In my first post, I pointed out how any understanding concerning the final and ultimate fate of the unsaved needs to be understood within a much wider prophetic context.  In my last post I illustrated how this principle applies to a proper understanding of the Greek word Gehenna (often translated "hell") as used by Jesus.  A comparison of Jeremiah chapter 19 and Matthew chapter 33 shows that Gehenna was used to represent national judgment.  In both contexts that judgment was to bring desolation upon the Jewish people and nation.  In neither case was there any reference to eternal torment in the afterlife.

At the end of my former post I stated that there is much more to explore as to precisely when and how Jesus' warning of the "judgment of Gehenna ("damnation of hell")" was to be fulfilled.  However, before moving on to that, it's vital that we explore a principle of prophetic interpretation which is often missed; namely, that scripture presents us with more than one eschatological horizon, and that failure to discern this principle has been the root cause of untold confusion.

As I've mentioned before, the interpretation of prophecy, and particularly those passages which deal with final judgment, usually fall within two "schools" of thought.  The futurist view tends to see all passages pertaining to judgment (such as those concerning Gehenna) as having their ultimate fulfillment at the end of this current age.  On the opposite end of the spectrum, the full, or hyper-preterist view sees the same passages as having already been fulfilled before, or with the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century A.D.

While both camps have what, at least to themselves, appear to be compelling reasons for holding these views, I can't help but think that they are both equally the product of ignorance concerning the principle I stated above - Scripture can, and does present us with more than one eschatological horizon.

When a hyper-preterist encounters any passage referencing the "end of the age" they will reflexively interpret that language  as pertaining to the end of the Jewish economy which found its fulfillment nearly twenty centuries ago.  When a futurist encounters the same language, they will do precisely the opposite, and interpret the passage as pertaining to events yet unfulfilled.  However, if the scriptures do in fact present us with more than one eschatological horizon, then when encountering "end of the age" language in scripture, our first task must be to determine from the context which age the passage is referring to.

Now, there can be little question that when using Gehenna as an emblem of national judgment, Jesus was using the word in the context of the end of the Jewish age.  But from that, does it necessarily follow that ALL passages concerning judgment pertain only to the end of the Jewish age?  Equally, if a passage concerning judgment can be shown from the context to pertain to the end of this current wicked age, are we then justified in ignoring a context which points to a strictly first century fulfillment? Surely not.  The scriptures can, and do point to more than one eschatological horizon. Futurists have largely failed to discern the scriptural importance attached to the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish dispensation, and therefore miss entirely the proper application of many prophetic passages.  On the other hand, hyper-preterists have illegitimately inflated the importance of those same events to the point where they feel burdened to locate the fulfillment of all prophetic events within that period.  Both are equally errant.

As I've stated before, Jesus is our infallible interpreter.  When it comes to discerning whether or not a prophecy pertains to the end of the current, or of the Jewish age, Jesus has given us an important key:

The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. (Luke 16:16)

In this we find two distinct dispensations. First, "The Law and Prophets", which represent the whole of the Jewish economy along with the temple worship and system of animal sacrifice. The law and prophets were preached up until the time of John the Baptist.  From that time forward, first Jesus, and then his apostles and disciples preached the Kingdom of God.  Notice again :

And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. (Matthew 11:12–13)

The preaching of John the Baptist marks a pivot point between two dispensations.  The old covenant of the law and prophets was a coming to an end to be superseded by the preaching of the God's kingdom.

Let the reader mark this well:  Things pertaining to the "law and prophets" are not the same as things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.  A new dispensation of the Kingdom of God began from the time of John the Baptist.  The beginning of one dispensation is not the beginning of the other, nor does the end of one dispensation mark the end of the other.  The end of the Jewish dispensation must not be conflated with the end of the kingdom dispensation.

Why is this so important?  Because students of scripture have routinely confused two distinct things. The language of any passage which then concerns the end of the Jewish dispensation must not automatically be applied as though it has any reference to the end of the dispensation which succeeded it - that in which the kingdom began to be preached.  The inverse is also true.  If we encounter any passage which speaks of the end of that dispensation which began with the preaching of the kingdom, we must not automatically apply that language to the end of the Jewish dispensation.  There are two distinct eschatological horizons in view!

Notice the words of John the Baptist:

Then went out to him (John the Baptist) Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? (Matthew 3:5–7)

Who is John speaking to?  Is it not to those of the Jewish dispensation whose end was fast approaching? When many believers encounter the words "the wrath to come", their minds automatically assume that John was speaking of "hell".  But that is not at all what is in view here.  John is warning the scribes and Pharisees of the  fast approaching and cataclysmic end of Jewish dispensation!

However, when Jesus stated: 

"The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way." (Matthew 13:24 - 25)

And concluded his parable with:

"Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn."(Matthew 13:30)

We can be certain that Jesus is not here referring to the end of the Jewish age.  The law and the prophets were until John the Baptist, only since that time was the kingdom preached.  Here, as in all such "parables of the kingdom", Jesus is referring to the end of the age in which the kingdom is preached.  Failure to discern this simple principle is sure to result in nothing but confusion.  A "fire" may be a symbol of judgment used for both the end of the Jewish age, and also for the end of our current age, but that does not mean both passages are referencing the same eschatological horizon.  Likewise, the image of a "harvest" may be used for both the end of the Jewish age as well as our current age.  But  it does not follow that the two events are identical in regard to their time of fulfillment.  Prophecies concerning the end of the Jewish age are to be distinguished from prophecies concerning our current age. Whenever Jesus begins by stating; "The kingdom of heaven is like...", we can be certain that he is not speaking of the end of the Jewish dispensation!

