Origin
In English translations, Gehenna is rendered as “hell,” but that comes from the Germanic land of the dead “Hel” or “Haljo.” Since the Latin used Gehenna, it’s clear this was inserted no earlier than the 9th century and much later than that for the KJV. The modern concept of Hell contains ideas of tortuous punishment that are wholly absent in Scripture. Even the use of “fire and brimstone” has been corrupted from it’s original definition of purifying, rather than some sort of wrathful vengeance.
The word Gehenna actually refers to the valley of Ben-Hinnom, which was not associated with an afterlife of punishment until the teachings of the Pharisee and then later with the Mishna and Talmud around 200-500 A.D. Even then, the punishment was thought to be temporary; “The punishment of the wicked in Gehenna is twelve months,” Shabbat 33b. There are at least as many schools of thought in Judaism as Christianity and some Rabbis believe more time is merited in Gehenna for more serious sin, but still that one can repent at any time. The Jewish Encyclopedia claims that Gehenna will cease to exist with a final judgement.
The Curse of Gehenna
More importantly, Gehenna holds significance to the punishment of iniquity declared by the Prophet Jeremiah, which was the destruction of Israel by Babylon. Joshua, chapters 15 & 18, describe the location of the valley, while 2 Chron 28 & 33 tell us the horrible sins committed there by the people of Israel in service to Molech and Baal; sacrificing their children and practicing pagan sorcery. Jeremiah 32:35 tells us how angered God was that they sent their children to be “passed through the fire” to Molech and God announces his great displeasure at their actions and the judgment that will be brought down on them for doing it.
In chapter 19, God tells Jeremiah to stand in front of the gate leading to the Valley of Hinnom and declare that in Israel’s punishment their dead would be thrown into that valley where once they sacrificed their children, for there would be “no place else to bury.” This was clearly an earthly punishment for their sins and makes no reference whatsoever of the afterlife. Quite the contrary, Jerusalem and the people of Israel would be restored after that punishment.
In Jeremiah 7—which also mentions Gehenna—God says that Jerusalem will “burn and not be extinguished (Jer 7:20). This is near identical to Isaiah 66:24, which is often used by proponents of eternal torment. It is clear, however, that God meant that it would not be saved, since Jerusalem was rebuilt. The second Temple was established, and God’s covenant with his people restored. So both physically and spiritually, the “fire that shall not be extinguished” and the “curse of Gehenna” were not eternal.
In 70 AD Rome similarly came and brought destruction on Israel, tearing down the second Temple and filling the valley of Hinnom with the dead, just like Jesus prophesied would come upon that very same generation (Matt 24:34). This is the very same consequence that he mourned in Luke 19:41-44—that the people would suffer for rejecting and crucifying the Christ. With the curse of the valley of Ben-Hinnom as an important reference, let’s look at all the ways “Gehenna” is used in the NT.
Gehenna in the NT
Matt 5:22, 29, 30 & Matt 18:9.
“But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be subject to the fire of hell [Gehenna],”
In Matt 5:22, Jesus tells people that if they call someone a fool they will go to “hell.” Clearly, this is not what he meant. This is the same issue as with Matt 18, which is a contradiction with what the gospel teaches about salvation if Jesus is literally talking about going to an afterlife of punishment, whether eternal or temporary (Rom 6).
More likely, he was contrasting the people’s belief that they were correctly following the law of Israel, with the fate of the “wicked” that they ostracized. If that is the case, then Jesus is using the idea of Gehenna in much the same way he uses “Hades” in the parable of Luke 16. He was using their own philosophy to make a point, that doesn’t mean that he literally meant this is what will happen. This is a clear use of hyperbole that has instead been taken literally.
Further, if this is a reference to their practice of the law, then it also means that his usage of Gehenna here does not pertain to Christians or non-believers of today. It was directed at the Jewish people under the specific context of following the law of Israel, so applying it to anyone else would be a mistake. Regardless, telling someone that they will be subject to the curse of the valley of Ben-Hinnom may still refer to an earthly death and disgrace, rather than the afterlife.
