Judas Fish, Part 4: The Aftermath

'
Background
This background will run a little differently than most posts, focusing on the background of Judas Iscariot, as we wrap up his story and this series. It is a story which has been fishy from the beginning...

From the time when the Twelve Disciples/Apostles are introduced to us, Judas Iscariot was labeled a traitor (Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:13-16). In the Synoptic Gospels, that is all you know about Judas until he actively began to betray Jesus, but in John, Jesus implied that Judas would betray Him long before that (John 6:70-71) and Judas was branded both a thief and a traitor when he was given the dishonor of being the one who complained about the waste of money in anointing Jesus with expensive perfume (John 12:4-6).

When Judas allegedly initiated the betrayal of Jesus with the Chief Priests, the Gospels are unclear as to whether he did so on his own, or was controlled by Satan, or was merely influenced by Satan. Even more suspiciously, the Gospel writers recorded more than they could have possibly known regarding the conspiracy, including timing and precise details of this clandestine meeting, as well as Satan's level of influence. Conspicuously, one of the known unknowables is the sum of money exchanged for the betrayal; a sum that conveniently tied into a prophesy. (As usual, this "prophesy" did not hold up to scrutiny when its context was considered.)

During the Last Supper, Jesus revealed that one of the Disciples would betray Him. According to Matthew and John, Judas was explicitly identified as the traitor, but only John records Judas leaving the dinner party at that point, while the other Gospels imply through silence that he stayed with them. Another prophesy referenced Jesus' betrayal by a trusted friend, despite the fact that, according to John, Jesus never trusted Judas. Also according to John, Satan entered Judas once he was identified as the traitor, and yet the other Disciples are portrayed as being clueless as to why Judas left the dinner.

When the hour came, Judas sprang into action, leading men to Jesus to arrest Him. For some strange reason, Judas needed to identify Jesus to the arresting party, despite all of Jesus' miracles and public teaching sessions, and he did so with a kiss... at least according to Matthew and Mark. Luke had Jesus stop the kiss from happening, and John has no reference of a kiss whatsoever, but instead has the arresting party fall down in reaction to Jesus' willingness to let Himself be arrested. In the scuffle, or lack thereof, one of the Disciples cuts an ear off of the High Priest's servant, but only in Luke is there a mention of Jesus miraculously healing of that ear, and Luke curiously neglects to provide any details of the reactions to that miracle.

Sorting through all of these inconsistencies makes the whole story of Judas as the evil traitor seem a bit fishy. Let us see what fleshes out as we follow the aftermath of this Pisces plot.

This is Part 4 of a four part series entitled "Judas Fish." The series entries are:

• Part 1: The Setup
• Part 2: Betrayer Revealed
• Part 3: The Kiss of Death
• Part 4: The Aftermath

Judas Fish, Part 4: The Aftermath

Anyone who is familiar with Christianity knows the aftermath of Jesus' arrest; the trial, rejection by the crowd, hanging on the cross, death, and resurrection. However, not nearly as many people are familiar with the story of what happened to the man who betrayed Jesus; Judas. So, what did happen to Judas after the arrest? That depends on who you ask...

Do not "ask" the Gospels of Mark and John, because they do have an answer. And why should they? After all, if Judas was really a traitor, how and why would any of the Disciples know about his whereabouts and activities after the arrest? He was no longer with them. All that we know from Mark 14:21 (copied word-for-word in Matthew 26:24 and partially in Luke 22:22) is that his fate would not have been not good:

"The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born." NIV

Of course, not knowing what happened to the man who was responsible for the death of the Savior is not satisfying to our sense of justice! How could Judas have turned against an innocent man and his Salvation?!?! Well, do not worry. Justice was served... possibly. That really depends on your idea of justice.

In Matthew 27:1-10, you will find one type of "justice". Seeing Jesus arrested finally made it all clear to Judas, as we discover from Matthew 27:3-5:

When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. "I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood."
"What is that to us?" they replied. "That’s your responsibility."
Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. NIV

Judas repented. That "evil" man had a change of heart, one that pained him so much that he would rather be dead than to live with memory of his incredible failing. It was the ultimate contrition, as in how Psalm 51:17 renders it:

My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart you, God, will not despise. NIV

Yet if we are to believe Jesus' words noted above about Judas' fate, God did despise Judas' repentant heart, despite the words of Isaiah 59:20:

"The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins," declares the Lord NIV

and Jesus' own words in Luke 15:7:

"I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent." NIV

To have Judas repent, but still be punished for his sins, does not mesh well with the message of Salvation. Matthew created quite a paradox in punishing a repentant sinner, even with a sinner as "vile" as Judas.