Jesus explained the parable of the wheat and the tares:

"As therefore the tares are gathered and burnt in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this age. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear." (Matthew 13:40–43)

To which age is Jesus referring? Jesus cannot here be referring to the end of the Jewish dispensation.  The law and the prophets were until that John the Baptist, from that time the Kingdom of God was preached.  The cataclysmic end of the Jewish dispensation has nothing to do with Jesus gathering the counterfeit tares from out of HIS KINGDOM to be burned.  

By contrast, notice again when John the Baptist stated:

"Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." (Matthew 3:8–10)

Or:

"Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." (Matthew 3:12)

Again, to whom is John speaking but to those of the Jewish ecomiony which was about to be destroyed. We can then be certain that this warning pertains to the end of the Jewish dispensation in spite of the mental reflex on the part of believers to apply this language to "hell".

But when Jesus states...

"For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents. And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two. But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money. After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them." (Matthew 25:14–19)

​"And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 25:30)

...By simply applying our interpretive principle - the law and prophets were until John, since that time the KINGDOM is preached - we can be certain that the conclusion of this parable is not speaking of the end of the Jewish dispensation., but of our current age ; that age which began with the preaching of the kingdom.

These examples I've given present us with two distinct prophetic and eschatological horizons.  Many (if not most) Christians conflate these and apply the language of both to "hell"; or in the case of preterists,  to the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century.  Both have failed to discern that two distinct dispensations and prophetic horizons are in view.

I cannot overstate the importance of this principle.  In my next installment I will take up perhaps the most important prophetic discourse in all scripture; one upon which hangs the proper interpretation of nearly every other prophetic passage.  In that discourse we will encounter both the end of the Jewish dispensation as well as the end of the current age.  As we will see, the errors of both Futurism and Hyper-Preterism have resulted from a failure to discern within that discourse a distinction between these two distinct prophetic horizons.

I pointed out in my previous post how it is nearly impossible to come to full scriptural understanding of the final destiny of the unsaved without also framing that doctrine within a much wider prophetic framework.  The final destiny of mankind is by definition eschatological and prophetic.  Many of the verses dealing with the subject must be considered in their wider prophetic context.

This becomes especially important when dealing with the Greek word Gehenna, which is most often translated "hell" in our English Bibles.  When those who believe in eternal torment point out that Jesus spoke about "hell", it's most often those passages which contain this Greek word which are in view.  Therefore, the importance of having a full scriptural understanding of what Jesus meant when he used this word cannot be overstated.  If Jesus never used Gehenna to represent a place of eternal torment in the afterlife, then a case for the eternal torment of the wicked becomes tenuous at best.

The Greek word Gehenna does not mean "hell".  This is not a matter of opinion or controversy.  The word literally means "The Valley of the Sons of Hinnom".  In spite of the reading in our English Bibles, there is a burden of proof upon those who wish to use those passages which contain this word to buttress the doctrine of eternal torment.  How exactly did the name of a literal valley near Jerusalem come to represent a place of eternal torment in the afterlife?  This is a question the average Christian rarely takes time to explore.  I submit that no scriptural answer to this question is even possible.

The word Gehenna occurs twelve times in the New Testament, eleven of which are spoken by Jesus.  However, the Old Testament contains significantly more information concerning both the history, as well as the prophetic future of this notorious place.  Is it at all reasonable to suggest that Jesus' use of the word Gehenna could ever be fully understood without considering the Old Testament context surrounding this place?  For the sake of completeness, and for future reference in what will follow, I would first like the reader to consider the full Old Testament backdrop concerning Gehenna, something that is almost never considered by advocates for eternal torment.

גֵּיא בֶן־הִנֹּם | gei ven-hinnom (Valley of the Son of Hinnom)
Jos 15:8
And the border went up by the valley of the son of Hinnom unto the south side of the Jebusite; the same is Jerusalem: and the border went up to the top of the mountain that lieth before the valley of Hinnom westward, which is at the end of the valley of the giants northward: 

Jos 18:16
And the border came down to the end of the mountain that lieth before the valley of the son of Hinnom, and which is in the valley of the giants on the north, and descended to the valley of Hinnom, to the side of Jebusi on the south, and descended to En-rogel, 

2 Ki 23:10
And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech. 

Je 7:31
And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart. 

Je 7:32
Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall no more be called Tophet, nor the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter: for they shall bury in Tophet, till there be no place. 

Je 19:2
And go forth unto the valley of the son of Hinnom, which is by the entry of the east gate, and proclaim there the words that I shall tell thee, 

Je 19:6
Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter. 

Je 32:35
And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin. 

2 Ch 28:3
Moreover he burnt incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and burnt his children in the fire, after the abominations of the heathen whom the Lord had cast out before the children of Israel. 

2 Ch 33:6
And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger. 

תֹּ֫פֶת | topheth (Topheth

Je 19:11
And shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord of hosts; Even so will I break this people and this city, as one breaketh a potter’s vessel, that cannot be made whole again: and they shall bury them in Tophet, till there be no place to bury.
 
Je 19:12
Thus will I do unto this place, saith the Lord, and to the inhabitants thereof, and even make this city as Tophet: 

Je 19:13
And the houses of Jerusalem, and the houses of the kings of Judah, shall be defiled as the place of Tophet, because of all the houses upon whose roofs they have burned incense unto all the host of heaven, and have poured out drink offerings unto other gods. 

Je 19:14
Then came Jeremiah from Tophet, whither the Lord had sent him to prophesy; and he stood in the court of the Lord’s house; and said to all the people, 

Is 30:33
For Tophet is ordained of old; Yea, for the king it is prepared; He hath made it deep and large: The pile thereof is fire and much wood; The breath of the Lord, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it. 

