> They didn't personally murder the prophets of old but they are responsible for those deaths since they continued their father's work by killing Jesus.
They
didn't personally murder the prophets of old, and that's why "this generation" stretches further than those specific contemporaries. They are not responsible for the death of Abel and Zechariah, showing us the breadth of the scope of the godless people. There's
always a "this generation." And of course you're right that they continued their fathers' work by killing Jesus.
> Your point with the other "this generation" verses is not clear to me at all and appears ridiculous on the face of it. "This generation" refers to the group of people Jesus is speaking to.
My point is that there's always a "this generation" of people who reject the revelation of God, refused to accept His messengers, and rebel against His Word. In the days of Abel, "this generation" was Cain. In the days of Zechariah, "this generation" was unnamed hostile personnel who murdered the priest. In Jesus's day, "this generation" is the Pharisees and all those who reject Him as God's Son and the Messiah.
> I presume you mean with the postmortem Hell, not with the eschatological day of judgement over the earth.
Correct. As you mentioned, in the OT, this is a geographical term. It was the place of idol worship and occasional child sacrifice. It is a place of judgment because it was overthrown by Josiah (2 Ki. 23.10; Jer. 7.323). It became a dumping ground for filth, the bodies of animals, and occasionally some human body, like the body of a criminal. In the NT, the final judgment of the unrepentant is usually in view when the term Gehenna is used (Mt. 5.22, 29-30; 10.28; 18.9; 23.15, 33; Mk. 9.43, 45, 47; Lk. 12.5; James 3.6).
> Nor is it specified as a judgement over the dead. It has to be the same "day of judgement" that we find in 11:20-24 against the cities.
* In Mt. 5.22 when Jesus uses Gehenna He is referring to judgment over sin beyond human judgment. it became the symbol of the place of the future punishment of the wicked.
* In Mt. 5.29-30; 18.9; Mk. 9.43, 45, 47, Gehenna is the place of future punishment.
* In Mt. 10.28; Lk. 12.5, Gehenna is the place of ultimate destruction
* In Mt. 23.15, Gehenna represents those condemned by God.
* In James 3.6, it represents what is contrary to godliness.
I'm convinced that the evidence is against that Gehenna refers to the "day of judgment against the cities."
> It refers to all the things Jesus has just spoken of including the coming of the son of man and the destruction of the temple.
As I said, it is debated. I can see you have your opinion, but that doesn't make your perspective "the conclusion of the matter." Is it one or the other, or both? It's debated.
> Verse 27 is important as it links...
Again I can see you have an opinion, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean that "clearly the scene in Matthew 25 is envisioned."
> Gehenna has to do with Jesus' specific mission to first century Israel.
ALL of the evidence, as I've shown, goes against this conclusion. All of it.
> They didn't personally murder the prophets of old but they are responsible for those deaths since they continued their father's work by killing Jesus.
They [i]didn't[/i] personally murder the prophets of old, and that's why "this generation" stretches further than those specific contemporaries. They are not responsible for the death of Abel and Zechariah, showing us the breadth of the scope of the godless people. There's [i]always[/i] a "this generation." And of course you're right that they continued their fathers' work by killing Jesus.
> Your point with the other "this generation" verses is not clear to me at all and appears ridiculous on the face of it. "This generation" refers to the group of people Jesus is speaking to.
My point is that there's always a "this generation" of people who reject the revelation of God, refused to accept His messengers, and rebel against His Word. In the days of Abel, "this generation" was Cain. In the days of Zechariah, "this generation" was unnamed hostile personnel who murdered the priest. In Jesus's day, "this generation" is the Pharisees and all those who reject Him as God's Son and the Messiah.
> I presume you mean with the postmortem Hell, not with the eschatological day of judgement over the earth.
Correct. As you mentioned, in the OT, this is a geographical term. It was the place of idol worship and occasional child sacrifice. It is a place of judgment because it was overthrown by Josiah (2 Ki. 23.10; Jer. 7.323). It became a dumping ground for filth, the bodies of animals, and occasionally some human body, like the body of a criminal. In the NT, the final judgment of the unrepentant is usually in view when the term Gehenna is used (Mt. 5.22, 29-30; 10.28; 18.9; 23.15, 33; Mk. 9.43, 45, 47; Lk. 12.5; James 3.6).
> Nor is it specified as a judgement over the dead. It has to be the same "day of judgement" that we find in 11:20-24 against the cities.
[list]* In Mt. 5.22 when Jesus uses Gehenna He is referring to judgment over sin beyond human judgment. it became the symbol of the place of the future punishment of the wicked.
* In Mt. 5.29-30; 18.9; Mk. 9.43, 45, 47, Gehenna is the place of future punishment.
* In Mt. 10.28; Lk. 12.5, Gehenna is the place of ultimate destruction
* In Mt. 23.15, Gehenna represents those condemned by God.
* In James 3.6, it represents what is contrary to godliness.[/list]
I'm convinced that the evidence is against that Gehenna refers to the "day of judgment against the cities."
> It refers to all the things Jesus has just spoken of including the coming of the son of man and the destruction of the temple.
As I said, it is debated. I can see you have your opinion, but that doesn't make your perspective "the conclusion of the matter." Is it one or the other, or both? It's debated.
> Verse 27 is important as it links...
Again I can see you have an opinion, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean that "clearly the scene in Matthew 25 is envisioned."
> Gehenna has to do with Jesus' specific mission to first century Israel.
ALL of the evidence, as I've shown, goes against this conclusion. All of it.