That is not the only issue Matthew created either. Matthew 27:6-10 records the dilemma the Chief Priests had with what to do with the money Judas had thrown at them. They chose to buy a field with it in which to bury foreigners which they called "The Field of Blood" as a reference to the blood money which bought it; an action which had greater significance than they realized, as Matthew 27:9-10 tells us:

Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me." NIV

If you search Jeremiah, you will not find this prophesy at all, nor in the entire Bible, yet Matthew quotes this as if it is in there. Matthew was likely using some corrupted version of the Scriptures. Yet even in that degenerate version, like we see in too many other NT prophesy references, Matthew ignores the verse's own context. The verse clearly states that they used the money to buy a field per God's command, but the Chief Priests were under no such direction!

The closest reference in the "legitimate" version of Jeremiah is Jeremiah 32:6-9, where someone is fulfilling a prophesy and buying a field for silver, but there is no blood money, no potter, and the price was seventeen silver pieces. The closest reference in all of the Bible comes from Zechariah 11:12-13

I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it." So
they paid me thirty pieces of silver.
And the Lord said to me, "Throw it to the potter"-the handsome price
at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them
into the House of the Lord to the potter. NIV

Not surprisingly, this prophesy, too, misses the mark for many reasons, including the lack of a field purchase, but at least there is a potter, a thirty-piece silver payment, and those pieces of silver being thrown into the Temple.

So Matthew has issues, even without considering who was around to record Judas' conversation and money throwing. What about Luke? Luke does not actually mention anything in his Gospel about Judas' fate. Instead, we have to go to Acts, which he also had a hand in authoring.

In Acts 1:15-26, after Jesus went up into Heaven (Acts 1:9-11, because we all know that Heaven is "up", right?), the eleven remaining Disciples decide that the leadership gap left by Judas' departure should be filled. Acts 1:18-19 revealed Judas' fate:

(With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) NIV

This is quite a different story than the one told by Matthew; one that drips with the blood of vengeance. Judas does not repent. Nor does he give back his ill-gotten wages, but rather uses them to buy a field. In a case of sweet irony, Judas tripped and fell in that same field, incurring a mortal injury in that "accident". Contrary to Matthew, Acts claims that it is Judas' blood, not Jesus' blood, which gives the field its name.

Why is the account in Acts so different than Matthew? Well, to fulfill prophesy, of course! We see in Acts 1:20:

"For," said Peter, "it is written in the Book of Psalms:
'May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’
and,
'May another take his place of leadership.'" NIV

Ah, we have two different prophetic verses to explore. What will we find?

The first one comes from Psalm 69:25. Psalm 69 is essentially a prayer request to God. Looking at Psalm 69:24-26 for more context, we find:

Pour out your wrath on them; let your fierce anger overtake them.
May their place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in their tents.
For they persecute those you wound and talk about the pain of those you hurt. NIV

First, let us consider that these verses are asking God to apply His wrath, not to change hearts and minds for Salvation.

Next, we see that there is a pronoun agreement error between Peter's version (his) and the actual psalm (their). Maybe that is acceptable if we include Judas as one of a larger group, but that is unlikely.

Even more significantly, we find that Peter changed the ending of the verse he quoted; from "in their tents" to "in it". People "in their tents" may refer to laborers, militia, or family. In other words, the prayer is about God making "them" less prosperous. Meanwhile, Peter's "in it" alters the intent, just making it about the land being barren.