It seems almost impossible to conceive how Gehenna could ever have been simply translated "hell" - an English word which carries with it significant preconceived mental imagery and theological baggage - without considering what this place came to represent in the Old Testament.

Clearly Gehenna, or the Valley of Hinnom, was an accursed place.  Due to the idolatrous practices of the Jews it came to represent a defiled place of loathing.  One thing that should be noted in the passages above, although not directly related to my main point in this post, is that the only instances of anyone being burned alive or tormented in Gehenna are due to the wicked idolatrous practice of child sacrifice - something God detests and says "never came into His mind".

Advocates of eternal torment will tell us that because of the defiled and infamous nature of the place, it came to "represent hell".  Are they correct?

What's important to notice in these passages is that they not only contain the historical context of Gehenna, but also its prophetic and eschatological significance; a significance which relates directly to the topic at hand.  Notice that the curses pronounced upon the unbelieving Jews by both Isaiah and Jeremiah (Jeremiah 7:31, Ch. 19,  Isaiah 30:33) are warnings of future punishment*.  Furthermore, it's important to notice that while the warned of future punishment is most definitely severe, there is nothing in any of these passages that would lead a reader to believe that those judgments are anything other than earthly.

*That is, future as to the time the prophecy was given, not necessarily future to our time.

Both Jeremiah and Isaiah used Gehenna, or the valley of Hinnom, to represent future punishment.  Jesus used Gehenna to represent future punishment.  What would ever lead a Christian reader to conclude that Jesus used this place to represent something completely foreign to the Old Testament prophets, i.e. a place of eternal torment in the afterlife?  Omitting the Old Testament, there is simply no other scriptural backdrop from which we can glean understanding.  However, as I've attempted to show in my former post, it's not enough to show the earthly nature of those judgments as represented by Gehenna in the Old Testament. What we must endeavor to do if we ever hope to present a comprehensive picture of what the Bible has to say about future punishment, is show how those Old Testament passages are to be understood in light Jesus' teaching, or vice versa.

Believers in eternal torment often resort to logic in which they justify reinterpreting all of the Old Testament warnings concerning Gehenna  in light of what they assume to be Jesus' teaching about eternal torment.  Thus, a verse such as Isa 66:24 "They shall go forth and look upon the carcasses... their worm shall not die, etc.", is reinterpreted in a way that makes "carcasses" into "immortal souls burning in hell"!  The circular nature of such logic is rarely contemplated.

On the other hand, those who reject the doctrine of eternal torment resort to the inverse; namely that since the Old Testament prophets used Gehenna to represent strictly earthly judgments, then whatever it may be that Jesus meant by his use of this word, surely he meant no more than that.

For the purpose of this study, our question must be: Can we know what Jesus meant when he spoke of Gehenna. If we can then we will have succeeded in laying a firm foundation on which to build a fully scriptural prophetic framework in which to understand the ultimate fate of wicked.  On the other hand, if we cannot discern in any sure way what Jesus meant by his use of the word, then we should resign ourselves that this doctrine will always remain a field for doubt and speculation.  Fortunately I believe the former is well within our grasp.
​

It should go without saying that Jesus is the infallible interpreter of scripture and prophecy.  If Jesus expounds an Old Testament passage, then we must hear him.  Undoubtedly most Christians would enthusiastically agree with this sentiment.  However, when it comes to Jesus' use of Gehenna, and indeed many passages in which believers feel that Jesus warned of unending punishment, they have refused to hear him.

I know that many things which I am about to present are going to be met with fierce resistance,  They are so foreign to what many believers have been taught, or to what they assume to be true, that they will trigger an  automatic reflex to reject them.  The studies of prophecy, and of future punishment in particular are not easy subjects.  These are topics to which many are very emotionally attached.  For this reason, all I ask of my readers is a fair hearing, a willingness to contemplate what lies ahead, and for patience.  It's my strong conviction that the payoff will be great for those willing to stay the course.

With that in mind, hear the words of Jesus:

​Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell (Lit. The judgment of Gehenna)? (Matthew 23:31–33)

To whom did Jesus utter this fearful warning?  This passage appears in the twenty-third chapter Matthew in which we read Jesus' pronouncements of "woe" upon the scribes, Pharisees, and unbelieving Jews.  In spite of the reflexive reaction of the reader's mind to automatically assume that Jesus is here warning the scribes and Pharisees that they would not escape  "hell", I can't help but think that such a conclusion could only be arrived at by blinding our eyes and minds to the context in which this was spoken.  Jesus proceeds:

Wherefore behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. (Matthew 23:34–35)

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not? Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. (Matthew 23:37–38)

How is it that our minds have become so blinded that most fail to see any connection between Jesus' warning of "the judgment of Gehenna" with what follows in the immediate context?  It is those to whom Jesus is speaking that the blood of all the prophets would be required.  It is to the unbelieving Jews that Jesus would leave their house "desolate".

