Christ the Conqueror of Hell

[One Bad Pig]

But what does that mean for those in Sheol? Is receiving the message enough to release them from Sheol?

At the least, it would mean not just receiving, but responding positively to the message.

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.

I believe that the gates of Sheol are shattered; there is no need for Jesus to continually go back there. He has broken down the "middle wall of separation" (Eph. 2:14). The prisoners have been set free; only those who don't want to be free remain. I find it interesting in the parable that the rich man showed no interest in leaving his place of torment; he wanted to be brought comfort there.

[Adrift]

At the least, it would mean not just receiving, but responding positively to the message.

I figured it was obvious that went without saying.

I believe that the gates of Sheol are shattered; there is no need for Jesus to continually go back there. He has broken down the "middle wall of separation" (Eph. 2:14). The prisoners have been set free; only those who don't want to be free remain.

Please be patient with me as I work through the mechanics of this. So, in your view, the spirits of the dead (both righteous and wicked) go to Sheol. Once there, the Gospel Message, in a manner of speaking, resounds in the halls of the dead, and the spirits of the dead can make the post-mortem decision to accept that message, leave Sheol, and find their way to Christ on their own (that is, it no longer requires Christ to lead them out of Sheol). They are free to leave Sheol after accepting the Gospel message because there is nothing holding them in Sheol anymore.

Do I have that straight so far?

What of those spirits who've accepted Christ before dying. Do they also make a pitstop at Sheol before going to Christ, or can they bypass Sheol altogether?

I find it interesting in the parable that the rich man showed no interest in leaving his place of torment; he wanted to be brought comfort there.

That is interesting, though another alternative may be that he knows the option to leave is simply not on the table. Of course, since this is a parable, we probably have to be cautious about reading too much into it either way.

[One Bad Pig]

I figured it was obvious that went without saying.

Just wanted to make it explicit, for the sake of those following along.

Please be patient with me as I work through the mechanics of this. So, in your view, the spirits of the dead (both righteous and wicked) go to Sheol. Once there, the Gospel Message, in a manner of speaking, resounds in the halls of the dead, and the spirits of the dead can make the post-mortem decision to accept that message, leave Sheol, and find their way to Christ on their own (that is, it no longer requires Christ to lead them out of Sheol). They are free to leave Sheol after accepting the Gospel message because there is nothing holding them in Sheol anymore.

Do I have that straight so far?

More or less - I'm sort of feeling my way as well; on a scale of 1 to 10, this is rather toward the low end of the scale. (To be crystal clear, I believe it is through God drawing them to Himself mediated by their acceptance of the call, just as in life.) It also could be that the dead do not feel worthy to leave, and that they stay there even though accepting God's grace until the general resurrection.

What of those spirits who've accepted Christ before dying. Do they also make a pitstop at Sheol before going to Christ, or can they bypass Sheol altogether?

There's a quite long-standing tradition (back to the 4th century) that the particular judgment is carried out by demons (who remind those who have died about the sins they've committed in life) and disputed by angels (who are advocates for the righteous dead); it's not conceived of as place, but rather as a journey through 'toll houses' (the image comes from taxation), one for each type of sin. It is not an official dogma, and is on occasion a matter of controversy (you can listen to a rather informal discussion on it here, and find more information here). A popular belief is that those who receive the Eucharist on the day they die sail right through without opposition.

That is interesting, though another alternative may be that he knows the option to leave is simply not on the table. Of course, since this is a parable, we probably have to be cautious about reading too much into it either way.

[Adrift]

Just wanted to make it explicit, for the sake of those following along.

More or less - I'm sort of feeling my way as well; on a scale of 1 to 10, this is rather toward the low end of the scale. (To be crystal clear, I believe it is through God drawing them to Himself mediated by their acceptance of the call, just as in life.) It also could be that the dead do not feel worthy to leave, and that they stay there even though accepting God's grace until the general resurrection.
There's a quite long-standing tradition (back to the 4th century) that the particular judgment is carried out by demons (who remind those who have died about the sins they've committed in life) and disputed by angels (who are advocates for the righteous dead); it's not conceived of as place, but rather as a journey through 'toll houses' (the image comes from taxation), one for each type of sin. It is not an official dogma, and is on occasion a matter of controversy (you can listen to a rather informal discussion on it here, and find more information here). A popular belief is that those who receive the Eucharist on the day they die sail right through without opposition.

Well, I don't agree with your conclusions (for the most part), but I respect how you got there.

[37818]

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.

My remark was a reply to Obsidian

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).

That it was "later development" is an eisegesis. It remains my understanding that Deuteronomy 32:22 is historically behind Jesus' story of the rich man and Lazarus. Abraham, Moses and the prophets are so mentioned. We have gone in a circle on this. We do not agree. You are convinced that I am wrong on this matter. I get that.

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 find it interesting that others have from time to time suggested that the two Lazarus were the same person being referred to. In Jesus' story Abraham argues, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." And it was Jesus friend having the same name whom He rose from the dead. And without those two Lazarus being the same person there are literary parallels.