Finally, it is amusing to note that the very next verse states that the reason God should apply His wrath to "them" has nothing to do with betrayal, but rather involves mocking those who God is hurting! Yes, God hurts people purposefully. The Father will spank you! ;-)

How about the next prophesy (using that term loosely)? It comes from Psalm 109:8. Psalm 109 is yet another prayer for wrath. Looking at Psalm 109:6-8 for expanded context, we find:

Appoint someone evil to oppose my enemy; let an accuser [a.k.a. Satan] stand at his right hand.
When he is tried, let him be found guilty, and may his prayers condemn him.
May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership. NIV

Strangely enough, in Psalm 109:6, "an accuser" is called to oppose this target of wrath. That "accuser" is the same word you find interpreted as Satan. In other words, the prayer is for Satan to oppose this person; for to Satan oppose Judas, as if Satan is working for God... That is perfectly consistent with the Old Testament portrayal of Satan, but less consistent with Christianity. Anyway, Satan did not oppose Judas, but rather (possibly) spurred him on in the act of betrayal of Jesus.

The bulk of Psalm 109 is spiteful, and not at all consistent with turning the other cheek and offering forgiveness. For example, Psalm 109:10 calls for the man's children to become beggars, and Psalm 109:14 asks that his father and his mother also have their sins never forgiven them.

Speaking of spiteful, and of Judas' leadership opening being replaced, we see in Acts1:25 an interesting allusion:

"...to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” NIV

Where exactly does Judas belong? As discussed previously, Luke was a firm believer in Hell, as in the fire-and-brimstone, eternal torture version. So, to Luke, that is where a traitor like Judas belongs.

At least, that may be somewhat of a fitting end for Judas if he had not repented, if his story had not been so inconsistent and self-contradictory, and if the referenced prophesies had not been cherry-picked out of context and altered. In other words, if we had any kind of notion of what the truth was back then, then maybe we could make a judgement of Judas' worthiness for Hell...

But, wait a moment. Maybe we do have some information. Maybe there was a Freudian slip somewhere in Scriptures to reveal a hint at the truth. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, we find:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, He appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all He appeared to [Paul] also, as to one abnormally born. NIV

Paul records that Jesus appeared to the Twelve after His resurrection, not the Eleven. Judas was with the other Disciples, which is exceedingly odd for a man who had hung himself prior to Jesus getting hung on the cross... unless the whole, rotten, fishy story of the betrayal was made up.

This makes me wonder: What if Judas' betrayal was not of Jesus, but of the Disciples? What if Jesus was never resurrected, but instead His Disciples came up with that idea, and at some later point Judas refused to go along with that scheme?

Or, what if an imposter claimed to be Jesus resurrected, and, while the other Disciples bought off on him, Judas remained skeptical? That latter suggestion actually has some strength to it, as the Disciples and others are recorded as having difficulty recognizing Jesus after the resurrection (Matthew 28:16-17, Luke 24:13-35, John 20:14, John 21:4). In other words, what if Judas was not as much a traitor than a whistle blower, who was killed mafia-style for becoming a threat to the "family" of believers? That sure makes more sense to me than what is being passed off as the "truth" here.

The End on Hold

'
Background
Prompted by being asked, Jesus informed His followers of would be the signs indicating His return, Judgement Day, and the end of the world. There would be false Messiahs, wars, and disasters. His disciples would become witnesses to the world. The most horrendous in all of history, before or after, would occur; the Siege of Jerusalem. Then He would return with great power, and great judgement on all mankind, so they had better be on guard.

The End on Hold

We know that the Gospels were written decades after Jesus had been around. Precisely when each of the four Gospels was committed to ink in its present form is a matter of debate. Most scholars suggest Mark was written first, and that his Gospel provided much of the backbone for Matthew and Luke.

As we saw in the previous series, the implication of Jesus' prophesies about the end of the world was that it would be soon after the Siege of Jerusalem. Quite interestingly, that is about all Mark has to say about timing, but Matthew and Luke appear to emphasize there being some delay before Jesus would reappear. Luke scattered these delay-references throughout his Gospel, but Matthew consolidated his chosen delay-references for us within the section we are studying now.

It started back in the last chapter. You may remember from the previous study, in Matthew 24:45-51, and much earlier in the Luke 12:42-46 parallel, Jesus gave a parable comparing wise and foolish servants. Let us take a closer look at the timing mentioned in these parables.