These warnings do not stand in a vacuum.  Only sheer ignorance of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the "valley of Himmon" could explain the failure to see it.  The Old Testament passages concerning Gehenna, or the valley of the sons of Hinnom, are the KEY ro understanding Jesus' use of the word.  Notice the words of Jeremiah:

And go forth unto the valley of the son of Hinnom, which is by the entry of the east gate, and proclaim there the words that I shall tell thee, (Jeremiah 19:2)

Therefore behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter. And I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place; and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hands of them that seek their lives: and their carcases will I give to be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth. And I will make this city desolate, and a hissing; every one that passeth thereby shall be astonished and hiss because of all the plagues thereof. (Jeremiah 19:6–8)

And shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord of hosts; Even so will I break this people and this city, as one breaketh a potter’s vessel, that cannot be made whole again: and they shall bury them in Tophet, till there be no place to bury. (Jeremiah 19:11)

The "judgment of Gehenna" Jesus spoke about - a judgment the Jewish nation would not escape - a judgment which would leave the nation "desolate",  just IS precisely that same type of judgment warned of by Jeremiah in that very place - the valley of the sons of Hinnom.  Consider how totally irrational it is to think that in warning the scribes and Pharisees of the destruction of their nation and the desolation which would follow, that Jesus inserted a reference to some other-worldly realm of eternal torment.  How could that possibly be when the very same curse, in the very place named - Gehenna, the valley of the sons of Hinnom - was warned of by one of those very prophets these unbelieving Jews rejected?  Same place.  Same words.  Same curse.  Same coming desolation.  That IS the "damnation of hell" or "judgment of Gehenna" the Jewish nation would not escape.

If Jesus used Gehenna in this way - to represent the national destruction and desolation of the Jewish nation, and used it in precisely the same way the Old Testament prophets had by pronouncing upon the unbelieving Jews that very same desolation, then surely those who would use Gehenna to represent a place of eternal torment in the afterlife have erred greatly.  There can be no question about how Jesus used Gehenna in Matthew 23 once one compares it with the parallel in Jeremiah 19.

Someone might say: "But Jeremiah is warning of the coming desolation of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, Jesus is pointing to a greater fulfillment."  But this only serves to strengthen my point.  What then is that greater fulfillment of Jeremiah's Gehenna judgment?  The Babylonian captivity lasted seventy years.  Jesus is here pointing to a desolation from which the nation would not recover.  A greater fulfillment certainly, but not one of such a different character that one represents a national and earthly fulfillment, while the other an individual's punishment in the afterlife.  To make such a claim is to ignore the Old Testament context altogether.

Before considering just how this curse upon the Jews was precisely fulfilled as Jesus warned, we need to consider a point which is commonly expressed by those who believe that Gehenna just is "hell".  Consider the following from christiananswers.net.  To the question, "Is anyone in hell today?", they answer:

​"I think it is safe to say that there is no one in Hell today. Nobody is there because Hell is the final place for those who have rejected Christ and is the place to which they are assigned after the Great White Throne Judgment. After the day of final judgment, then Hell receives its population." (Emphasis mine)

While I can't here go into a detailed discussion, this is a fairly common answer from Christians.  Many believe that the unsaved go immediately upon death to temporary punishment in "hades", but that none have yet gone to the "final hell".  They believe that Gehenna represents that final hell.  Therefore, according to the belief of many Christians, no one has yet experienced the "judgment of Gehenna", or "Damnation of hell".

Will Christians hear Jesus?  Have not the scribes and Pharisees experienced that "judgment of Gehenna" which swept away the whole old Jewish order?  Did they not experience the desolation of their city, temple and nation?  Was not the blood of the prophets required at their hand?  What refuge is left for the advocates of eternal torment in this context?  Will they really try to assert that the "judgment of Gehenna" has nothing to do with the national destruction being warned of?  Was Jesus, or for that matter the scribes or Pharisees, ignorant of Jeremiah's words?  Did Jesus insert a totally foreign meaning of Gehenna into his warning of national desolation?  Did he use the word here in one way, while elsewhere using it in a completely different way?  If Gehenna is "hell", and no one is currently in hell, then there must be some explanation, no?

The Jewish nation was destroyed by the Roman armies in 70 A.D..  Can we be certain that this desolation was the warned of "judgment of Gehenna" ("damnation of hell") Jesus spoke of in Matthew 23?  A comparison of Jesus' warning with that of Jeremiah 19 makes the answer plain.

But there is much more.  Jesus not only warns of this national desolation, but goes on to explain exactly how and when that desolation would come.  In considering those passages we will be met with significant challenges, but by the time we are finished I believe we we also find a greater hope for the lost than many ever thought possible.

I will take up some of those points in my next installment.

"Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? ...Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. (Matthew 23:31–33, 36)

Over twenty years ago I began to write a work untitled Man Became a Living Soul.  This work began as a result of my research into the doctrines of mankind's inherent immortality (or lack thereof), and of the future and final state of the wicked which most believe to be a "hell" of eternal torment.

What quickly became clear to me, is that a comprehensive view of these doctrines cannot be established without also carefully examining Bible prophecy and eschatology as a whole.  Any examination of man's final destiny is by definition wrapped within the Bible's prophetic pronouncements concerning the future.  In fact, a great many passages about "hell" are contained within the Book of Revelation; a book which has, historically,  been notoriously divisive and open to a great number of divergent interpretations.

In recent months I have attempted to engage with others online concerning these topics.  In doing so, it's  become clear to me that the doctrine of the final state of the wicked simply cannot be expounded except within a much wider prophetic framework.  A couple brief examples should suffice to show how this is so:

The doctrine of eternal torment is routinely connected with the "Lake of Fire" described in the final chapters of the Book of Revelation.  The wicked are to be "cast into the lake of fire" (Revelation 20:15).  Any explanation concerning the final destiny of mankind, whether it is believed to be eternal torment, annihilation, or ultimate reconciliation, must deal with these texts.  But these texts do not stand alone, but are part of Revelation's prophetic drama as a whole.  The "dragon", "beast", "false prophet", as well as "death and hades" are also to be cast into the "lake of fire".  Can a proper and full understanding of the "lake of fire" be obtained without also understanding what these other entities represent within the broader scope of Revelation as a whole? Surely not.  I have asked several proponents of eternal torment to explain to me the identity of "the beast", or to explain how abstract concepts such as "death and hades" could literally be cast into a hell of eternal torment.  The answers are never forthcoming which directly undermines the case of those who attempt to use these texts to advance eternal torment.