With both Matt 5:29 & 18:9, if Jesus is primarily warning against a literal hell or punishment for sin, then he is teaching salvation by works, without any mention of the gospel of redemption by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, and salvation through faith by grace. Not only that, but it is the “whole body,” being thrown into the Valley of Hinnom, which sounds more like earthly disgrace for your remains than spiritual punishment in the afterlife.
In Matthew 5, the passage is included within a series of corrections on the standard views of the Law of Moses at that time. If this were literally a warning to repent or suffer “aiōnios fire” and “fiery Gehenna,” it seems odd that Jesus was going around forgiving sins without people even asking for it. In Matthew 18, Jesus then immediately goes into the parable of the lost sheep, tempering the rhetoric on punishment with a message of grace—as in many other places throughout both the NT and OT.
Even if one takes the threat of punishment here literally, that in no way limits God’s power to save all from that punishment. It is a declaration that humankind cannot save themselves, not a warning for them to save themselves by following the rules. If that were all God wanted, then the Law of Moses would have been enough. Jesus would have been just a teacher and not a redeemer. The cross would have been unnecessary.
Mark 9:42-47
“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it is better for him if a heavy millstone is hung around his neck and he is thrown into the sea. And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed, than, having your two hands, to go into hell [Gehenna], into the unquenchable fire. And if your foot is causing you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life without a foot, than, having your two feet, to be thrown into hell [Gehenna]. And if your eye is causing you to sin, throw it away; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be thrown into hell [Gehenna], where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT EXTINGUISHED. For everyone will be salted with fire. 50 Salt is good; but if the salt becomes unsalty, with what will you make it salty. Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.”
As I’ve stated, God himself uses the idea of burning without being extinguished concerning the punishment of Babylon. If this is really a doctrine of eternal hell, then Jesus is still teaching salvation via works. Yet, in verse 49, Jesus states that “everyone will be salted with fire,” and explicitly included believers. The very fire that proponents of ECT claim supports eternal punishment leads immediately to a reference of the refining fire found throughout Scripture. There is no mention of two fires in Mark’s writing, any attempt to insert such an idea is a gross misrepresentation of his gospel. The need to force such assumptions in order to make a particular interpretation work should tell you all you need to know about the quality of it.
Matt 10:28, Luke 12:5
“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Instead, fear the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell [Gehenna].”
The use of “destroy” here is interesting, as the word in Greek is apollumi (G622) which is same word used to refer to the “lost” sheep that the shepherd goes to find in Luke 15:4 & Matthew 15:24. Overall, there is not only little support here for the idea of an afterlife of punishment, but one would have to assign a different meaning for “destroy” to each the “body” and the “soul,” unless the argument is for annihilationism. If the body is destroyed, one might argue that the soul goes on to hell, but if the soul is then “destroyed” in hell, what does that mean? It is certainly not “eternal.” Perhaps Luke 12:5 refers to being thrown into an afterlife of punishment, but it could just as easily be referring to the disgrace of being left unburried in the literal physical valley. There is no further context given.
The Luke text does not mention soul or destruction, but simply states they will be thrown into Gehenna, which is a similar statement to the judgment of Jeremiah. This warning precedes a message of grace in the analogy of sparrows, that “not one” will fall “apart from the Father.” So in Matthew there is a warning against the separation from God, while the same teaching in Luke reminds us how able God is to save those who would fall apart from him. Another message of punishment or discipline is tempered by grace.
It seems to be more figurative language describing punishment or judgment from God for sins. Consider the “outer darkness” (Matt 8:12) and compare it to what we know of the valley of Ben-Hinnom. In both cases, being cast there was a disgrace—a severe punishment for idolatry—but being outside the city of God does not necessitate an eternity of punishment. To the contrary, God will not reject someone forever (Psalms 77:7, Lamentations 3:31) and the very gates of that city are said to never shut (Rev 21:25).
Matthew 23:15
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You traverse land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell [Gehenna] as you are.”