In Matthew 24:48 we find:

"But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, 'My master is staying away a long time,'" NIV

The phrase "is staying away a long time" weakly implies that the servant knows roughly how long the master will be away. From this perspective, we can infer a way to make sense of this: Jesus had allegedly just given them a list of signs which would forecast His return, so His followers would know that nothing would happen until these signs came to pass. This would give deviant followers living in the span between the death of Jesus and the Siege of Jerusalem decades of time to slack off in their morality before straightening up for Jesus' return, as the parable itself suggests. While the cat is away, the mice will play.

However, in the Luke 12:45 version we see:

"But suppose the servant says to himself, 'My master is taking a long time in coming,' and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk." NIV

The phrase "is taking a long time in coming" instead weakly implies that the servant had expected the master back already, but it appears that the master is delayed for some reason. From this perspective, we can infer a different situation; that perhaps the signs have all happened (up to the Siege of Jerusalem and so Jesus' return was expected) but there is an unexplained delay in Jesus' return.

Because these are only weak implications, they could easily be wrong, or both them could be taken to mean either interpretation noted above. However, if the latter version is true, it could be somewhat revealing. It could subsequently imply something about the timing of when Matthew and Luke were written, in that it could mean that these two Gospels were written after the Siege, possibly by several years, at a time when life seemed to be returning to normal. The closer you get to normal after some catastrophic event, the less it seems like Jesus' return is just around the corner, and, in turn, that means the more doubt springing up from within the community of the faithful. A message like this could be used to motivate the community to stay in the faith despite the apparent lag in manifest divine glory.

Given that Mark, the earliest of these three Gospels, did not share this sentiment anywhere, it appears that this delay may be an addition to the original story. Somewhat contrary to this theory is the fact that Matthew and Luke share this particular content nearly identically, suggesting a relatively early tradition committed to writing at some point in time earlier than the Matthew and Luke themselves. But given that we still do not know exactly when these two Gospels came into being, that "relatively early" could easily be after the Siege.

Continuing to the next chapter, in Matthew 25:1-13 there is a parable about ten virgins who "went out to meet the bridegroom." Half of them were smart enough to bring oil for their lamps just in case they needed it, but the other half did not. When the bridegroom arrived, he ultimately rejected the five virgins who were not adequately oiled. It seems a little odd that the bridegroom would kick out five extra virgins over such a trivial mistake, but let us leave that alone. ;-) The key verse for us in regards to this study is Matthew 25:5:

"The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep." NIV

In case it was not obvious, the bridegroom represents Jesus. Given that we started with these virgins going out to meet the bridegroom, you have a sense that they expected him to be there, ready for them. Instead we see that it took a long time, longer than expected, for the bridegroom to arrive. This plays into the notion noted above; that perhaps Matthew was written in a time when people were already expecting for Jesus to have returned, and so these verses were written to keep the faithful flock in line. The End was put on hold, and yet held perpetually at the threshold of occurring.

In the next parable the point was briefly emphasized again. Matthew 25:14-28 contains the Parable of the Talents, which somewhat similar to the Parable of the Ten Minas which we studied before from Luke 19:11-27. As noted in the previous study, the many differences between these two parables combined with a similar backbone suggests that this was an oral tradition carried on verbally for a considerable amount of time before being written, much longer than the parable we started this study with, as well as perhaps some intentional "enhancement" of the parable by Luke. Anyway, there is one particular difference we should focus on relevant to the timing aspect. In Matthew 25:19 we find:

"After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them." NIV

"After a long time" also appears to be preparing believers for a longer than expected time frame for Jesus' return. If the comparison with Luke's version of the parable is valid, it appears that Matthew may have deliberately inserted the "long time" into the story, as Luke 19:15 does not mention anything about how long it took for the master to return. Luke also used this parable to speak about timing, but explicitly did so to explain that Jesus did not intend to establish the Kingdom of God the first time He was on earth in the flesh (Luke 19:11).

Matthew was generally pretty good at aggregating and consolidating information, and here we can see an example of his work. Back to back to back, we have seen three references where Matthew was trying to communicated that, contrary to what we may have guessed from the previous chapter, Jesus' return would not be immediately after the Siege of Jerusalem. In short, we have seen here how Matthew prepared his followers for a long wait; a wait which may have already been in progress at the time of writing the Gospel.

