getting a clearer picture of hell, the vision is getting murkier.

And so it is that there is more the Bible has to say about hell then just references to sheol and hades. Next week we explore the idea of gehenna as Jesus used it. This is another word that the KJV translated as hell, though it likely refers to a ghastly place called the Valley of Hinnom.