Gehenna in the Synoptics: Pt. 2

Bibliotheca Sacra 149 (Oct. 1992) 454-70.

Part 2 (of 2 parts):

Gehenna in the Synoptics

Hans Scharen

Associate Pastor, Midlothian Bible Church

Midlothian, Texas

The first article in this series discussed the development of the

concept of Gehenna in the Old Testament and the intertestamental

period.1 It was observed that this concept is rooted in the literature

of intertestamental Judaism, specifically within the more narrowly

defined subject of apocalyptic eschatology, and that several ideas

were associated with the concept. In contrast to this variety, the

New Testament presents Gehenna as the final eschatological pun-

ishment for the wicked. The aim of this study is to confirm and am-

plify this latter idea based on New Testament texts and vocabulary.

Warnings about Personal Destiny

MATTHEW 5:222

Matthew 5:21-22 contains the thesis and antithesis of a saying

1 Hans Scharen, "Gehenna in the Synoptics, Part 1," Bibliotheca Sacra 149 (July–

September 1992): 304-15.

2 The Greek text of this verse has no variant readings deserving serious discussion,

though form-critical as well as tradition-historical considerations have generated a con-

siderable amount of discussion among New Testament scholars. As Metzger notes, the

reading with ei]kh is widespread after the second century. But there seems to be good

reason to believe that it represents a scribal gloss so as to "soften the rigor of the precept"

(Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [New York:

United Bible Societies, 19711, 13).

Opinions vary regarding the verse's integrity. There appears to be a consensus

among many scholars that one or more of the three clauses of 5:22 are secondary,

though there are some dissenting opinions, among them that of Guelich, who, after a

survey of these discussions concluded that "there is no valid reason why Mt 5:22 could

not have been an authentic whole rather than a composite unit" (Robert A. Guelich,

"Mt 5:22: Its Meaning and Integrity," Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 64

[1973]: 4749). Luz also opts for its unity and says it is a genuine saying of Jesus (Ulrich

Luz, Das Evangelium nach Mattaus, Evangelischer Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen

Testament [EKKNT] I/1 [Zurich: Benziger Verlag, 1985], 1:251).

454

Gehenna in the Synoptics 455

of Jesus that discusses the relationship between brothers (a]delfoi>)

within the kingdom of heaven. It follows the exhortation of Jesus in

verse 20, that entrance into (=belonging to) this kingdom requires a

better righteousness than that taught and displayed by the religious

leaders (scribes and Pharisees) of the day. The thesis in verse 21 is

introduced by the words, "You have heard . . ." and the antithesis is

introduced in verse 22 by the words "but I say unto you. . . ."3 The

thesis contains the Mosaic injunction against murder and the conse-

quent liability to court proceedings of anyone committing this crime.

In the antithesis (v. 22) Jesus refuted a superficial interpretation of

the sixth commandment (Exod. 20:13; Deut. 5:17), such as could be

practiced by mere perfunctory adherence to a legal ordinance de-

signed to regulate human relationships. The "I say unto you" nulli-

fies any claim of righteousness attained in that perfunctory way.

The true intent of the command against murder is more radical in its

demand. It is concerned with the disposition of the heart, not mere

externals.4

The difficulty of interpreting the triadic structure of the an-

tithesis has created much scholarly discussion.5 The main point rel-

evant to determining the meaning of Gehenna in this text is the in-

congruity between the crimes listed and the severity of their respec-

tive punishments. The order of these punishments displays an obvi-

ous ascendence in severity: court (court proceeding), Sanhedrin, Ge-

henna of fire. "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his

brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his

brother, 'Raca,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and who-

ever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery

hell [Gehenna]." Thus one would expect a corresponding ascendence

in severity of infractions of legal ordinances. But this correspondence

3 As noted in the previous article in this series, this formula indicates a departure and

contrast from the teaching of the Old Testament, the contrast involving transcendence

rather than contradiction, as indicated by Jesus' statement in Matthew that He did not

come to abolish "the Law or the Prophets" but "to fulfill" (plhro<w) in the sense of bring-

ing or revealing their full, definitive meaning in His person and work as the Messiah

(Scharen, "Gehenna in the Synoptics," 331).

