Exaggeration as a Means of Emphasis

One of the commonest arguments against the idea that Jesus was really serious about the possibility of hell is to point out that Jewish rabbis would frequently illustrate and emphasize a point by deliberately using extreme, hypothetical examples that were not meant to be taken literally. This is certainly true; and Jesus himself used this technique to make some of his points more memorable; such as,  “Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” (Mat 7:3) So the issue that we need to resolve here is to what extent the context of Jesus’ remarks about the nature of hell can justify a non-literal, or more figurative, understanding of Jesus’ words.

Let’s briefly consider another example from Jesus’ own teaching in order to highlight the importance of context in such cases:

Jesus looked around, and said to his disciples, “How difficult it is for those who have riches to enter into the Kingdom of God!” The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus answered again, “Children, how hard is it for those who trust in riches to enter into the Kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.” They were exceedingly astonished, saying to him, “Then who can be saved?” Jesus, looking at them, said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God, for all things are possible with God.” (Mar 10:23-27)

You may be familiar with the explanation of this passage that says that the “needle’s eye” was the name given to a very small gate set either in or near the main entrance gate for individual access when the main gate was closed. Consequently, getting a camel through such a gate would be quite a struggle; and it would have to be relieved of its load in order to do it. It sounds like a pretty good literal interpretation; and since hearing it at school I have often cited it: but there are 2 problems. Firstly, there is no evidence of this explanation having been suggested prior to the 9th century AD. But, secondly, the context indicates that something else is intended. Jesus’ first remark indicates that rich people only enter God’s kingdom with difficulty. This statement by itself shocks the disciples; who, like most Jews of their day (and many others), considered wealth to be a sign of God’s favour. But Jesus then chooses to reinforce his point with this extreme example, causing the disciples to be totally dumbfounded, concluding that the situation was absolutely, or nearly, impossible. And yet, again, Jesus drives home the point, insisting that ‘With men it is impossible.’ Only then does he qualify his meaning by saying, “…but not with God, for all things are possible with God.”

Notice particularly two things. Firstly, the element of exaggeration is intended to emphasize rather than diminish the importance of the main point; but, secondly, it does not necessarily exclude the possibility of there being any further qualification or exception to that point; such as Jesus’ closing remark that, “all things are possible with God.”¹

What Points Was Jesus Making?

With that in mind, let us look at some of the extreme statements of Jesus in relation to hell.

Avoid At All Costs

If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it away from you. For it is more profitable for you that one of your members should perish, than for your whole body to be cast into Gehenna. If your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off, and throw it away from you. For it is more profitable for you that one of your members should perish, than for your whole body to be cast into Gehenna. (Mat 5:29-30)

Notice especially here the qualification, ‘If … causes you to stumble.’ The imaginary situation is that the removal of the right eye or hand will result in the removal of the cause of stumbling. But we all know perfectly well that this is not the case; as the real cause lies in the heart and mind of the individual and they still have the other eye or hand available to carry out the sinful deed! But the main point of Jesus’ saying is crystal clear: even the suffering incurred by the loss of an eye or hand is not to be compared to the suffering and loss of being consigned to Gehenna. Whatever it may be like; it’s bad — very bad! So avoid anything that may send you in that direction.

Unfortunately, this statement is often wrongly conflated with Mat 19:9-12; where Jesus’ disciples, on hearing Jesus’ teaching against divorce, object that, “If this is the case of the man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” To this, Jesus replies, “Not all men can receive this saying, but those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake. He who is able to receive it, let him receive it.“

Notice that this is not a discussion about hell (though some might facetiously seek to describe a bad marriage in such terms). Rather, it is a discussion about the lifelong character of the marriage covenant. Nor is it an example of an exaggerated statement; though it is often wrongly claimed as such by implying that Jesus is suggesting that it might be justifiable for a man to castrate himself in order to avoid sexual temptation. Viewed from a non-Jewish perspective, that may sound plausible; as most men are acutely aware of the influence of the sex organs on our moods and inclinations and there have always been those who have thought that life could be much simpler without them!