Next take, for example, Jesus' reference to "Gehenna" which is often translated "hell" in our English Bibles.  What precisely is Jesus warning of, and when were those warnings to find their fulfillment?  To say that Gehenna simply represents "hell" as the final state of the wicked in the afterlife is incredibly imprecise, and ignores the wider prophetic context of how this place, Gehenna (or the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom) was represented in the Old Testament prophets.  To be sure, the Old Testament presents this valley as an accursed place of loathing.  Jeremiah chapter 19 presents us with a graphic picture of a judgment which was to befall the Jewish nation; one in which they would "bury in Tophet (Gehenna) until there be no place to bury" (Jeremiah 19:11). The trouble is this - When trying to present a comprehensive Biblical view of the punishment of the wicked, it's simply not enough to point out that "Gehenna" never represented a place of eternal torment in the afterlife - at least not in the Old Testament prophets.  This only leads to the obvious questions I mentioned above:  What exactly then is Gehenna a warning of as Jesus used the term?  What is the nature of such a punishment, and when prophetically should we look for its fulfillment?  

Ignoring for a moment the standard answer that Gehenna is simply representative of a place of eternal torment in the afterlife (a problematic view - see here), or the view of some that Gehenna was merely to be understood as the "trash dump" of Jesus' day (a concept with little actual historical support in spite of the frequency with which this is repeated), it quickly becomes apparent that the answers to our questions are not as obvious, nor as easily ascertained as one might hope.  

One fairly obvious solution (although one rarely considered by most) is that Jesus is here threatening the Jewish nation and its leaders with precisely that same judgment which was threatened by the prophet Jeremiah (see Jeremiah chapter 19).  If this be the case then Jesus' warning of the "judgment of Gehenna", or the "damnation of hell" (Matt 23:33) found an undeniable and remarkable historical fulfillment when the Jewish nation was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D.  The works of the first century historian Josephus describe in graphic detail the horrors and suffering of the Jews during the siege and war leading up to the overthrow of Jerusalem and the Jewish nation. It is eminently reasonable, based on the words of both Jesus and Jeremiah, to infer that the untold carnage and slaughter of the Jewish people during that time was, in fact, the warned of "judgment of Gehenna".

But can we stop there?  This may be enough to show that Jesus used the word Gehenna of threatened earthly judgments (as opposed to punishment in the afterlife), but it will only raise more questions. Is the first century destruction of Jerusalem all that Jesus had in mind when he spoke of Gehenna?  Can this interpretation bear the full weight of all the scriptural evidence?

Jesus described Gehenna as a place where "the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:47).  This calls to mind the closing words of Isaiah 66: "And they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of those who have transgressed against me.  Their worm shall not die nor shall their fire be quenched, and there shall be an abhorring of all flesh".  While once again the image of burning carcasses (literally dead bodies) calls to mind a strictly earthly judgment, this passage from Isaiah appears within a much broader prophetic context which must also be considered.  Notice:

For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, Shall remain before me, saith the Lord, So shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, And from one sabbath to another, Shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord. And they shall go forth, and look Upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: For their worm shall not die, Neither shall their fire be quenched; And they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh. (Isaiah 66:22–24)

Notice how Isaiah connects his warning - that which was quoted by Jesus when describing Gehenna - with the creation of the "new heavens and new earth".  This lays bare the issue.  If Gehenna is the place where "the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched", but that place is to be associated with the creation of a "new heaven and new earth", then could it really be connected with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.?  And if it can't, then doesn't that weaken a position which attempts to clarify Gehenna by way of Jeremiah 19 and it's obvious fulfillment in the first century? By extension, isn't our case undermined if we have attempted to show that Jesus used Gehenna in the same way in which Jeremiah did?    The logic is thus:

1) The judgment of Gehenna is described by the words: "where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched".

2) That judgment is in the context of the creation of the "new heavens and new earth".

3) The creation of the "new heavens and new earth" awaits a  future fulfillment.

4) Therefore the judgment of Gehenna of which Jesus warned also awaits a future fulfillment.

This forms a perfectly logical chain of inference, and one which I've seen proposed several times.  It is reasoned that whatever Gehenna may be, it simply cannot be strictly defined by any reference to historical events because it's clear (at least to those who hold this view) that Gehenna represents a punishment which awaits a future fulfillment,  Any earthly judgment which may have been represented by this place is only a shadow of its greater, future reality - i.e. "hell" in the minds of many.

(Note that a future application of Gehenna in no way proves that it represents a place of eternal torment in the afterlife, but breaking the direct link between Jeremiah 19 and Jesus' use of Gehenna opens the door to such speculation.)

The trouble is, that while to some all of this may seem perfectly logical (if not downright airtight), it is not the only logical inference which may be drawn from the same set of facts. Consider the following which shows how easily one might arrive at entirely divergent and opposite conclusion:

1) The judgment of Gehenna warned of by Jesus is to be equated with Jeremiah's warnings (Jeremiah 19).

2) Jeremiah's, and thus Jesus' warnings of the "judgment of Gehenna" were precisely fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century A.D.

3) Thus, this is the same judgment represented by Jesus' and Isaiah's words "where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched", and therefore also fulfilled in the first century.

4) This judgment is associated with the creation of the "new heavens and new earth"

5) Therefore, the creation of the new heavens and new earth was fulfilled in the first century.