How about we end on a somewhat positive note? Closing out this chapter, in Matthew 25:31-46 Jesus relayed how, on Judgement Day, He would reward people according to what they had done. He explained that such good deeds as feeding the hungry, clothing the needy, and visiting people in prison were actually done to Him vicariously. On the other hand, if you did not help out these people in need, you vicariously rejected Jesus.

On the good side, this is a great way to motivate people to help other people. Followers should literally be thinking that what they are doing to help they are doing to Jesus Himself. Even if Christianity was a deliberate hoax (which I think is an inaccurate, or at least incomplete, assessment), with messages like these it is hard to say that it was a completely malignant hoax. You could argue that church leaders may have been becoming wealthy and powerful as the movement grew, but you would also have to acknowledge that the movement did, and still does, aid the marginalized people in society to some extent.

On the other hand, this message is the proverbial gun-to-the-head situation. Help the needy, or get punished. And it is not a proportional punishment, either. Matthew 25:41 sends those who provide no aid "into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels," and Matthew 25:46 confirms that this will be an "eternal punishment." This is one of the most explicit references to the eternally torturing fires of Hell that you find in Matthew. Some Christians who do not like the concept of eternal torture will instead argue that this just means either an eternal "separation from God" or an annihilation (as in, if you cease to exist, that is an eternal punishment). Eternal punishment, of any flavor, for not visiting people in prison seems a little bit extreme to me.

Finally, from another perspective, note that this is explicitly a works-based Salvation plan. Merely having faith in Jesus will not save you if you do not take action to feed the hungry, visit prisoners, clothe the poor, etc.

Luke in Hell

'
Background
Working our way through the Gospels, we just covered a very strange parable about how believers should act more like criminals, in a certain way. It was actually a lesson on how to use money. This upset the Pharisees, so Jesus rebuked them for seeking the praise of men over that of God (Luke 16:14-15). Then Luke provides a few miscellaneous teachings without context, despite their verse-parallels in Matthew having robust context: now is the time when people are forcing their way into the Kingdom of God (Luke 16:16), none of the Law will disappear (Luke 16:17), and people who divorce and remarry, or those who marry divorcees, commit adultery (Luke 16:18). From there, Luke takes another abrupt turn.

Luke in Hell

It is difficult to reconcile the concept of a perfectly benevolent and loving God with the concept of eternal torture; the concept of Hell. At least it is for some people. In the middle ages, the doctrine of Hell was practically unquestioned inside the mainstream of the faith. But in our time, it seems that the ultimate fate of the unsaved is not quite as sure. Now, some denominations suggest that Hell is just a metaphor for an eternal separation from God, or instead suggest a permanent annihilation awaits the unsaved. Yet such positions require selective amnesia of one particular parable.

Luke 16:19-31 is where Jesus tells the story of a rich man and a beggar named Lazarus. It goes like this:

There was a rich man living in luxury who never shared anything with the beggar, Lazarus, outside his door. When Lazarus died, angels carried him to Abraham's bosom. When the rich man died, he went to Hades (a.k.a. Hell) where he was in a fiery place of agony. The rich man could see Lazarus with Abraham, and called out to Abraham for Lazarus to bring him at least a drop of water for some relief. Abraham reminds him how he had been given good things while Lazarus had been given bad things while they were alive, but now their fortunes were reversed; and that there was a chasm preventing travel between the side of comfort and the side of torment. So the rich man begged Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his still-living family, but Abraham answered that if his family does not believe Moses and the Prophets, then they will not even believe someone who is resurrected. (My paraphrase)

In some ways, this is a picture of Hell in the classic sense. In fact, check out Luke 16:23-24:

In Hades, where [the rich man] was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' NIV

There are several different views on what this story may represent as opposed to being truly about Hell. To some extent, the different views can seem justified, such as when we consider how odd it seems that the rich man could see Abraham from Hell. That seems to suggest that this is just a metaphorical parable.

However, do you remember Mark's version of Hell, where the saved would look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled for all eternity? Luke's version here seems to be just a small evolution beyond that Hell; and one which had its foundation established in apocryphal Scriptures before the time of Jesus, as we see by the reference to the Bosom of Abraham in Luke 16:22.