Yet it is very unlikely that this was Jesus’ meaning, or that his disciples would have ever seriously considered that possibility. This is firstly because, to the Jews, castration and infertility were viewed as contrary to God’s intended order (Lev. 22:24; 21:20; Deut. 23:2). Secondly because, as can be seen by reading the full text, ‘eunuch’ does not necessarily mean ‘a person who has been castrated.’ The original etymology of the Greek word, ‘eunuch’ is uncertain (‘bed-keeper’ being the most common suggestion); but from early times it was known to have been used to describe persons in a variety of positions requiring a single-minded and impartial devotion to their master’s interests. Similarly, there is an Old Testament example of the Hebrew term, ‘saris’, which is derived from a root meaning, ‘to castrate,’ being applied to Potiphar, an Egyptian ‘officer’ who was also a married man (see Gen 39:1 & 7.) In reality, there is nothing in Mat 19:12 to indicate that Jesus was suggesting anything so drastic. He was simply acknowledging that there were some who, like himself, might find it necessary to forego their right to marry for the sake of God’s Kingdom.

But both Matthew and Mark also cite Jesus’ example of the eye and hand in the following context:

Whoever will cause one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him if he was thrown into the sea with a millstone hung around his neck. If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having your two hands to go into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire, ‘where their worm doesn’t die, and the fire is not quenched.’ If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life lame, rather than having your two feet to be cast into Gehenna, into the fire that will never be quenched- ‘where their worm doesn’t die, and the fire is not quenched.’ If your eye causes you to stumble, cast it out. It is better for you to enter into the Kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into the Gehenna of fire, ‘where their worm doesn’t die, and the fire is not quenched.’ (Mar 9:42-48. See also Mat 18:6-9)

Notice how Jesus’ earlier statement is both repeated and emphasized, with the additional reinforcement of it being better to be drowned than cause a child to stumble and the description of Gehenna as a place of everlasting fire. So it becomes even more difficult to deny that Jesus seriously does mean that the loss of a limb or eye, or even the premature termination of one’s life, should be considered preferable to being condemned to Gehenna, regardless of how we interpret Jesus’ description of it.

The Rich Man and Lazarus

This parable, it should be noted, refers to conditions in Sheol during the period between a man’s death and God’s final judgement. Nevertheless, Jesus describes the rich man’s condition in pretty graphic terms:

In Hades, he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far off, and Lazarus at his bosom. He cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue! For I am in anguish in this flame.’ “But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that you, in your lifetime, received your good things, and Lazarus, in like manner, bad things. But now here he is comforted and you are in anguish. Besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, that those who want to pass from here to you are not able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’ (Lk 16:23-26)

However, examination of the meaning of the words ‘torment’ and ‘anguish’ in this passage suggests that they refer to inward, mental suffering rather than physical pain. ‘Flame’ literally means ‘a blaze of light’. It commonly refers to a flame from a fire; though about half the NT references are visual descriptions rather than a literal flame. And in this passage (in spite of what some translations say) ‘fire’ is not mentioned — only heat and thirst. So there could be legitimate grounds for arguing that this flame may be the blazing heat and light of God’s holiness, exposing the man’s sin and shame; in which case, it could be claimed that the more gruesome interpretations of this passage owe more to the exaggerations of later expositors than the actual words of Jesus.

Of course, there are those who will say, ‘What about the descriptions of those who have had near-death experiences?’ Well of course, if all of these experiences happened exactly as people described, them, then Jesus was definitely not exaggerating! But Jesus’ own statement that, ‘between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, that those who want to pass from here to you are not able, and that none may cross over from there to us,’ is a clear warning that, once a person’s soul has been consigned to Hades, there will be no way back². Similarly, when Jesus’ says, ‘If they don’t listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if one rises from the dead,’ he is emphasizing the vital importance of listening to, and obeying God’s word now — before it is too late.

But it is possible that such ‘hell-or-heaven’ experiences are visions, granted under exceptional circumstances³, to confront a person with spiritual realities. Visionary experiences are frequently highly symbolic, impacting all of the person’s senses, emotions and reason: yet the actual experiences may differ significantly from person to person. (Compare, for instance, Ezekiel’s vision of the Cherubim (Ez. 1:4-25; 10:1-22) with that of John (Rev 4:6-11).

Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth

The expression, ‘gnashing of teeth,’ is found six times in Matthew’s gospel (Mat 8:12; 13:42; 13:50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30). It is also found once in Luke’s gospel (Luk 13:28) and once in Acts (Acts 7:54): though not at all in Mark or John. In the Old Testament it appears five times (Job 16:9; Ps 35:16; Ps 37:12; Ps 112:10; Lam 2:16). Wherever it is used in the gospels, it forms part of the expression, ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth;’ which describes the response of those who are cast out of Christ’s presence. To suggest that ‘weeping’ should be a response to such a situation cannot reasonably be called exaggeration: but ‘gnashing of teeth’ is commonly interpreted as an expression of bitter suffering and pain; and it is that concept, as indicative of torture, that lies behind most claims of exaggeration here. But all of the O.T. references, and Acts, actually portray gnashing the teeth as an expression of bitter enmity. Even in Ps 112:10 (‘The wicked will see it, and be grieved. He shall gnash with his teeth, and melt away. The desire of the wicked will perish.‘) the word translated ‘grieve’ carries the meaning of angry frustration, rather than regret. Thus it is reasonable to ask whether Jesus’ point is not rather that those who are rejected remain unrepentant and opposed to the ways of God.

The omission of this expression from John’s gospel is unsurprising due to his limited choice of subjects for discussion: but its omission from Mark is interesting. Closer examination reveals that the dialogues from Matthew in which this expression occurs are simply absent from Mark. So why is this? The expression is found in passages where Jesus warns how God’s Kingdom will be purified; such that people who supposed themselves entitled to be a part of it will instead find themselves expelled. Matthew’s gospel was written for a Jewish audience that prided themselves as being God’s chosen people, awaiting the coming of their Messiah King. For them, these warnings were especially relevant. But, according to early church sources, the gospel of Mark was produced by John Mark, Peter’s interpreter, at the request of the Roman Christians.⁴ This was a predominantly Gentile audience with no such concept of automatic membership of God’s kingdom.

The Furnace of Fire

We have already seen Jesus describe Gehenna as a fire in Mar 9:42-48 and Mat 18:6-9. But we also see it in the following passages:

As therefore the darnel weeds are gathered up and burned with fire; so will it be at the end of this age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will gather out of his Kingdom all things that cause stumbling, and those who do iniquity, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be weeping and the gnashing of teeth. (Mat 13:40-42)

So will it be in the end of the world. The angels will come forth, and separate the wicked from among the righteous, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth. (Mat 13:49-50)

Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’ … These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. (Mat 25:41,46)

Are these deliberate exaggerations or something else? We noted previously that a deliberate exaggeration normally involved extreme, hypothetical examples that were not meant to be taken literally. In that case, we have a problem here; because the first two of these passages are not presented as hypothetical examples: but as Jesus’ actual explanation of the parables he has just given. Parables make their point by drawing parallels between known realities and unseen principles. It is the reality and plausibility of the natural example that emphasises the reasonableness of the explanation. Both these parables are making the same basic point: that there will be a final reckoning: the good will be preserved and the bad disposed of. And Jesus’ explanation of how this disposal will occur is ‘the furnace of fire.’ Jesus’ disciples were probably left with a lot of questions about exactly what this meant: but they could not possibly have said, “Don’t worry. He’s probably just exaggerating!”

Destruction

“Don’t be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.” (Mat 10:28)

Jesus has been warning his disciples that they may be killed for their faith in him. He reassures them that mere men can only kill their bodies. ‘Kill’ means, ‘to do away with by cutting off from life;’ though not in the sense of destroying whatever remains. But he then points out that God is able to ‘destroy’ (‘do away with by an act of destruction’) both soul and body in Gehenna. Will God actually do this? We will discuss this later: but it is clearly no exaggeration.

Footnotes

1. Steve C. Singleton’s online article, “Hyperbole and overstatement as tools for deeper Bible study“, provides a helpful guide to recognizing and interpreting such statements.
2. But there is one scriptural qualification to this. 1Pe 3:19-20 implies that those who died in or before Noah’s flood were given a chance to hear and respond to the preaching of Jesus when he rose from the dead.
3. Such events are most commonly experienced in the moments when a person is hovering on the brink of death. But, interestingly, there is growing medical evidence that they may even occur when there is no detectable brain activity and include verifiable descriptions of external events viewed from an ‘out of body’ perspective. See for example “Imagine Heaven: Near-Death Experiences, God’s Promises, and the Exhilarating Future That Awaits You” by John Burke, 20 Oct. 2015.
4. Irenaus, basing his sources on Polycarp and Papias, tells us that, ‘Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.’ For further information, see the article, ‘Testimony of Early Church Sourcesʼ at https://life.liegeman.org/ntdocs3/.