Many Christians might find such a conclusion fanciful if not impossible, but a growing number of believers interpret these passages exactly as I've presented them.  While we might not like or agree with the conclusion, there is no denying that it is the result of logical inference.

Whether we like to admit it or not, both trains of thought I've presented here represent perfectly logical conclusions which may be drawn from the same set of facts. It is precisely for reasons such as this that entirely divergent prophetic frameworks have emerged. In simply trying to deal with passages which have traditionally been advanced to teach the doctrine of eternal torment, we find ourselves trying to navigate a much more complex prophetic landscape.  

When I began to write Man Became a Living Soul over twenty years ago it was issues such as these which, being brought to light, stalled the work.  It remains incomplete to this day.  A comprehensive examination of the scriptural doctrine concerning the fate of the wicked cannot ignore these issues. At the time, I simply did not have the breadth of knowledge or scriptural insight to adequately deal with them.

The two chains of reasoning I've presented above are both logical.  The question is which, if either of them is correct.  Or, perhaps they both have equally overlooked something? (Hint: I think they have)

It's certainly not my goal to attempt to present a detailed prophetic framework within a brief blog post, but only to show how any discussion of man's ultimate destiny is sooner or later going to run headlong into the issue of how prophecy in general needs to be interpreted,  I've seen these issues arise time and again in online discussions. It should also show why a detailed study of eschatology and prophecy is important - It ultimately affects our view of nearly every Biblical doctrine.

The two views I've presented above fall roughly into two wholly divergent "schools" of prophetic thought: One called Futurism, which, as the name suggests, sees much of Bible prophecy as awaiting a future fulfillment, and the other Full Preterism, (sometimes called Hyper-Preterism) which sees all, or nearly all Bible prophecy as having been fulfilled before, or within the historical events culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D..  Can either of these views offer a comprehensive and scripturally harmonious view concerning the ultimate fate of the unsaved once all of the prophetic data is considered?  I don't believe they can.  But neither do I believe that any discussion concerning the ultimate fate of the lost could be complete without presenting that fate within a such prophetic framework. 

In future posts I hope to present one such way in which we might do just that.

"Full Preterism" is a "school" of prophetic interpretation which teaches that ALL Bible prophecy has been fulfilled - mostly within the fall of the Jewish nation and city of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. This includes the resurrection, judgment, new heavens, new earth, etc. Full Preterism "spiritualizes" most of these prophecies and finds their fulfillment in a "kingdom within", “heaven”, or in the spread of gospel globally. Some use it as a front for "Christian Nationalism".
​
While some would take issue with my graphic, it does accurately represent their position regardless of how they wish to spin it. For them, there is no future coming kingdom except that which we create ourselves here, or perhaps within the prospect of “going to heaven” when we die. The promises of Revelation - that all tears should be wiped away, that there should be no more sorrow, nor pain, nor death; or that Jesus, by his personal return should overthrow the wicked kingdoms of this world... All these things, they tell us, are to be understood and enjoyed "spiritually".

Where, when, or by whom in the nearly 2000 years since the destruction of Jerusalem has this glorious spiritual kingdom been perceived or enjoyed in the way Preterists describe? Was it during the early church persecutions? Was it in the apostasy of the Roman state religion culminating in the Catholic Church? Was it in the dark ages, the plague, the crusades, or the bloody wars between Catholics and Protestants? Is it to be found in this current godless age? Is the triumph of God's kingdom such that the vast majority of mankind in the past, and even still today has lived and died without so much as having heard the name of Jesus?  Why have the earliest Christians left us no testimony that Jesus had returned, or that the prophecies had found their complete fulfillment, or that they were then living in the glorious kingdom? No, Full Preterism is a serious error that needs to be called out.

Preterists will tell us that they are interpreting the Biblical language consistently by letting "time texts" take on their plain natural meaning. After all, they say, didn't the New Testament writers state that Jesus' return was imminent, and didn't Jesus proclaim in the Book of Revelation that he was "coming soon"? While these are fair questions which deserve serious consideration, full Preterism is not the answer.

I have carefully considered the works of many Preterist authors and can say confidently that the "time texts" are the ONLY passages they are unwilling to spiritualize. The "plain meaning of words" seems a concern to them only when it suits their narrow view. Their commentaries on the Book of Revelation are a travesty and make a mockery of this last great prophecy which our Lord gave to his church through the apostle John.
​
There can, and should be vigorous debate and discussion about the proper interpretation of prophecy, but full Preterism is a trap which is best avoided entirely.

We are surely living through some strange and troubled times...

Earlier today I came across a Daily Beast article entitled "How a New Religion Could Rise From the Ashes of QAnon".  You can read the article here.

For those who don't know, the 'Q' conspiracy theory purported to have inside information that the Trump administration had a plan that would soon purge the world of a powerful evil cabal of flesh-eating, blood-drinking pedophiles who had gained  control of  the media, government, entertainment, etc.  Up until the very last moments of the Trump presidency the 'Q' true-believers remained confident that this 'plan' would not fail, even going so far as to believe that then president-elect Joe Biden would be arrested as he mounted the steps of the capitol before taking the oath of office.

Of course none of this came true, and a sense of disbelief and disillusionment began to come over those who truly believed that the 'Q' prophecy could not fail.

However, as someone who has studied and watched the development of,  and ultimate failure of many prophecies and conspiracy theories I've come to realize this:  For the die-hard true believers, a failed prophecy means nothing.  For a conspiracy theorist, any failure can be 'rationally' explained away as just another part of the conspiracy.