4 This notion was in essence taught by Moses in his stress that obedience to God must

come from the heart (see, e.g., Deut. 11:13; 13:3; cf. Lev. 19:17-18), but it was missed by

the Jewish religious leadership in Jesus' day.

5 See, for example, W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commen-

tary on the Gospel of Matthew, vol. 1: Matthew I-VII, International Critical Commentary

(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), 515-16, for a brief, recent documentation of the vari-

ous interpretive approaches. Cf. Guelich, "Mt 5:22: Its Meaning and Integrity," 39-52,

for a fuller discussion of the lexical and structural problems with their respective

interpretations. The former center mainly around the exact meanings of kri<sei, r[aka,

and mwre<; the latter focus mainly on the parallelism between the individual members

of the triad (triple response) as it relates to the apparent incongruity of the judgments.

456 Bibliotheca Sacra / October-December 1992

does not occur. In the first part of the verse the infraction is anger,

which makes a person liable to general court proceedings (v. 22a); in

the second section the infraction is calling someone "numbskull"

(r[aka<), which makes a person liable to proceedings by the Sanhedrin

(v. 22b); a person who calls someone a "fool" (mwre<) as an invective is

condemned to Gehenna (v. 22c).6 Several scholars have attempted to

alleviate the tension created by the incongruity between crime and

punishment, either by emending the text, or by amplifying the slight

disparity between the listed crimes, or by attenuating the disparity

between the respective punishments.

The attempted attenuation consists in transferring the concept of

the Gehenna of fire from a figurative to a literal realm on earth.

Those who hold this view maintain that Gehenna refers to the lit-

eral site of the valley of Hinnom south of Jerusalem (the supposed

depository of city offal with its perpetually burning fires), not to the

final judgment of God involving the destiny of the wicked or enemies

of God. It is argued that the burning of one's corpse at this site would

involve a greater condemnation than being judged and condemned by

the Sanhedrin and would represent the climax of the noted intensifi-

cation of the punishments described in the antithesis in 5:22. Thus

one would observe a closer correspondence between the crimes and

their respective punishments.7 The obvious question is whether this

literal interpretation of the "Gehenna of fire" is legitimate and rep-

resents Jesus' use of it. The absence of archaeological as well as liter-

ary evidence for such a site in the valley of Hinnom, as pointed out

earlier, argues against it.8

Guelich's interpretation requires no emendation of the text and

fits the context better in that it does justice to Jesus' antithetical

statement with its implied radical demand for a "better righteous-

ness," which, as in the case of His teaching on adultery, does not fo-

6 Lexical studies indicate that there is little difference between calling someone r[aka<

or mwre< despite attempts by some commentators to see a significant difference. The

former is an Aramaic derivative of an uncomplimentary nature, and the latter is a com-

mon Greek term of similar nuance.

7 This traditional interpretation is based on Rabbi David Kimchi's commentary on

Psalm 27. See, for example, Henry Burton Sharman, The Teaching of Jesus about the Future

according to the Synoptic Gospels (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1909), 257-58. He

opts for this interpretation which is representative of the older, critical commentators.

But this approach is not confined to the commentaries of an earlier era; it is still repre-

sented in recent discussions. For example Strawson states that Jesus had in mind the

"physical fact of the valley of Hinnom" (William Strawson, Jesus and the Future Life

[Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959J, 145).

8 See Scharen, "Gehenna in the Synoptics," 328, n. 18. Cf. idem, “The Development

of the Concept of Gehenna and its Use in the Synoptics” (ThD diss., Dallas Theological

Seminary, 1991), 176, n. 96.

Gehenna in the Synoptics 457

cus on the external act but on the inner attitude of the heart. The in-

ner emotion of anger and its often verbal expression in the use of in-

vectives against one's brother (or neighbor), both of which often lead

to murder, are judged alike. In the sight of God, intention and result

are viewed on the same plane and constitute a serious violation of

the apodictic injunction, "You shall not murder." Jesus' words in verse

22 transcend the Old Testament declaration of a right standing

before God on the basis of adherence to legal ordinances and demand

the satisfaction of the apodictic law which expresses God's true

intention in this respect. Therefore it is invalid to attempt to make

casuistic distinctions concerning degrees of punishment via legal

ordinances and assume that one has met God's true intention

(absolute demand) by meeting the demands of the ordinances. Jesus

shattered this legalistic conception of righteousness.

