In light of what so many are now saying about what the Orthodox believe about hell, we need to turn to the learned study of Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev (Christ the Conqueror of Hell: The Descent into Hades from an Orthodox Perspective
The New Testament evidence, when read in its context, almost certainly indicates that Jesus “did” something between the Cross and the Ascension. The texts cited in our last post, in particular 1 Peter 3:18-25 and Acts 2, as well as the baptism for the dead in 1 Cor 15 and that enigmatic text in 1 Peter 4, indicate to me that we should be open to Jesus either gospeling the dead or announcing the good news to the dead after his death and before his ascension.
Do these texts indicate that death is final? One of the comments elucidated what I mean by “is death final?” when it suggested that the first death is not final but the second death is final.
The question the Church has asked, and some are surprised by this, is whether that second death is final?
Does it matter to your way of doing theology that the early theologians all believed in a descent into hades?
Here’s a basic historical conclusion, and it is sketched in readable detail in Alfeyev’s book: into the 4th Century, Christians in both the West and the East clearly affirmed the descent into hell, the victory of Jesus over death, and either the liberation of saints from the realm of the dead or the total liberation of all humans from the power of death and hell.
Here are some details:
Irenaeus is typical in seeing both the descent and a release of the patriarchs, prophets and saints from the Old Testament period.
Hippolytus: John the Baptist also descended to preach to those in hades.
Clement of Alexandria: Christ descended and preached to the saints and to the Gentiles who lived outside the true faith. Hell for him was a place of reformation. Origen is like Clement, but emphasizes human choice.
Issue: how to define the various terms, but many saw places. That is, there’s Abraham’s bosom, and hell, and hades, and a prison.
Athanasius: leans, at times, toward the universal redemption or release from death. The famous text “Christus patiens,” attributed by some to Gregory Nazianzen, poetically sketches a universal release of the dead through the descent. Cyril of Alexandria follows this line of thinking; so does Maximus the Confessor.
Many are somewhat ambivalent or clearly believe Jesus’ release was only for the saints, and an example is St John Chrysostom. John Damascene emphasizes human choice by those in the realm of the dead and so not all are liberated. St Jerome is in this camp of saying at times that all are liberated but other times not all are liberated.
A decisive voice in this issue, especially in the West, was Augustine who believed in both a descent but not all in a “second chance”. For Augustine, death was final and the only ones in hades who were released were those who were predestined in God’s elective grace. What is interesting, though, is that Augustine was clearly battling many who did think Christ emptied hades and death and hell of all its inhabitants. Gregory the Great completed the Augustinian perspective.
Alfayev emphasizes that the Eastern fathers did not spell things out the way the Western fathers did.
Thanks for blogging your exploration of this Scot. It’s helpful to see it anchored in historic orthodoxy.
What is the source of these beliefs about Christ’s descent into hades and preaching to or release of the dead? We have no statements from Jesus in the Gospels about this, do we?
Where did the NT Epistles’ statements about this come from: Things Jesus may have taught during His post-resurrection and pre-ascension talks? Extrapolations from the Psalms when reading them as referring to Christ? Prophetic utterances or insights based on the Scriptures? Enochian or other apocryphal/pseudepigraphical traditions?
Likewise, where did the Fathers get their ideas from – e.g., some of the things I just mentioned? Philosophical or theological speculation?
Forgive my ignorance but may I ask a dumb question:
what is the difference between “gospeling” and “announcing the good news”?
Obviously the Fathers based their beliefs, or most of them, on statements in the NT about Christ preaching to the dead or descending to the lower parts of the earth or leading captivity captive, etc.
But where did their other, more defined ideas come from?
And, again, where did the Epistle writers and Acts speakers get these ideas that formed the basis for the Fathers’ teachings about Christ’s post-crucifixion activities? Did the Holy Spirit just put them into their minds or mouths or pens as they spoke and wrote? Or were these from nascent semi-creedal statements from the church’s prayers, again based on perhaps the Psalms and the church’s prophets and teachers seeing Christ prefigured in them or being inspired to say things that were then affirmed about Christ?
Does the descent into Hades and the harrowing of Hell apply to those who lived before Christ’s death, or to those who lived after as well according to the Greek
fathers?
In the NT tradition, it seems that hades is not ALWAYS a place of judgment but simply the abode of the dead – a more general word in which both paradise/abraham’s bosom and “hell” reside (like Sheol in the OT). From the cross, Jesus says he will go to paradise – a specific place within Hades (general) rather than Hades (specific – the separate place of judgment).
Using the word Hell is actually pretty confusing given that Hades and Gehenna are radically different places.
It seems to me that one’s view on “hell” is directly related to one’s view of the atonement. Those with a Christus Victor view see the story of redemption differently than those with a Penal Substitution view. It seems to me that those who are really angry right now with Rob Bell are those who hold exclusively to an Anselmian atonement view. Those who hold to a Christus Victor view will probably not be all that troubled by Bell’s view of hell. I left the Presbyterian Church in America and joined the Evangelical Covenant Church partly because of atonement issues. I found the teachings of Paul Peter Waldenstrom (a central historical figure in the Evangelical Covenant Church) to be very refreshing and rooted in the atonement views of the early Eastern Church Fathers. I am excited and hopeful over all the conversations that are taking place about hell.
