Christ the Conqueror of Hell

[One Bad Pig]

I see. So what do you believe?

I would venture to say that it seems likely that God would allow those who never had a chance to hear the gospel, yet lived righteous lives, to repent after death (when they 'heard' the gospel for the first time). It seems rather less likely that those who died knowing the gospel, yet unrepentant, would still have a chance to do so after death. On the other hand, I'm cautious about placing limits on God's grace beyond what is explicitly laid out in scripture.

I know that. I'm just saying that if one held a view on Purgatory (say...a Roman Catholic), I could see them being much more okay with the concept of post-death repentance as espoused by some past Eastern thinkers.

Ok.

[One Bad Pig]

Eh, it borders it in my opinion. Given enough time in the afterlife, everyone can come to a saving faith.

Everyone who hears the gospel can come to a saving faith; that doesn't at all mean that they will. I see a similar scenario here.

Is there "time" in the afterlife?

[Cerebrum123]

As far as I can tell, this passage has nothing whatsoever to say about whether or not a person must repent before death. In fact, it's not even making the argument that one must repent before facing judgment (though that is abundantly established elsewhere). The thrust of the argument is that we only have one life to live; in other words, the idea of reincarnation is false.

Uh, unless I'm reading it wrong, it seems to have at least some form of judgment happening immediately after dying. Which fits well with the description of the Rich Man in The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man.

It seems evident from e.g. Matthew 25, Rev. 20 that there is no opportunity at (or after) the Great White Throne Judgment. There is no comparable material AFAICR regarding the possibility or lack thereof of repentance after death but before then. What people would miss out on if they repented after death would be any rewards for deeds done during life. They would be saved, but (as it were) "through fire."

Certainly.

The point of contention here is people from before the time of Christ who did not live virtuous lives being allowed to listen to and embrace the Gospel. I'm not sure how that can diminish our focus on evangelization in the present age

Wouldn't that logically entail the same for those who died in the same state after Jesus' resurrection? Why the emphasis in the early Church for evangelism if everyone would just get another chance after they died in said state? If this were how things worked, then I would think it would be in the best interest of all those people to simply be given the choice after they died. I mean, they would then be in the presence of even more evidence, and even more reasons to accept the Gospel. Better to be saved "as through fire" than not at all.

ETA: Just saw one of your new posts. Why limit it to those who lived "righteous lives"? You don't do that for deathbed conversions. Why do so for the afterlife?

[Spartacus]

Wouldn't that logically entail the same for those who died in the same state after Jesus' resurrection? Why the emphasis in the early Church for evangelism if everyone would just get another chance after they died in said state? If this were how things worked, then I would think it would be in the best interest of all those people to simply be given the choice after they died. I mean, they would then be in the presence of even more evidence, and even more reasons to accept the Gospel. Better to be saved "as through fire" than not at all.

In mainstream Roman Catholic thought, there's something called "baptism of desire" that sort of fits with the very first part of this, but I think you're approaching the question of salvation and saving faith from too much of a modern empiricist mindset, whereby accepting the gospel or not becomes a question of proof.

ETA: Just saw one of your new posts. Why limit it to those who lived "righteous lives"? You don't do that for deathbed conversions. Why do so for the afterlife?

erm... I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Could you expand and clarify?

[Cerebrum123]

In mainstream Roman Catholic thought, there's something called "baptism of desire" that sort of fits with the very first part of this, but I think you're approaching the question of salvation and saving faith from too much of a modern empiricist mindset, whereby accepting the gospel or not becomes a question of proof.

I'm not sure how to respond to that. What I asked had nothing to do with "proof" per se, but more about why. Why evangelize through word of mouth and other methods, if just keeping quite gives more people a chance at actually being saved? Why the emphasis we see on evangelizing both in Scripture, and throughout Christian history, if people simply have a much more direct, and IMO much more convincing way of being reached through silence. You might bring up "rewards", but that just doesn't work for me. To me, they're just icing on the cake.

erm... I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Could you expand and clarify?

Sorry, that was meant for OBP.

[Adrift]

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...thew+20%3A1-16https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...uke+15%3A11-32

I'm obviously familiar with the passages. I'm not convinced they have post-death conversion in mind (notice both the Vineyard workers and the Prodigal Son are, in fact, alive). Furthermore, I think it likely that the Vineyard parable has more to do with the reception of the Gentile nations than it does with individual conversions.

[One Bad Pig]

Uh, unless I'm reading it wrong, it seems to have at least some form of judgment happening immediately after dying. Which fits well with the description of the Rich Man in The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man.