Guelich notes that Jesus' use of the same legal format—but filled

with "logic chopping" by the intentional incongruity between crime

and punishment—satirically comments on the fallacious reasoning of

scribal exegesis and suggests that these ordinances in 5:22 should not

be taken in a literal sense.9 This interpretation sees the "Gehenna of

fire" referring to the final eschatological judgment.10 Without this

meaning, the intended incongruity between crime and punishment

disappears along with Jesus' satirical thrust aimed at the scribal in-

terpretation of the law.

MATTHEW 10:28 (= LUKE 12:4-5)

This verse is part of Jesus' discourse in Matthew that deals with

the related topics of mission and martyrdom. Within this general

context Jesus exhorted the disciples to fearlessness in the face of op-

position and persecution. "And do not fear those who kill the body,

but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to de-

stroy both soul and body in hell ['Gehenna')." The parallel text in

Luke (12:4-5) follows a woe section (11:41-54) directed against the

lawyers (Pharisees and scribes) and is preceded immediately by Je-

9 Guelich, "Mt 5:22: Its Meaning and Integrity," 51. He states that these ordinances

are obviously not to be taken literally. "No one would ever attempt to take another to

trial for anger, nor to the Sanhedrin for using the common invective r[aka<, nor would

one be subject to eternal damnation for using the nearly synonymous mwre<." Zahn ob-

serves that the choice of form and content was deliberately satirical to demonstrate the

inadequacy of the Jewish understanding of the Law (Theodor Zahn, Das Evangelium des

Matthaus, 4th ed. [Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1922], 228). One may observe here the

difficulty of initiating court proceedings against someone on the basis of anger or the

use of invectives.

10 Guelich's words, "subject to eternal damnation," make this clear ("Mt 5:22: Its

Meaning and Integrity," 51). The majority of modern scholars opt for this interpretation

of "the Gehenna of fire" (e.g., Carson, Davies and Allison, Luz).

458 Bibliotheca Sacra / October—December 1992

sus' warning against their hypocrisy, which will not remain uncov-

ered (12:1-3).11 This warning is addressed to Jesus' disciples. As

Marshall observes, the general contexts in the two Gospels are thus

not dissimilar, in that both sayings are addressed to the disciples

rather than to the crowds or Jesus' opponents, and both are set in the

immediate context of troubles impending for the disciples.12

Jesus' exhortations in Matthew 10:28 and Luke 12:4-5 show an

antithesis between the fear of men and the fear of God. In Matthew,

Jesus contrasted the ability of man who can kill (a]poktenno<ntwn)

only the body with that of God who can destroy (a]pole<sai) both

body and soul in Gehenna.13 In Luke, on the other hand, the contrast

is between man who can kill (a]pokteino<ntwn) and God who both kills

(a]poktei?nai) and casts (e]mbalei?n) into Gehenna, after killing. The

fear of men, then, deals with the fear of death, which men are able

to inflict in that they are able to kill (a]poktenno<ntwn) the body

(sw?ma) but not the soul (th>n de> yuxh>n mh> duname<nwn a]poktei?nai).

The fear of God deals with God's ability to destroy both body and

soul in Gehenna (to>n duna<menon kai> yuxh>n kai> sw?ma a]pole<sai e]n

gee<nn^). Since both man and God are able to kill, the emphasis of

the saying lies on God's ability to destroy in or cast into Gehenna,.

This significant saying is one of the more explicit statements in

Scripture relating to judgment in the afterlife.14 One observes a

sw?ma/yuxh< dualism (dichotomy) in both parts of the Matthean say-

ing. Luke, however, did not make this distinction; he mentioned only

the body. This, however, should not be interpreted as a Lucan objec-

tion to such a distinction, since it occurs in his writings elsewhere

(Luke 12:19-23; Acts 20:10).15 This dualism, though, must not be

pressed too far in the direction of Hellenistic anthropology, which

saw the body and soul as distinct ontological parts of man with the

yuxh< ("soul") constituting the true human ego and possessing immor-

tality, the sw?ma ("body") being an obstacle or prison or at best an in-

different means of attaining the immortality of the yuxh< in a realm

11 The larger context is the extensive central section, usually referred to as the travel

account, in which Jesus uttered many sayings to His disciples and the crowds on His