The Hundred-Handed Monsters

Splitting Hell Wide Open: Part 3 - The Valley of Hinnom

[part 1]  [part 2]

So now let's tackle the word that I think causes the MOST confusion when it comes to this hot topic:  the Greek word "Gehenna."

In the King James Version of the Bible, the ancient Greek words "Hades" and "Gehenna" are both translated as 'Hell' about 10 times each.  I already mentioned that translating 'Hades' into 'Hell' is a little weird because Hades was not thought of as a place of "eternal punishment" and supposedly all humans -- bad and good -- went there when they died.  I think that 'Gehenna' is actually weirder though.  Why?  Because it was an actual place (see picture above).  It is an actual place.  By ''actual place," I mean a place that you can physically go to now, in this life.  You can go right now if you want, the place is still there -- south of ancient Jerusalem.

The Greek word 'Gehenna' is really just a borrowed word from Hebrew.  It comes from the words  "gay'," meaning "valley", and "Hinnom," meaning "lamentation."  This "Valley of Lamentation" was a literally a garbage dump south of the city that the Jews threw all variety of unwanted things into.  It was THE garbage dump, and not just a dump, but an incinerator as well.  The fires in the Valley of Hinnom were constantly kept burning; sulfur was added to them to achieve this.

About the burning of the Hebrews' "garbage":  Ancient Jews took their laws very seriously (they were given to them by God after all), and the worst criminals were stripped of all of their rights -- even the right to an honorable death and burial.  These "sinners" were instead treated just like the rest of the city's garbage; they were cast into the Valley of Hinnom to burn.

Any of this sounding familiar?  Fires that never go out?  Fires kept burning with brimstone (sulfur)?  A fiery place where sinners are "cast" when they die?

Yeah, that was Gehenna, and every Jew living at the time of Jesus knew what it meant when Jesus spoke about it: utter disgrace.  To be cast into Gehenna was probably the greatest fear of most Jews.  It meant that all your honor was gone, your family's honor was gone, and all memory of you was marked with shame.  It was a punishment that would linger even after you died.

But Gehenna was not a place of eternal, conscious torment.  Yes, the fires were "eternal."  Yes, the damned, the condemned, those who were judged as sinners, were thrown there.  But from the texts that we have, both in the Bible and from other documents of the same time period, there is nothing that even remotely points to a belief of ancient Jews and Greeks that they would be in physical pain forever.

So the next question is, if the Bible doesn't speak of a place like the "Hell" that we are so familiar with today, where did that concept come from? 

Tune in next time...

[to be continued]

Westboro Baptist Church Update: God Punishes Homosexual U.S. by Killing Virginia Tech Students and Sending Them to Hell

According to the WBC (Westboro Baptist Church), God's latest way of punishing the United States for tolerating homosexuals is by killing the students at Virginia Tech.  Those students are now in Hell.  Members of the church plan to protest at the funerals of these students, making sure that all who attend know why they died.

From the Church's Press Release:  "God is punishing America for her sodomite sins. The 33 massacred at Virginia Tech died for America's sins against WBC (Westboro Baptist Church). Just as U.S. soldiers dying in Iraq each day for America's sins against WBC."

see the article in the Denver Post

Splitting Hell Wide Open: Part 2, 'Tartarus'

(view Part 1 here)

It became clear to me then, that the concept of Hell was not a simple concept at all.  Apart from all the tough philosophical concepts to grasp (or not grasp) regarding a place of eternal torment, the actual written words referring to the place were confusing as well.

I knew by that time in my life that the Bible was not written in the English language, so it made me wonder:  what was the word for Hell in the original language that it was written?  And what was it about this word that would permit it to be translated as either Hell or Hades or Death interchangeably?  Who would possibly allow such an important concept to be translated in an ambiguous way??  This is my eternal soul we're talking about here, I want to know what's up!

The answers did come, but not for a while, and not until I had spent a decent amount of time studying Ancient Greek in college.  And it is far from anything that I expected.  And, yes, it has monolithic consequences to one's viewpoint on morality and on modern-day Christianity in general -- at least it did for me.  So here's the deal (you may want to get a beverage...).

When the Bible was written, there was no "Hell".  Nothing like the Hell that myself and most Christian's today spend much of their lives trying to avoid anyway.  In the ancient languages, there is no word for "Hell" -- that's why any attempt at translating a word into the word Hell is difficult, controversial, and results in major differences between English translations.

In reality, there are four different ancient words in the Bible translated into English at various times as "Hell."  Three of those words are ancient Greek words, used in the various writings in the New Testament, and one is a Hebrew word, used in the "Old Testament."  The three Greek words are "Gehenna," "Hades," and "Tartarus," and the Hebrew word is "Sheol."

It is interesting that the only word of these four that really resembles the concept of Hell as it is commonly imagined today is Tartarus.  Tartarus, like Hades, is a concept from Greek mythology.  It is a place, supposedly below Hades, where the worst of the worst mortal "sinners" (against the Greek gods) and other immortals who were enemies of the gods would be sent for eternal punishment.

This sounds very much like the Hell that we are used to hearing about today.  The only problem is that this word is only in the Bible one time (2 Pet 2:4), and in this instance it is used to refer to a place that God sends his fallen angels to to wait for judgment day: the worst waiting room ever.  2 Peter mentions nothing about humans being sent there, and the angels who are sent there are not condemned there for eternity.