The writer of the Daily Beast article makes this point.  Just because the 'Q Plan' failed there is no reason to think that its true believers will simply shrug and go home.  In fact, if history teaches us anything, it's that it's much more likely that the conspiracy will simply morph into a new one. Some will reason that the 'plan' did not fail, it was those who believed in it and their failure to properly understand what's really going on who were to blame.

But then the author raises a point which, as a Christian, I found both interesting and troubling.  As an example of this type of conspiratorial thinking she raises the issue of the 'Great Disappoint' of 1844.  Prior to that year, William Miller, an Adventist preacher began teaching his followers that he had discerned from the  biblical book of Daniel the true date of Jesus' second coming.  It was said that this would occur between spring of 1843 and spring of 1844.  When Jesus failed to return on schedule Miller's followers were confused and disillusioned; Hence how it came to be known as the 'Great Disappointment'.

But Miller's true believers were not done, and soon a new date was set which also failed to deliver on their hopes and expectations.  After these disappointments Miller himself admitted defeat and renounced any attempt at further 'date-setting' for the return of Jesus.  Some of his followers, however, did not give up.  Eventually they came to a new conclusion:  That the date was right after all!  It was only the expectations of what was supposed  to happen on that date which were faulty.  Miller had taught that Jesus would return in 1844 to cleanse the earth.  What really happened, they reasoned, was that Jesus began to cleanse the heavenly sanctuary.  The prophecy did come true, only its true fulfillment was hidden to those on earth not enlightened enough to have discerned it.

Now, one may or may not agree that the 'Great Disappointment of 1844'  is a fitting example of what we might expect to happen among those feeling a sense of disillusionment and disappointment now that the 'Q' plan has failed.  We can only wait and see whether or not this particular conspiracy theory will fade away or morph into something else.  But the Daily Beast article does not stop there.  It goes on to make an attack on the veracity of the Bible, and in so doing appears to implicate all believers in a way that I find troubling to say the least.
​

The writer of the article states:

"Ironically, the prophecies in Daniel that formed the basis for the Millerite (and many other!) prophecies about the end of the world were themselves the product of dashed expectations. Though it is set in the sixth century B.C., Daniel was written during the reign of the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes IV (175-164 B.C.). At the time Judeans were wrestling with the Antiochus’s attempts to eradicate Jewish customs and traditions like Sabbath observance, circumcision, and dietary laws. As a response to this crisis the book contains a series of prophecies about what would happen at the end of time. The dates are very specific and, after the first date for the restoration of the Temple given in Dan. 8:12 passed without incident, a later author was forced to add a second prophecy (Daniel 12:11-12) to account for the mistake."

What she is here alleging is that not only was William Miller wrong in his interpretation of the Book of Daniel, but that the Book of Daniel itself is both a forgery and an example of failed prophecy!

She reasons as follows:  William Miller taught that he discerned the date of the second coming from Daniel chapter 8.  But, she says, Daniel chapter 8 is itself also a failed prophecy because, while the book purports to have been written in the 6th century BC, it was actually written in the 2nd century BC when the Jews were under severe persecution from the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BC).  She infers that the writer of Daniel 'guessed' at how the Jews might triumph over Antiochus and got it wrong!  Shen then goes even further stating her belief that yet another writer added Daniel chapter 12 in order to 'correct' the failed prophecy of chapter 8, and implies that he too got it wrong!

As Christians our first reaction might be to simply dismiss such reasoning as unbelieving nonsense (it is), but is that good enough?

The Book of Daniel contains some of the most detailed prophecies in all of scripture.  It tells of the rise and fall of kingdoms - of Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome (chapters 2 and 7).  It details in prophetic language the rise of Alexander the Great, his untimely death, and the division of kingdom (chapter 8).  It details the rise of, and wars between the Seleucid Empire and Ptolemaic Egypt (chapter 11).

To critics of the book of Daniel this only proves that the text is a forgery which was written well after any of these events took place; It is, they say, a book of history pretending to be prophecy in order to encourage the Jews during a troublesome time and nothing more.  When it tried to predict anything future it was simply and utterly wrong.

Or was it?

And here is where our interpretation of prophecy matters. Christians may cite a host of conservative scholars who ably argue that the book of Daniel was written in the 6th century BC.  They may point out that Jesus himself quoted from, and obviously believed that Daniel was a genuine prophecy.  None of this matters to the unbeliever who can simply point to numerous other scholars who believe that Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC.  To an unbelieving heart it will matter little whether or not Jesus quoted from the book; they will only take this as evidence that Jesus himself was also a fraud.

Perhaps no amount of proof, or no argument regardless of how strong will be enough to convince one who's heart is set on unbelief, but that is not my concern.  What I feel strongly is that Christians have unwittingly adopted a faulty interpretation of much of the book of Daniel which makes it far too easy for critics and unbelievers to get away with this nonsense and dismiss the book out of hand.

How so?

Critics argue that Daniel chapter 8 guessed at the fate of Antiochus Epiphanes and got it wrong.  They will equally argue that the second half of chapter 11 was also a guess and a failed prophecy regarding the fate of Antiochus. 

'Not so!', say most Christians, 'These are not failed prophecies about Antiochus at all! They are simply unfulfilled prophecies about a future coming Antichrist!'  While this type of reasoning may give some temporary comfort to a Christian looking for a way to answer the skeptics, in actuality it is wholly unconvincing and for a good reason.  