In Eastern Orthodox thought, there is indeed a 'particular judgment' immediately after death, but it is seen as provisional rather than final.

t seems evident from e.g. Matthew 25, Rev. 20 that there is no opportunity at (or after) the Great White Throne Judgment. There is no comparable material AFAICR regarding the possibility or lack thereof of repentance after death but before then. What people would miss out on if they repented after death would be any rewards for deeds done during life. They would be saved, but (as it were) "through fire."

I don't see why things would be any different than the following situation.

Scripture Verse: Luke 16:28-31 New International Version (NIV)

^28293031

© Copyright Original Source

Even for people who did not have Moses and the Prophets, they are still "without excuse". I would think that upon dying the same charge would still apply. If they hardened their hearts for their whole lives, I see no reason why death would change that. It looks like those who were dead were already receiving a small taste of the punishment(or reward for those like Lazarus) to come at the Great White Throne Judgment.

Sure. That doesn't necessarily mean there's no chance of them changing; after all, some people do convert just before death, even though their hearts had been hardened their whole lives.

The point of contention here is people from before the time of Christ who did not live virtuous lives being allowed to listen to and embrace the Gospel. I'm not sure how that can diminish our focus on evangelization in the present age

Wouldn't that logically entail the same for those who died in the same state after Jesus' resurrection?

Depending on your POV, no. The West (Rome) generally holds that Jesus' message during the harrowing of hell was only heard by those present; the East, on the other hand, holds that the message has been heard there ever since.

Why the emphasis in the early Church for evangelism if everyone would just get another chance after they died in said state?

I should think that Jesus' command to make disciples of all nations would be more than sufficient to make that a point of emphasis.

If this were how things worked, then I would think it would be in the best interest of all those people to simply be given the choice after they died. I mean, they would then be in the presence of even more evidence, and even more reasons to accept the Gospel. Better to be saved "as through fire" than not at all.

While it is indeed better to be saved "as through fire" than not at all, post-mortem salvation does not give people the opportunity to earn rewards in heaven through good deeds. In that regard, it is much more preferable to repent during life, so one has the opportunity to store up treasure in heaven.

ETA: Just saw one of your new posts. Why limit it to those who lived "righteous lives"? You don't do that for deathbed conversions. Why do so for the afterlife?

I was careful to not limit it, though some do. It is less likely for someone who has heard the gospel during life to repent after death, IMO, because as you noted their hearts have been hardened through rejection of the gospel while alive.

[One Bad Pig]

I'm obviously familiar with the passages. I'm not convinced they have post-death conversion in mind (notice both the Vineyard workers and the Prodigal Son are, in fact, alive). Furthermore, I think it likely that the Vineyard parable has more to do with the reception of the Gentile nations than it does with individual conversions.

Yeah, I"m with you on this. In fact, if pressed, the parable of the vineyard could be construed as not allowing salvation after death (assuming no work can be done after death, which IMO is reasonable).

[37818]

So you think there's a nice tropical area down there, too, like in Journey to the Center of the Earth?

Abraham was there, not in a flame. Lazarus was at Abraham's side. The rich man, who was in torment in a flame, was looking up to see them.

Deuteronomy 32:22
For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

Actually, it seems to be talking about volcanoes -- which clearly do not just exist within the "lower part." The fire increases.

Volcanoes are in evidence. And the text explicitly states the fire is in the lowest Sheol because of God's anger.

What is the other one, and why should it impact the context of how it is interpreted in Deut. 32:22?

No one is saying that Deut. 32:22 is a parable.

The two passages are Deuteronomy 32:22 and Luke 16:19-31, where, ". . . the rich man also died, . . . And in hell[Hades] he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham . . . and said, . . . I am tormented in this flame. . . ," being the second account of Hades[Sheol] there being a fire there. And it being a common eisegesis to call that account a parable.

You're assuming there is one.

I am understanding Abraham to claim there is when he said, ". . . They have Moses and the prophets; . . ."

What does that matter? In Jn. 11:19, the scripture relates that many of "the Jews" came to comfort Mary and Martha after Lazarus died. In John's gospel, "the Jews" consistently refers to the Jewish authorities. In other words, Jesus' friend Lazarus was a man of some importance. The Jewish authorities would never have done that for a poor man.

You made the claim the house was Lazarus'. When the house is said to be Martha's (Luke 10:38). Mary is her sister and Lazarus is her brother.

. . . The Lazarus that Jesus raised from the dead was manifestly not a poor man - he owned a house, where he lived with his sisters Mary and Martha, . . .

[Adrift]

I would venture to say that it seems likely that God would allow those who never had a chance to hear the gospel, yet lived righteous lives, to repent after death (when they 'heard' the gospel for the first time). It seems rather less likely that those who died knowing the gospel, yet unrepentant, would still have a chance to do so after death. On the other hand, I'm cautious about placing limits on God's grace beyond what is explicitly laid out in scripture.

