Not too long ago we posted a series on what is now being called evangelical universalism, and if you recall it is a view that believes death results from sin, and that following death unbelievers experience hell. But the big issue here is the finality of death. [I am reposting this series because so many are talking about what Orthodox theologians believed, and this sketch is one of the finest books ever written on this subject.]
Is death final? Is there a possibility that death is not final, or that hell as the second death could end?
I don’t know if you know about this, but the Eastern Orthodox Church has a major emphasis on Good Friday through Easter and the emphasis is on what is sometimes called the “harrowing of hell,” the descent of Christ into hell between the Cross and the Resurrection. The idea is that Christ entered into Hades after his death and raided hell to ransom the righteous of the Old Testament.
Clearly, then, the death prior to Christ’s death was not final. Is the death after the death of Christ final, then?
This Lent I’m reading the pious and and learned study of Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev (Christ the Conqueror of Hell: The Descent into Hades from an Orthodox Perspective
), mostly because I’ve always wanted to read a good piece by an Orthodox theologian on the Eastern (and traditional) sense of the “descent into Hades,” an article in our creed. There are a number of NT texts that, while open to dispute, have been traditionally understood as referring to Christ’s descent into hades and they are, if so, clear signs that one kind of death was not final.
), mostly because I’ve always wanted to read a good piece by an Orthodox theologian on the Eastern (and traditional) sense of the “descent into Hades,” an article in our creed. There are a number of NT texts that, while open to dispute, have been traditionally understood as referring to Christ’s descent into hades and they are, if so, clear signs that one kind of death was not final.
Matthew 12:40: For just as Jonah was in the belly of the huge fish for three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.
Matthew 27:51-52 Just then the temple curtain was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks were split apart. And tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had died were raised. (They came out of the tombs after his resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.)
Acts 2:31: David by foreseeing this spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did his body experience decay.
1 Peter 3:18-21: Because Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, to bring you to God, by being put to death in the flesh but by being made alive in the spirit. In it he went and preached to the spirits in prison, after they were disobedient long ago when God patiently waited in the days of Noah as an ark was being constructed. In the ark a few, that is eight souls, were delivered through water. And this prefigured baptism, which now saves you – not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience to God – through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who went into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels and authorities and powers subject to him.
1 Peter 4:6: Now it was for this very purpose that the gospel was preached to those who are [now] dead, so that though they were judged in the flesh by human standards they may live spiritually by God’s standards.
Eph 4:9: Now what is the meaning of “he ascended,” except that he also descended to the lower regions [of] the earth?
Rev 20:14: Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death – the lake of fire.
I personally ascribe to the belief that Christ descended to the depths of the earth (Sheol) to deliver the righteous souls who were temporarily held there. I also believe in a literal Hell and a literal Heaven. All people are consigned to one of these eternal abodes dependent upon their belief in Jesus Christ or not. However, what I am most dismayed about is how many evangelical Christians focus on Hell rather than Heaven in their witness to others. I hear so many evangelicals talking about condemnation, damnation, hail and brimstone rather than the blessed hope we find by spending eternity within the presence of God. I often ask believers: what is the Gospel? The Gospel is not that Christ saved us from Hell, rather He reconciled us to a holy God. And that, is the Good News of Jesus Christ. Christ is not to be used as some “Get out of Hell for Free” card. Instead, He is our Redeemer, our Mediator, the one who reconciled us back to the Father. Being saved from Hell is certainly a fringe benefit of belief, but not the reason why we believe.
Scot, it seems that some evangelicals have a petrified theology on this issue. Set in stone. It appears that their immutable view of hell is tied to a settled and solitary atonement view–penal substitutionary atonement. I think there is more wiggle room on this troubling doctrine than some segments of the church will allow.
I wonder why those Christians who insist that everyone who has not heard the Gospel/accepted the Gospel are going to a Hell of eternal torment and torture are not in “mission field”?
Do they really hate their fellow humans that much. or that uncaring that they are unwilling to do everything they can to save people from such a fate?
Or does the idea of billions of souls suffering for eternity actually PLEASE them?