To a critic, this type of reasoning will appear to be ad-hoc and just a little too convenient.  The unbeliever will point to what they believe is a failed prophecy and the Christian will simply call it a future unfulfilled prophecy.  Nothing is gained, and no one is convinced.  In a book dealing with ancient historical events, the average Christian simply inserts a more than twenty-two century gap of time into the text where none exists in order to get out of what the unbeliever has pointed to as a very thorny problem.  Unbelievers will not be convinced by such reasoning, nor should they be.

But what if both the unbeliever and most believers have gotten the book of Daniel wrong?  What if Daniel chapters 8 and 11 are neither failed prophecies about Antiochus Epiphanes, nor are they unfulfilled future prophecies?  What if they are in fact fulfilled prophecies from history, but of events beyond the skeptic's asserted 2nd century BC date of writing?

If these things are true then the unbeliever is suddenly in the very awkward position of trying to explain how a supposed forgery was able to predict the future.  After all, it's one thing to claim that the book of Daniel was written later than it claims itself to have been written, but it is quite another to try and explain how that same book was able to accurately predict verifiable historic events which only came to pass after the later date you've proposed.

To the believer their faith would be strengthened and they could present solid evidence that the book of Daniel is exactly what it has always claimed to be; an inspired book of prophecy written in the 6th century BC.  Regardless of the date of writing, a book which has accurately predicted future events is not easily dismissed.

It is understandable that an unbeliever would get the book of Daniel so wrong; An unbelieving heart will always find a reason for unbelief.  That the Daily Beast writer should use the book of Daniel as an example of failed prophecy in comparison to the recent unhinged 'Q' nonsense is troubling but not shocking.

But that Christians should get the book of Daniel so wrong as to not have an adequate answer to such nonsense even when a much better defense exists... well... It shows why what we believe about prophecy matters.

In Part Two I'll explore why Christians seem so blind to a more satisfactory exposition of the book of Daniel and attempt to present a better way.

This is astonishingly dishonest.  I don't claim to speak for what "universalists" in general believe, but I know of no serious, Bible believing Christian that believes in the final restoration of all of mankind who has ever defined universalism in this way.  What John Ankerberg has given here is not a definition, but a mere caricature.

I have to ask: Does John Ankerberg suddenly believe in salvation by works?  The question is not: 'Will everyone be saved no matter what they have done?', but rather 'Will anyone be saved because of, or regardless of what they have done'?  Last time I checked, Christians believe that no one is saved because of what they have done, and no one is lost because of what they've done.  Whether or not a person is saved depends solely upon our faith in Jesus Christ and our belief in the gospel of his death, burial, and resurrection.

Would John Ankerberg think I was being honest if I defined any Christian as: "A person who is saved no matter what they have done as long as they accept Jesus, even if in the final second of their life"?  This caricature of the universalist position is nothing more than an attempt to poison the well and discredit an opposing viewpoint before the conversation even begins.

But that's not even the main problem with this video.  Ankerberg then turns to Dr. Lutzer to address the question of universalism.  Lutzer answers:

From there the conversation moves into a discussion about several Biblical passages which they believe teach the eternal torment of the wicked. 

But here's what's so troubling.  Ankerberg and Lutzer never once in the remainder of the video attempt to address the very example they use to show how some have concluded that the Bible does in fact teach the final restoration of all.  Lutzer simply states that some go to a passage such as Colossians 1:20, which says that in Christ all things will be reconciled to God, and then tells us without any further proof, evidence, or explanation, that the passage simply can't mean what it appears to say because he can find other passages that he believes teach the doctrine of eternal punishment.

In other words, he has done the very thing that he's accused the universalists of doing: Cherry pick verses in the hope that he can overcome other verses that he doesn't like.  He complains that certain Christians run to "verse B" in an attempt to bypass the meaning of "verse A", but then tells us that his position is correct just because he blindly asserts the opposite: "Verse B" is incorrect because he can run to "verse A" to contradict it.

Without making any effort to explain the meaning of Colossians 1:20 he has unwittingly taught his hearers that the Bible contradicts itself.  If Dr. Lutzer genuinely believes that Colossians 1:20 does not teach the final reconciliation of "all things" (as the verse clearly states), then he owes his hearers some explanation.  Why does he feel that he can simply dismiss the clear meaning of this passage because he believes to have found other passages which he thinks clearly teach otherwise?  This type of presentation is lazy, shallow, and dangerous.

What would Ankerberg and Lutzer think of me if I argued in the same way —That I could dismiss out of hand, without any comment or explanation, all of their "proof-texts" about hell because I felt that I had found clear verses that teach the final restoration of all? This type of argumentation proves absolutely nothing.  Worse, it gives the impression that the Bible contains actual contradictions.

Ankerberg and Lutzer dismiss universalists as those who are so troubled by the clear Biblical teaching about hell that they desperately pour over the Bible looking for passages that teach otherwise.  But why couldn't I say the same about them?  Why couldn't I say that believers in eternal torment are so troubled by the scriptures that clearly teach the ultimate reconciliation of all, that they desperately seek out proof-texts for eternal punishment?

In the end, their entire "argument" boils down to this:  Certain passages of scripture can't mean what they say because we can find other passages that contradict them. Does anyone find this type of reasoning convincing? 

Surely the ultimate fate of the wicked is a topic of the greatest importance.  If the scriptures do in fact teach that God will  torment the wicked in fire for all eternity then certainly those who hold to that view owe their hearers more than the type of shoddy, hypocritical reasoning offered up in this video.

If, on the other hand, God does intend to ultimately reconcile the entire creation to Himself through Christ, and if there are verses which seem to clearly teach this glorious truth, then they deserve serious consideration, not the type of condescending dismissiveness offered by those such as Ankerberg and Lutzer.

Are Christians willing to have a serious, reasoned, and thorough discussion on this topic?  Are you?