What you do not see here is Jesus explaining what is going on in Hell. The rich man is obviously in a fiery torment, but there was no need to explain that Hell was a place of fiery torment; nor a need to elaborate on the finality and enternality of Hell. That was a given. Hades was a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Jesus did use parables and extended metaphors to illustrate points. These literary tools did not necessarily represent literal truths. However, they were based in facts; or at least based in known concepts which could actually happen. Take any other parable in Jesus' teachings and you can, at least, understand what is going on in the literal sense because they are grounded in reality; a farmer sows seeds, a shepherd looks for lost sheep, vines produces fruit... and Hell is a place of torment after death, at least according to Jesus.

It is true that there are a handful of verses which would challenge the classical take on Hell, but these verses really do nothing more than highlight the level of self-contradiction in the Bible.

Cut Off Your Reason

'
Background
One of the times after arriving in Capernaum, Jesus told Peter to get money to pay Jesus' share of Temple tax from the mouth of a fish (Matthew 17:24-27). Then, Jesus discussed with the Disciples which of them would be the greatest.

Then, Mark 9:38-41 and Luke 9:49-50 had the Disciples point out to Jesus a man, who was not a fellow follower of Jesus but who was exorcising demons in Jesus' name. Jesus told the Disciples to let the man continue, because he was on their side. Matthew skipped that, but he did make an earlier reference within the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus claimed that some people who cast out demons in His name would ultimately face damnation (Matthew 7:21-23). (I think this suggests that Matthew was less tolerant of non-followers, as was also shown in Matthew 12:30.)

From there, Matthew and Mark continue on together, while Luke takes a different path, as we will see below.

Cut Off Your Reason

If you have read the Gospels, you may know that Jesus said some rather controversial things. Some of those were scandalous for their time, while others rub our modern sensitivities a little raw. Well, as it turns out, some things recorded by Mark may have even been too controversial for Matthew and Luke to use in their Gospels. We will see this evidence, and a glimpse of the birth of Hell, as we dig into this study.

Our study begins as a continuation of the previous conversation, where Jesus had used a child to illustrate how His followers were to humble themselves if they truly wanted to be great. In the continuation, Matthew 18:6-7 and Mark 9:42 have Jesus explain that the fate of someone who caused "one of these little ones" (meaning either literally children or figuratively meek and humble people) to sin would be much worse than a forced drowning.

Curiously, this is a case where we can see Luke's editing in action, because he makes a glaring mistake in doing so. You see, Luke also has that same content, but he moved it eight chapters later than the earlier conversation. So while Luke 9:46-48 has the discussion where Jesus used the child, Luke 17:1-2 is where the conversation continued. In its later position, the two verses are completely removed from their supporting context, so you have no idea what Luke's Jesus means when He says "one of these little ones." Why would Luke do such a thing? We may have our answer as we continue.

The topic of the fate of those who encourage sin is a convenient segue for Jesus to speak about the seriousness of sin. How serious is it? Well, in Matthew 18:8-9 and Mark 9:43-49, sin is so serious that Jesus recommended self-mutilation of any particular body part that caused you to sin.

Wait. What? Yes, cut off your hand or gouge out your eye if either causes you to sin.

Surely that would be too pernicious for Jesus to say and mean literally, right? Surely we all know that Jesus is just metaphorically saying that you should take extremely aggressive measures to avoid the temptations of sin, right? Possibly, but that does not stop the occasional Christian lunatic from trying to chop of his own, um, sinful parts. Plus, something about that message was apparently too controversial to Luke, because he chose to edit it out from his Gospel, and completely relocate its preceding context, as mentioned above!

On the other still-attached hand, Matthew was far from embarrassed by the message. Instead, he liked it so much that he also aggregated it into the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:29-30). Perhaps Matthew better understood this metaphorical message and the type of extreme behavior it warranted than did Luke, as is suggested later in his unique content in Matthew 19:12, where Jesus says:

"For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” NIV

Matthew's Jesus said to live like a eunuch for the sake of Heaven if you can, not to become an actual eunuch.

Yet Matthew was not keen on everything Mark recorded in this episode. Per both Matthew and Mark, the reason for the (metaphorical) self-mutilation was that it was better to enter into God's Kingdom as a cripple than to have your whole body thrown into "Hell," but what the Hell did that mean exactly?