@Ninure,
I don’t think that idea pleases them; when I used to be a strict exclusivist, it certainly didn’t bring me happiness and I know I wasn’t the only one.
That being said, I agree with you and was just thinking about this recently: why aren’t we more upset that some of our friends and family members are going to hell? Where’s the holy discontent?
John,
Wrath is seen by many as the major if not only problem resolved by the death of Jesus. Without denying wrath a closer reading of the NT reveals a multiplicity of themes. Check out my chp in the new Church in the Present Tense.
@ Scot McKnight,
Thanks for choosing this one. I’ve been learning more about Eastern Orthodox theology and am very interested to read your reviews. Thanks for taking the time for things like that.
@ John W Frye – Why do you think penal subtstitutinary atonement demands such a rigorous approach on the topic of hell from these groups?
Penal substitutionary atonement, sorry!
Scot, Would this be a huge game changer if Christ DID ransom the righteous of the Old Testament from hell? Or does it just open up some wiggle room as Frye says?
Taylor G,
It depends on how we read 1Peter 3 and Eph 4. And who gets rescued. This series will show a hint of variety with a firm resolution. The Eastern liturgy shows the consensus.
There are two other texts that, I think, are related to this discussion:
John 15:22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.
Romans 3:25-26 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
I won’t comment on these texts, but just hope to add them to the discussion. I will say, though, that if there is some scenario where Jesus preaches the gospel to those souls in Hades who have never had the opportunity to hear it in this life, that does not make them any more likely to receive it. Just look at what we did to him when he was with us in the flesh in this life!
One thing we have to be careful about with Eastern theology is that while there are boundaries on what can and cannot be said authoritatively, there are not precise boundaries on what may be said. Many things are said about the harrowing of Hades.
I will note first, that the Christian use of Hades is really more in line with the more sophisticated Hebrew understanding of Sheol than the more primitive pagan Greek understanding of Hades as an actual place somewhere underground. More could be said, but that’s an important distinction. Sheol/Hades represent the unnatural state of human death.
Another point, which I’ve heard and read many times, can be seen in the Icon included in the post. The man and the woman Christ is pulling from the grave do not have the circle of light around their head representing a saint. They depict Adam and Eve which, rather than representing particular individuals, are taken to represent humanity. The harrowing of Hades is the destruction of death. One analogy used is that of a worm on a hook that a fish swallows. Death thought it had swallowed a man, but found that it swallowed the uncontainable God instead. And death was burst asunder from the inside.
Much of that flows from the understanding of the common nature of man and the reason Jesus’ incarnation, death, and resurrection saves us. By uniting the divine nature with our shared human nature, he changed our nature so that our nature is not life, not death. This is actually the basis for the Christian belief in the general resurrection of the dead, though that’s not always clear today.
Just a few thoughts.
“now life, not death” would probably make more sense.
@ninure
i don’t think that is fair to say or even to ask. it’s a caricature that doesn’t help the dialogue. it would be similar to exclusivists saying that inclusivists developed their viewpoint for emotional reasons or because they simply don’t want to devote their lives to missions…neither is fair.
let’s strive for a type of charity in discourse where both sides can agree that they are being represented fairly.
back to the topic of the post: i’d be interested in how eastern christianity deals with the hebrew bible in this regard.
It seems that while Eastern Orthodoxy doesn’t have all the answers it is becoming increasingly evident that we must bring them into our theological conversations. We in the “western” tradition have sharp polarities shaped by our debates and often this results in an impasse. Thanks for sharing this and I hope to learn more from our EO friends.
Is death final? Hmm, was it final for Job who was in Sheol, in distress, and expelled from the presence of the Lord, in the pit where the bars of the earth surounded him forever? Apparently not!
And notice that in 1 Peter it was those who died during the flood after rejecting the salvation of God through Noah, the most wicked generation of all human history thus far, whom Jesus preached the Gospel to and liberated from Hades – not “saints”!