So, you wouldn't consider Jesus' going into Sheol a one time thing after his death, but something that he does every time someone dies? Or do you believe there's now some sort of bridge (spiritually speaking) to Jesus for those who die?

[Adrift]

Source: Lazarus, Mary and Martha: Social-scientific Approaches to the Gospel of John by Philip Francis Esler, Ronald Allen Piper, pg. 52

The absence of any clues to the destitution of Lazarus in the Johannine narrative, and indeed the presence of contrary indications, cast in doubt John's having associated such connotations with Lazarus. Specifically, while the Lazarus in Luke 16 seems too destitute to have a burial worth mention and seems to be without any human support, being targeted even by stray dogs, the Lazarus in the Johannine story has been wrapped and placed in a tomb, probably after anointing. Such tombs cost money. Moreover, these sisters are far from destitute themselves, with one of them having access to costly ointment with which to anoint Jesus later (John 12.3). The topic of the destitute is certainly raised in the anointing episode in John, but is dealt with in a way that is closer to Matthew and Mark than to Luke. It is here that Jesus declares, 'The destitute you always have with you, but you do not always have me' (John 12.8; cf. Mark 14.7 and Matt. 26.11). According to Malina and Rohrbaugh, such a saying is typical of limited good societies, meaning that you never solve the problem of destitution. These considerations must surely suggest that the name Lazarus no longer (if ever) preserved for John connotations of destitution and of Jesus' love for the destitute.

Note: Malina and Rohrbaugh 1998, pp. 204-6. Malina and Rohrbaugh suggest that Mary of Bethany must be a rather wealthy mistress of the house.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Lazarus, Mary and Martha: Social-scientific Approaches to the Gospel of John by Philip Francis Esler, Ronald Allen Piper, pg. 54

In John 12.1-8 the meal takes place in Bethany (as in Mark). Although the particular house is not specified, it is probably that of Lazarus, Martha and Mary, since Martha (and Martha alone) serves at table, Lazarus is reclining at table and Mary is mentioned as present, without any explanation.

© Copyright Original Source

[One Bad Pig]

So, you wouldn't consider Jesus' going into Sheol a one time thing after his death, but something that he does every time someone dies? Or do you believe there's now some sort of bridge (spiritually speaking) to Jesus for those who die?

No, I believe that Jesus' message is now 'common knowledge' in Sheol.

[One Bad Pig]

Volcanoes are in evidence. And the text explicitly states the fire is in the lowest Sheol because of God's anger.

Er, yes. In context, it is talking about God's anger burning all the way down there, not especially down there. Do pay attention to context, please.

The two passages are Deuteronomy 32:22 and Luke 16:19-31, where, ". . . the rich man also died, . . . And in hell[Hades] he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham . . . and said, . . . I am tormented in this flame. . . ," being the second account of Hades[Sheol] there being a fire there.

As has been stated before, this is a much later development, based on a) the idea that hell was down and heaven was up and b) the association of hell with gehenna (the valley of gehinnom, where trash perpetually burned).

And it being a common eisegesis to call that account a parable.

You're assuming your conclusion. You have yet to point to more "evidence" than the same name, as if the mere fact that the same name is used proves anything. Rather the majority of exegetes, now and in the past, classified this as a parable. If you're going to prove your point, you need to provide rather more.

I am understanding Abraham to claim there is when he said, ". . . They have Moses and the prophets; . . ."

...which is far too general to point to a specific passage. You're expecting a footnote that says, in effect, "see Exodus to Deuteronomy, and the Major and Minor Prophets"?

You made the claim the house was Lazarus'. When the house is said to be Martha's (Luke 10:38). Mary is her sister and Lazarus is her brother.

Er, yes. In the ANE, it was men who owned property. It was "Martha's" because she lived there, not because she literally owned it.

[Obsidian]

Abraham was there, not in a flame. Lazarus was at Abraham's side. The rich man, who was in torment in a flame, was looking up to see them.

How do you know that Abraham was in hell? You're either intentionally dodging the issue, or you're negligently dodging the issue.

Volcanoes are in evidence.

Don't know what that means.

And the text explicitly states the fire is in the lowest Sheol because of God's anger.

The text explicitly states that the anger bubbles up and comes out onto the earth (or the foundations of the mountains).

[Adrift]

No, I believe that Jesus' message is now 'common knowledge' in Sheol.

But what does that mean for those in Sheol? Is receiving the message enough to release them from Sheol? It always seemed to me that, in a spiritual sense, Jesus went into Sheol and brought the prisoners out. That why I ask, do you believe that there's now some sort of bridge from Sheol to Paradise so that Jesus does not have to continually go back into Hades to set spirits free.