Bo, I think you hit on something huge with that observation. Many of these concepts change the range of freedom left for others. Hell and atonement ideas are very closely related and, I think, interdependant as to one shifts the other.
When someone has it in their minds that PSA is THE GOSPEL and the only possible or valid interpretation of the atonement, their views on death, hell and judgment may not be able to tolerate other points of view, because to shift from PSA or be open to something other than PSA is to move away from (in their view) the Gospel itself (Galatians 1:6; Colossians 1:23).
I do think it is possible to over-emphasize a word-picture, and that is what scripture provides, to the point of it not being in keeping with the entire witness of scripture. I think we have all done this at times. This video is supposed to be a comparision between protestant and orthodox views of salvation demonstrated with chairs. I think it is telling, I just don’t know how solid it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WosgwLekgn8&feature=player_embedded
This cartoon is perhaps even better than the video of the chairs.
http://pithlessthoughts.blogspot.com/2011/03/orthodox-view-of-salvation.html
I noticed Al Mohler uses John Chrysostom’s mention of “hell” as proof that John believed in the same reality of current day Reformed thinkers. But then I read Chrysostom’s Easter sermon and he seems to be talking about hades or the grave:
Hell was in turmoil having been destroyed.
Hell was in turmoil having been abolished.
Hell was in turmoil having been made captive.
O death, where is your sting?
O hell, where is your victory?
http://www.worship.ca/docs/l_stjohn.html
http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/07/16/should-we-lose-the-fear-of-hell-the-pope-redefines-the-doctrine/
“O death, where is your sting?”
“O hell, where is your victory?”
The immediate association made with death is the grave just as when you hear hoofbeats you think horses.
This isn’t proof that Chryostom held a Dante’s idea, it’s proof that St. John knew dead people got buried and stayed that way apart from the promise of the resurrection.
A couple of questions:
Might the Scriptural passages on this be metaphorical. I ask because several questions come to mind:
1. What do we make of the ancient cosmology within which the idea is couched (i.e., that Christ descended into the underworld of a tripartite cosmos)?
2. How does this relate to the intermediate state debate, as well as recent faith-science debates over the body-soul dualism / holism question? (e.g., Joel Green, etc.)
3. How does the doctrine square with the plain exegesis of the passage? (placing it alongside of the idea of John the Baptist also preaching in Hades raises questions).
Just curious . . .
It seems that much of this topic, although not all, turns on definitions of hell, Hades, Paradise, Abraham’s bosom, Sheol, Gehenna, and the second death. Looking at the post and the comments, I wonder how these terms are variously defined by all parties. Differing definitions make the discussion difficult (sorry for the alliteration!).
Hell, Scot! This post is a breath of fresh air. As a former Evangelical (homeschooled K-12, Moody Bible grad, and seminary dropout) leaning towards Eastern Orthodoxy, this is wonderful post for me to read and share with my friends.
The notion of hell used to disturb me profoundly–almost to the point of serious depression. For my own mental and spiritual health, I realized years ago that it is impossible for me to hold to a hardline view of hell as espoused by some like John Piper.
As your post shows, there is room in the larger church for various viewpoint on this issue without being excessively theologically innovative. It’s disturbed me that many seem to view anything other than a “You don’t believe in Jesus. You absolutely go to hell and stay there forever” as being capitulations to postmoderism, when in reality the church has a much richer theological history.
Since it is my area of research, I will add the early Syriac patristic authors to the list of those who professed belief in the descent to Sheol, the defeat of Death and Satan, and the harrowing of Hell. These ideas are prominent in the writings of both Aphrahat and Ephrem, the two primary representatives of the early Syriac tradition.
They are both ambiguous about whether or not all of Sheol was harrowed or if only a few. There is no indication (to my knowledge) that Jesus “preached” to those in Sheol to give them a chance to repent. It seems most likely that they believed the people who served as “types” for Christ through their faithful actions would have been removed, but they do not say this explicitly.
But the defeat of Death (I capitalize it because they personify it) is quite central to early Syriac theology. Indeed, in later Syriac tradition (6th century), a tradition of dialogue poems developed and some of these dialogues featured Satan and Death arguing about what they were going to do about Jesus when he came–very fun to read.
Scot,
For another good (yet brief) Eastern Orthodox piece on Hell/Universalism, I might also suggest Bishop Kallistos Ware’s essay “Dare We Hope for the Salvation of All?” It is about 20 pages long and is published in “The Inner Kingdom: Volume 1 of the Collected Works.”
Bishop Ware’s thoughts might be helpful because he is amongst the most well known of the Eastern Orthodox to Westerners, having published the popular books “The Orthodox Way” and “The Orthodox Church”.
All the best,
Bill
@ Randal #10
Thanks for the video! Illustrations and an articulate explanation are just what I was looking for to get a frame of reference for the Orthodox understanding. I’ve slowly begun to lean Orthodox over the past couple of years in my theology.