I find some significance in the fact there IS a greek word somewhat akin to our modern-day concept of Hell, and yet it is not used in the Bible to describe a punishment for human sin.  Instead, the words Gehenna and Hades are used; words whose meanings are very different from each other, and very different from the "Hell" that I was taught to believe in.

[to be continued]

Splitting Hell Wide Open -- Part One

I have recently been following the controversial ministry of the Westboro Baptist Church.  Their less-than-subtle stance on what the Christian Bible says about Hell and who is going there has led me to revisit a study on the topic that I did long ago -- one that eventually led me to an interest in Religious studies and my decision to major in the subject in college.  I had almost forgotten for a while how much this subject deeply affects people's lives, especially fundamentalist Christians.  It sure affected me.  As I go back through what I have learned about the subject, I thought I would post about it formally here -- maybe you'll see something you didn't think about before, or post a comment to help me think about something that I haven't.  It's going to be pretty long though, so I'm writing it in parts.

By the way, if you have some time there is a pretty intense documentary on the Westboro Baptist Church from BBC2 on YouTube right now (it is in 7 parts).

Part One:  A Little Background...
One of the major reasons that I went to school to study Religion, and Christianity in particular, is because of a realization that I had during my mid-teenage years.  Longing to be a devout Christian, I spent a lot of time reading and contemplating various books in the Bible -- mostly the New Testament "Gospel" books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  As most Christians probably do when they spend a lot of time studying a particular part of the Bible, I began to notice differences between the various English translations.  Many of these differences seemed trivial, but every once in a while I would come across a difference that I thought was pretty significant.

Take verses that talk about Hell for example.  Such a huge part of Christianity for many people, as indeed it was for me while growing up, is the belief that there are two possible places of abode after death; a place of eternal happiness, called Heaven, and a place of eternal suffering, called Hell.  My actions in this life, or at least my faith in God and Jesus, will determine where I will spend eternity after I die.  Because of the severity of the consequences in this matter, naturally I thought that getting a very grounded and circumspect understanding of the Bible verses that talked about Hell was of extreme importance.

So you can imagine my surprise when, after taking a verse that talked about Hell, say, Matthew 16:18 for instance, and looking it up in different versions of the Bible, I found that not every version translated the word "Hell" as "Hell." 

       "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." - King James Version

This verse conveyed a comforting thought for a Christian like me; that members of Jesus' church are safe from eternal punishment.  I noticed right away, though, that while several versions of the Bible like the NKJ and the NIV use the word 'Hell' here, several other versions use the word "Hades."  Hades?  Isn't that a somewhat different concept then the concept of Hell?  Hades isn't a 'Christian' word or even a Hebrew word for that matter.  It's from Greek mythology, referring either to the god of the underworld or his dominion, where according to the Greeks, everyone went when they died.  Isn't there a pretty important difference between the church defending against eternal punishment and the church defending against, well, physical death in general?  Then I look at the Revised Standard Version of the Bible which says, "...and the powers of death shall not prevail against it."  Interesting. Are death and Hell the same thing then?  And what is Jesus, a Yahweh-fearing Jew, even acknowledging a Greek god for?  Aren't good Christians supposed to reject all concepts of multiple gods or other extra-biblical mythological traditions?

You can see where this began to get confusing for me.  But this was only the beginning...
[to be continued...]

The Great Holyday Battle of Sea-Tac

Or, Does it Have to be All or None?

The annual war of holy-day decorations and terminology is on once again.  The latest battle?  Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky noticed that Seattle's Sea-Tac airport had some beautiful and prominent Christmas tree displays, but nothing to represent the Jewish holy-days of Chanukah that begin this Friday.  An airport being public space, Bogomilsky felt that other Religions should be represented as well during the holiday season, and requested about two weeks ago that a giant Menorah grace the halls alongside the Christian foliage.  Eventually, Bogomilsky got a lawyer to represent his take on the matter, threatening to sue if something wasn't done.

The airport staff and their lawyers, determining that putting up the Menorah might create a "snowball effect" (no pun intended) requiring them to put up many decorations for many different religions, decided that it would be best to just remove the Christmas trees, and then review their decorating policies after the first of the year.

Rabbi Bogomilsky was "appalled" by the decision, saddened by the fact that the halls of the airport would have light taken away from them, rather than added.

Why is it that many people still seem to have an "all or none" mindset when it comes to the idea of representing multiple religions during this time of year?  Yes, in public spaces people should try to acknowledge the fact that this country is made up of a colorful variety of people with all different faiths and holy-day symbols, but that doesn't mean that they have to become paranoid and not put up any of them for fear of upsetting someone.  Common sense should tell people to cover Christianity and Judaism this time of year, and then, if other people "complain" about not being represented, put something up for them.  Take it one at a time.  Removing everything isn't going to solve the problem; this is exactly what most people who perceive a "war on Christmas" are most fearful of.

Worst of all, regarding the Sea-Tac incident, it will most likely be reported carelessly portraying Rabbi Bogomilsky as a Christmas-hater who is glad that the trees were taken out.

We should feel incredibly thankful that we live in a country that grants each of us religious freedom, and in public spaces, we should be happy (and not fearful) to try to represent the people who want to have their voices heard.  As we work hard to replace the idea in our minds that public holy-day celebrations have to be "one or the other" in regards to people's faiths, we need to also realize that "all or none" is not the only other option.

***
Sources:
http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_121006WABairporttreesSW.1663eccf.html