This is a very interesting use, as Ben-Hinnom means “Son of Hinnom,” so in the Hebrew he would have been speaking in, Jesus is literally saying “Ben-Hinnom,” when the translation here is, “son of hell.” Considering what we know of the curse of the valley of Ben-Hinnom, it is clear that Jesus is associating them with the same people that practiced vile acts in the valley of Hinnom, which then brought punishment by God with earthly destruction. At most, he is claiming they are guilty of the judgment they speak of others, but that does not even mean that Jesus agreed with their theology.
Matt 23:33-36
“You snakes, you offspring of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell [Gehenna]? Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify… so that upon you will fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth… Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.”
Not only does Jesus’ language in this passage invoke the judgment of Jeremiah with the “sentence of Gehenna,” but he then states that this sentence of judgment will come upon that very generation. In the next chapter, Jesus prophesies that sentence of judgment, which a preterist study of Revelation shows has significant overlap with Josephus’ historical account of the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 A.D. Again, the language of Jesus in Matthew 24 mirrors that of Jeremiah 19 closely enough to make a clear connection. Just as the “new covenant” spoken of in Jeremiah 31 was a precursor to the new covenant with Christ.
Taken holistically, the sentence of Gehenna spoken about in Matthew 23 clearly relates to the prophesy of Jerusalem’s destruction brought about on that generation, just like Jesus said it would be. Even if it has potential future implications, it was still a clear and present threat of earthly punishment which we know actually came to pass.
James 3:6
“The tongue also is a fire, a world of wickedness among the parts of the body. It pollutes the whole person, sets the course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell [Gehenna].”
James is clearly using “fire” as a destructive and evil force, but what exactly does it mean to be “set on fire by Gehenna?” Clearly Gehenna represents a figurative force of evil that affects “the tongue” in order to cause strife. Whether James is thinking of Gehenna as the literal disgrace of having your body thrown in a cursed valley or as a literal afterlife of punishment—or something even more figurative—it’s hard to say, since no further context is given.
Hades and Sheol
So that’s it. A few places in Matthew and Mark that speak about going to hell for being wicked, a couple places where the hypocritical Pharisees are associated with it, a figurative use by James, and one teaching in two places (Matt 10 & Luke 12) where it might actually be associated with the fate of the soul in the afterlife—but maybe not, since those are also the most cryptic.
You might notice that nowhere is the word “aiōnios” attributed to “Gehenna.” The word translated as “Hell” is not called “eternal” in Scripture, even if you are using that poor translation for aiōnios. The closest thing associated with it is “eternal punishment [aiōnion kolasin],” in Matt 25:46—which is actually a quote of Daniel 12:2, which therefore uses the Hebrew word olam.
You may have seen the word “hell” translated in a few other places, but these are the words Hades and Sheol. They merely refer to the land of the dead where everyone goes, wicked and righteous both. Despite how the KJV uses them;
Psalm 55:15 “Let death seize upon them, and let them go down quick into hell (Sheol)…”
Job 14:13 “O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave (Sheol), that thou wouldest keep me secret,”
This shows a clear translation bias and a knowledge of how the word should be translated, so that it cannot be said to be some sort of honest mistake. It’s “hell” when it refers to the wicked, but “grave” when it refers to the righteous.
Silence of the Church
Besides Jame’s figurative reference, no apostle ever mentions Gehenna. Jesus does not extrapolate on what he means, despite going to great pains to further explain to his disciples whenever they didn’t understand his parables and teachings. The fact remains that the idea of Gehenna as a place of punishment was devised by the Pharisee and never spoken of by any Prophet before Jesus.
In the book of Acts, Peter and Paul go through great effort to explain the gospel, but neither there nor in any of their correspondence to the Church do they ever mention the idea of eternal torment. The gospel of John does not mention it at all, neither does the Didache or any of the early Apostolic Fathers before Tertullian. If this were truly the consequence of rejecting the gospel, such an omission would be a horrifying oversight by all involved.
Whereas if this were merely a reference to the judgment spoken of in Jeremiah and an effort to turn the Pharisee’s own teachings against them, the lack of its teaching in the early Church would make much more sense. One can hardly argue language two thousand years later when the ones fluent in the language and living in the culture taught ultimate reconciliation—or apokatastasis, as it was called in the Greek. If ECT were really what Jesus taught, then why is there a near complete lack of its teaching in the early Church?