I would very much like you to point out the exegesis for Jesus' story of the rich man and Lazarus being a parable.

...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"?

In other words, Abraham's argument of a warning of that place of torment is just rhetorical exaggeration. Deuteronomy 32:22 not meaning any such thing.

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.

It is my understanding that Jewish women could own property etc. (Numbers 26-27; 36:1-; Proverbs 31:14; Acts 16:13-15). http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/women.htm

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

Text explicitly states the rich man in Hades looking up could see Abraham above him. Now where was Abraham according to the text?

Volcanoes are in evidence.

Don't know what that means.

What do you think it means ". . . set on fire the foundations of the mountains?"

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

[One Bad Pig]

My remark was a reply to Obsidian

That it was "later development" is an eisegesis. It remains my understanding that Deuteronomy 32:22 is historically behind Jesus' story of the rich man and Lazarus. Abraham, Moses and the prophets are so mentioned. We have gone in a circle on this. We do not agree. You are convinced that I am wrong on this matter. I get that.

That your remark was a reply to Obsidian does not mean I am unable to comment upon it. I get that you don't want to deal with it because it invalidates your contention.

I find it interesting that others have from time to time suggested that the two Lazarus were the same person being referred to. In Jesus' story Abraham argues, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." And it was Jesus friend having the same name whom He rose from the dead. And without those two Lazarus being the same person there are literary parallels.

I would very much like you to point out the exegesis for Jesus' story of the rich man and Lazarus being a parable.

It's pretty simple. Jesus is conversing with Pharisees beginning in Luke 15:1, with a story explicitly introduced as a parable in 15:3. In that same conversation, it is followed by four more stories also commonly identified as parables. Why should the last one be classified any different than the others? I found a decent analysis of the passage here which actually discusses it (most more or less objective analyses don't even bother to explain why it is a parable because it is prima facie a parable; most sources deliberating over whether the story is a parable or true history are interested in buttressing or refuting the doctrine of eternal torment).

In other words, Abraham's argument of a warning of that place of torment is just rhetorical exaggeration. Deuteronomy 32:22 not meaning any such thing.

I have no idea how you're reading that into my words. What "argument of a warning" of Abraham's are you referring to? I'm having difficulty even parsing that sentence.

It is my understanding that Jewish women could own property etc. (Numbers 26-27; 36:1-; Proverbs 31:14; Acts 16:13-15). http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/women.htm

It was possible, but not usual; your Numbers references make that clear. In a family with a living male, it would have been his property. Proverbs 31:14 is inapt because it is talking about a wife, and Lydia was not Jewish.

[Obsidian]

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.

100% agree

What do you think it means ". . . set on fire the foundations of the mountains?"

I already said what I think it means -- volcanos. Your comment, on the other hand, was not clear at all.

Text explicitly states the rich man in Hades looking up could see Abraham above him. Now where was Abraham according to the text?

1. It says he looked up. That doesn't necessarily mean that Abraham was above him. They could have been horizontal to each other, for all the text says -- although it just so happens that neither one of us is arguing for that. But it still deserves mention that you are improperly reading the text, and assuming that there is some vertical distance.

2. It doesn't say where Abraham was. I say that Abraham was in heaven, which is indeed above hell. You say that Abraham was merely in a higher part of hell. What proof do you have that you are right?

[37818]

2. It doesn't say where Abraham was. I say that Abraham was in heaven, which is indeed above hell. You say that Abraham was merely in a higher part of hell. What proof do you have that you are right?

It is my understanding that before Christ's ascension into heaven, all OT saints that died went to Sheol.

Jacob, ". . . For I will go down to Sheol to my son mourning. . . ." -- Genesis 37:35.

Everyone, ". . . Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there is no work, nor plan, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the Sheol where you go. . . . " -- Ecclesiastes 9:10.

Regarding our Lord Jesus, ". . . he foreseeing this spake of the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he left unto Hades, . . ." -- Acts 2:31.

What proof do you have Abraham was in heaven (Luke 16:23)?

[Obsidian]

It is my understanding that before Christ's ascension into heaven, all OT saints that died went to Sheol.

Yeah, I have been well aware that such was your position, for the past many pages of this thread. The question is what evidence you have to support it.

Everyone, ". . . Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there is no work, nor plan, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the Sheol where you go. . . . " -- Ecclesiastes 9:10.

Ecclesiastes 9:10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

Considering that Ecclesiastes is mostly written from an atheistic/materialist perspective, I think "grave" is the best translation here.

Regarding our Lord Jesus, ". . . he foreseeing this spake of the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he left unto Hades, . . ." -- Acts 2:31.

Jesus was "dead" for three days. But in contrast, he describes Abraham as being "the living." Matthew 22:32. That is why I say Abraham was in heaven. Jesus was in hell.

Ecclesiastes 3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

[37818]

In other words, Abraham's argument of a warning of that place of torment is just rhetorical exaggeration. Deuteronomy 32:22 not meaning any such thing.