Gehenna to Hell in a Hand-basket
The concept of Hell evolved within Christianity, and that evolution can be traced within the Gospels to some extent. The Gospel of Mark has obvious primacy to the other Gospels, so it should point us to the earliest concept of Hell; or whatever fate awaited the unsaved.

Indeed, "Hell" appears three times in Mark, and all within this section: Mark 9:43, Mark 9:45, and Mark 9:47. But the word "Hell" is a translation of the Greek word "Gehenna," which is itself thought to be a transliteration of the Hebrew phrase for "Valley of Hinnom."

The common theory is that Gehenna references a valley to the south of Jerusalem where trash, and some corpses, were burned continually, and thus would have provided Jesus' audience with a very visible concept of their fate if they rejected God. The strange thing is that neither archeology nor other written records have not been able to verify the smoldering trash heap within the Valley of Hinnom contemporaneous with Jesus. That Gehenna is a fable.

The reality is that the Valley of Hinnom had already been tainted by past events and not-quite-fulfilled prophesies. 2 Kings 23:10, 2 Chronicles 28:3, 2 Chronicles 33:6, Jeremiah 7:31, and Jeremiah 32:35 all record how the valley was used for child sacrifice to pagan gods, particularly Molech. As you may imagine, God was pretty angry about that, and so in Jeremiah 7:32-33 He swore:

"So beware, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when people will no longer call it Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom (a.k.a. Valley of Hinnom), but the Valley of Slaughter, for they will bury the dead in Topheth until there is no more room. Then the carcasses of this people will become food for the birds and the wild animals, and there will be no one to frighten them away." NIV

If that is not repulsive enough for you, go to Jeremiah 19 to read a slightly longer, slightly more-gory version of the same prophesy. These prophesies were made to the Israelites allegedly before their Babylonian exile. While God failed to turn that valley into the necropolis which He described, the Israelites were indeed conquered after a bloody war and a siege of Jerusalem. Regardless of the actual outcome, the Scriptural connection had been made between the Valley of Hinnom, a.k.a. Gehenna, and the concept of the Valley of Slaughter.

Mark was using that connection of Gehenna to a place of great slaughter, but with a different prophesy. Depending on which Bible translation you read, in Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, and Mark 9:48 you will find the phrase after the mention of Gehenna:

where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.' NIV

Here, Jesus is making a partial quote of Isaiah 66:24, which is part of a yet unfulfilled prophesy. Bingo! We have meaning! Isaiah 66:24 is the last line of a prophesy which begins in Isaiah 65. While I encourage you to read the whole delightful prophesy yourself, you can get a sense of the Hell Mark had in mind by reading the last three verses, Isaiah 66:22-24:

"As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before Me," declares the Lord, "so will your name and descendants endure. From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before Me," says the Lord. "And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against Me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind." NIV

That certainly is a charming picture of the "afterlife," right? The "new heavens and the new earth" is nothing more than God saying that He will establish a new kind of order on earth. That order will last forever, and if you are worthy, your name (not you personally) will last forever as well through your descendants in a world where everyone worships God. The bodies of those who rebel against God will be on display in a worm-eaten, fire-burnt state.

That is Mark's Hell. That is his fate worse than drowning. Your dilapidated corpse will be a shameful spectacle to subsequent, God-worshiping generations. It exists side-by-side with his version of Salvation.

Perhaps that concept of the land of Salvation and Hell being in close proximity was too disturbing for Matthew, because he severed the link to Isaiah's prophesy by editing it out Jesus' quote. But Matthew did really like Mark's Hell, ultimately using Gehenna seven times; more than any other Gospel.

Yet by the time Matthew and Luke got around to writing their Gospels, the concept had been altered; Hellenize and relocated to some underworld using the Greek word "Hades," as we find in Matthew 11:20-24 and Luke 10:13-15 where Jesus said that on Judgement Day, Capernaum would "go down to Hades." Luke would push that theme even further, providing an explicit conceptualization of Hades as a place of eternal torment in the parable of the rich man and beggar Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31.

There is a Hell of a lot more to discuss about this evolution, but we will save that for another time.