You know, it seems to me that if Hell was true, it would be warned of throughout scripture, especially in the OT. But of course, not one word in the Hebrew or Greek text of scripture actually means Hell – not Sheol, not Hades, not Gehenna! Tartarous was used once by Peter but the context indicates that sinning angels were cast there and it doesn’t indicate that even this punishment was meant to be vindictive and forever, but possibly even remedial in nature. Anyhow, I’m thankful that modern translations are progressively correcting the mistranslation of Hell INTO the Bible.
Actually, it was studying what scripture actually says, or more accurately, doesn’t say concerning Hell that has liberated me to believe that Jesus truly is the savior of All humanity, that every knee shall ultimately bow in worship and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord, that Jesus really did not come to condemn the lost, but to save us all! He truly is the Good Shepherd who is not satisfied with 99% being safe in His loving care, but will only accept 100%. Hallelujah!
Scott Morizot-
“One thing we have to be careful about with Eastern theology is that while there are boundaries on what can and cannot be said authoritatively, there are not precise boundaries on what may be said.”
That is a great point and one to keep in mind. I hope this book by Archbishop Alfeyev mainly discusses and clarifies the primary consensus of EO thought, and what (if any of this) is authoritative.
Rick, while I haven’t read any of Metropolitan Hilarion’s works, I have listened to a number of lectures by him and respect him a great deal. (I’m now sorely tempted to buy the book above.) However, a “consensus” of Eastern thought rarely manifests in the same way you find it in the West. While there are nuances of understanding and interpretation, if I want to know the basics of what Roman Catholics hold on a particular topic, I can pick up the Catechism and get a pretty good idea. There is nothing similar in Orthodoxy.
To give an idea what I mean, let’s take the question some have mentioned about whether or not we can change after death. The boundaries within Orthodoxy are fairly straightforward. It’s a heresy to assert that everyone *will* ultimately change and orient themselves toward God. On the other end of the spectrum it’s seen as usurping God’s place to assert that we *know* that anyone is damned. (In that sense, the note Rob Bell referenced asserting that Gandhi was burning in hell would clearly be seen as wrong from an Orthodox perspective.) Within those two bounds, you will find thought all over the place. I don’t think any Orthodox would assert that we cannot change, but I do think the consensus would be that we are embodied beings and both in the interval before the resurrection of the dead (which is not death in the sense of the death that reigned before Christ’s resurrection) and afterward in a body that is constrained in some sense from expressing evil, it is more difficult for us to truly change than it is today in our present bodies. Some would say our course is fixed at death and we continue to shape ourselves in the direction we had oriented ourselves. Others would say that while change of orientation is more difficult, it is not impossible. A smaller group are incredulous at the idea that the unwavering and inescapable experience of the love of God would not eventually win over and change even the most incorrigible heart.
And that’s just the range on that one question. That’s what I meant when I said the boundaries of what you can say is true (or often what you can say is not true) are not hard to discern. But there tend to be wide-ranging views within those boundaries.
I do think one idea which, from my experience, many shaped by Western theology will have a hard time grasping, but which is almost axiomatic in the Eastern view, is that Hades/Sheol stands empty today. Christ “trampled down death by death” and it is no longer the nature of man to die. Whatever it is we experience today (and we don’t know much about it), it’s not the same thing that humanity experienced before the Resurrection. We are no longer enslaved by death.
I will also note that I saw a brief segment by Rob Bell this morning in which he stated that his perception was that we always had to proceed from the understanding that God is love. That perspective is thoroughly Eastern. He is a good God who loves mankind. He is not a torturer. He does not seek vengeance. And, as St. Isaac the Syrian states, “Do not call God just, for his justice is not manifest in the things concerning you.”
@ Taylor G (#7),
Scot addresses your comment in his comment (#5) in that the segment of the church in question sees the wrath of God as the major threat to sinful humanity. If wrath is the major and only threat, then Jesus’ penal substitutionary atonement is the only solution. This drastically narrows the aim of Jesus’ death and marginalizes, if not erases the other reasons for his death.
Why can’t Rob Bell just simply convert to Orthodoxy? What’s to stop him from doing that? Perhaps even his congregation would convert en masse as well.
#Derek (20)
Rob Bell has more influences than eastern orthodoxy. There also is some postmodern neo-anabaptism in the mix, which makes for a good combination IMHO.