I have no idea how you're reading that into my words. What "argument of a warning" of Abraham's are you referring to? I'm having difficulty even parsing that sentence.

". . . And he said, I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house, for I have five brothers, so that he may testify to them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham said to him, They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them. . . ."

[One Bad Pig]

". . . And he said, I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house, for I have five brothers, so that he may testify to them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham said to him, They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them. . . ."

Yes, I've read the verse. I still have no idea how you're reading what you are into my posts. You need to explain your thinking here. Merely repeating the verse isn't going to help me.

[37818]

". . . And he said, I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house, for I have five brothers, so that he may testify to them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham said to him, They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them. . . ."

Yes, I've read the verse. I still have no idea how you're reading what you are into my posts. You need to explain your thinking here. Merely repeating the verse isn't going to help me.

The rich man wanted Lazarus to be sent to warn his 5 brothers. That is understood right? Abraham argued that if they do not hear Moses or the prophets they would not be persuaded by one coming back from the dead. That is understood right? At issue is, what did Moses and the prophets write to warn of fire [torment] in Hades?

[Leonhard]

I'm not sure if I'm reading you right One Bad Pig, but as far as I know about the Eastern Orthodox Church (and admittedly I'm not expert) it doesn't exactly teach universalism. Their saints seem fairly bleak on the topic of how hard salvation is to be frank. There's a great emphasis on the love of God over his justice, and a healthy alternative to what can become a legalistic approach to spirituality, yet still, the goal in the Eastern Orthodox Church is theosis. And outside of a few saintly and miraculous monks, within a few monasteries, I don't see how many actually achieve this in life.

I remember one story about a pious Eastern Orthodox monk who was about to go to his death bed, but then he said to himself "No not yet!" And somehow willed himself to not die, and continued with even more penances, fasting and prayer, and then he achieved salvation at death. If it takes something like that to be among those who'll achieve theosis in the end, and the saints indicate that its a hard path indeed. Then I don't see how one could maintain that all people, even hardened unbaptized atheists would also be saved.

[One Bad Pig]

The rich man wanted Lazarus to be sent to warn his 5 brothers. That is understood right?

Sure.

Abraham argued that if they do not hear Moses or the prophets they would not be persuaded by one coming back from the dead. That is understood right?

Sure.

At issue is, what did Moses and the prophets write to warn of fire [torment] in Hades?

I'm not sure if Moses did directly; however, he does repeatedly warn that those who disobey the covenant will be cut off. While that is is a euphemism for "killed," its meaning is not necessarily limited to that. Fire and brimstone is used by God for judgment (Gen. 19:24, Lev. 10:2, Num. 16:35). For the prophets, see Is. 50:11, Is. 66:14-24 (the last verse of which is quoted in the gospels).

IMO the image of torment by fire in hades was not a necessary particular of Moses' and the prophets' teaching; the threat of judgment by God should be more than sufficient. I think you're reading more into Abraham's and the rich man's statements than is there.

[One Bad Pig]

I'm not sure if I'm reading you right One Bad Pig, but as far as I know about the Eastern Orthodox Church (and admittedly I'm not expert) it doesn't exactly teach universalism.

Correct. Universalism was condemned as a heresy at (IIRC) the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

Their saints seem fairly bleak on the topic of how hard salvation is to be frank. There's a great emphasis on the love of God over his justice, and a healthy alternative to what can become a legalistic approach to spirituality, yet still, the goal in the Eastern Orthodox Church is theosis. And outside of a few saintly and miraculous monks, within a few monasteries, I don't see how many actually achieve this in life.

No one achieves theosis in this life. In fact, in Eastern Orthodox teaching, you could say that no one ever reaches it, because God is infinite; even in eternity (especially in eternity), we will ever draw closer to God - heaven is not considered a static existence.

I remember one story about a pious Eastern Orthodox monk who was about to go to his death bed, but then he said to himself "No not yet!" And somehow willed himself to not die, and continued with even more penances, fasting and prayer, and then he achieved salvation at death. If it takes something like that to be among those who'll achieve theosis in the end, and the saints indicate that its a hard path indeed. Then I don't see how one could maintain that all people, even hardened unbaptized atheists would also be saved.

We are encouraged to see ourselves as "chief of all sinners" - it's part of the prayer recited before receiving communion. Those who are closest to God in this life are no exception. Because they are so close to God, they can see their own shortcomings more clearly than anyone else. St. Anthony the Great, upon meeting a simple cobbler in Alexandria, declared him to be holier than himself, because the cobbler said, "every day, I keep in mind the thought that everyone else will be saved, and I alone will remain in torment."

We strive to live holy lives in the fear of the Lord, becoming united with Christ in the Eucharist and confessing our sins (both in private prayer and before a priest) when we stumble. We also constantly invoke the saints (including the righteous ones who lived before Christ) to intercede for us in our behalf (a constant refrain in the services to the saints is "holy [name], pray to God for us!").

For a good perspective on theosis, see Deification in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition: A Biblical Perspective by Stephen Thomas.