the truth about hell?

[RND/SDA]

Except that is exactly what the text says.

Apostles Creed says - in part - "He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell (katelthonta eis ta katôtata). On the third day he rose again". Pretty clear.

Peter reports in 1 Peter 3:18-19 that Jesus died and then preached to those in prison.

1 Peter 3:18-19 NLT

Christ also suffered when he died for our sins once for all time. He never sinned, but he died for sinners that he might bring us safely home to God. He suffered physical death, but he was raised to life in the Spirit. So he went and preached to the spirits in prison.

The Nicene creed is incorrect and the interpretation provided for 1 Peter 3:18-19 is simply incorrect.

In Mat 27:52 it describes those who arose from their graves when Jesus rose as "those who slept".

Mat 27:52-53 KJV

And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Yes, they were "sleeping" in the grave. The verse does not say they came up from "hell."

So 1) Jesus died, 2) preached to souls in prison between the time He was crucified and rose, 3) rose on the third day, 4) many of those who slept in their graves rose with Jesus on the third day. That is why the story of the other souls raising from the dead with Jesus makes sense, he preached to them in Sheol where He was with them, they were saved because of his preaching, and rose to life just as Jesus did, just as Jesus promised.

Except the verse never says they came up from hell, or decended from Heaven. They were clearly "in the grave."

This what English speaking Christians have historically called the Harrowing of Hell. It was universally accepted until fairly recently when the conflict between hell being a place of damnation and Jesus spending three days there became a problem. Since there was no "hell" for the early Christians and Jews, all souls simply slept in Sheol, Jesus going to Sheol was not a problem.

Fortunately, today many Christians are questioning the "old" view and beginning to accept the wisdom and truth that God's word provides.

[Tladatsi]

Do you have any evidence for post-mortem salvation other than these few particularly difficult passages? I have read much different interpretations of these verses

I do not think either of these passages are particularly difficult, the Greek is relatively straight forward in both cases.

Do you passages that support the believe of the Harrowing of Hell or do you mean passages that indicate the widespread belief among early Christians for the interpretation of the two passages cited as the Harrowing Hell.

In the former case, Col 2:14-15 would suggests the same story...

"...he hath taken it out that way, nailing it to the cross; having despoiled the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it."

which seems to mean that Jesus died, descended into the land of the dead beneath the earth. Which in conjunction ith Eph 4:9...

"Now that He ascended, what is it, but because He also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?"

So Paul seems pretty clear that Jesus went into the underworld after the crucifixion and before the resurrection.

Likewise Peter says (Acts 2:24): "Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell, as it was impossible that He should be held by it." which says that Jesus was in the underworld after the crucifixion.

However Paul does not tell us that Jesus preached to the souls of the dead and saved some. So aside from those two passages, no I do not see any passages that support the saving of dead souls by Jesus while He was in Sheol.

So the Harrowing of Hell is really only supported by two short passages. That is a lot theological territory to be supported by two passages. However, as the link in the OP suggests, there is even less support in the Bible for entire concept of hell as a fiery pit of eternal damnation that is ruled by fallen angels. There is not a single passage that supports this view. In both the Tanakh and the Christian letters and Gospels, the description of the dead, both saints and sinners together, as sleeping in Sheol is well supported.

However, the second question is have Christians historically believed that these two short passages are correctly read as supporting the theory of the Harrowing of Hell? There is amble evidence for this. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica discusses this issue and notes...

"Christ's Passion was a kind of universal cause of men's salvation, both of the living and of the dead. But a general cause is applied to particular effects by means of something special. Hence, as the power of the Passion is applied to the living through the sacraments which make us like unto Christ's Passion, so likewise it is applied to the dead through His descent into hell. On which account it is written (Zech. 9:11) that "He sent forth prisoners out of the pit, in the blood of His testament," that is, by the power of His Passion."

So Thomas clearly believes that this is the correct reading. Likewise Athanasius ("Christ's body was laid in the sepulchre when He went to preach to those spirits who were in bondage..."), Augustine ("He broke down the gate and 'iron bars' of hell, setting at liberty all the righteous who were held fast through original sin."), Jerome ("That He descended into hell is also evidently foretold in the Psalms, where it is said, “Thou hast brought Me also into the dust of the death.”), Gregory the Great ("Moreover, after your departure I learnt from information given me by my most beloved sons the deacons that your Love had said that our Almighty Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, when He descended into hell, saved all who there acknowledged Him as God, and delivered them from the pains due to them."), to name but a few.

Where did all of these church leaders get this crazy idea? Well maybe it is an incorrect reading. If the Harrowing of Hell is an incorrect reading the text, it was a widely held incorrect reading. However, it is a reading with more textual support than the even more widely held view that there is a "hell" where God sends to souls for eternal punishment in a volcanic pit.

[carelinks]

The so called early Christian fathers and all who have come after them have struggled to explain how Christ could "destroy" a personal being called the Devil on the cross, and yet that Devil is still apparently alive and active, and has been for the past 2000 years. The sheer variety of explanations indicate the deep problem which this poses for standard Christendom. Tertullian and Clement were some of the first to try to wriggle out of it. Tertullian wrote of how Jesus broke the bolts of hell and went around smashing the place up. Clement took it further and claimed that after His death, the Lord Jesus descended into "hell" and released the souls of the righteous who had been previously kept captive by the Devil. Hippolytus went on to teach that therefore Christ's descent into hell was as important a part of His redemptive work as His death on the cross (1).

All this was based around the acceptance into Christianity of the pagan ideas of hell as a place of punishment and immortal souls- both of which were imports from paganism and Platonism. The word "hell" was actually derived from the Teutonic goddess of the underworld. The Biblical, original Christian position was that hell is simply the grave, which is how the Hebrew sheol is usually translated; and the soul refers to the person or body, which ceases conscious existence at death. The new position adopted was out of step with the huge insistence of the New Testament that the death and resurrection of Christ were to be understood as the final, crowning apex of God's plan which of itself destroyed the Devil and enabled human salvation (Rom. 5:5-8; 6:3-9; 1 Pet. 3:18). It was because Christ "both died and rose and revived" that He became Lord of all (Rom. 14:9)- never is there any mention of His 'harrowing of hell' during His three days in the grave. And He of course was silent about any such activity during His appearances to the disciples after the resurrection. Paul's summary of the basic Gospel in 1 Cor. 15:3,4 simply stated that Christ "died... was buried...and rose again". Peter likewise drew a contrast with David, who died, was buried and was still dead- whereas Christ died and was buried, but His body didn't remain in the grave but was resurrected (Acts 2:29-32).

Having a turned up a blind alley, the "fathers" didn't have the courage to turn back. Debates went on about what exactly the Lord Jesus did there in 'hell'. But despite that, Hippolytus went so far as to say that belief in the 'harrowing of hell' was a vital part of the Gospel which must be believed for salvation (see his tractate on The Antichrist). There then arose the problem that if good people could be saved out of hell as a place of torment and punishment, then there must be a difference between that place and the final place of unalterable condemnation. And so the idea of purgatory was born (2). Protestants may groan and comment that that's only what Roman Catholics believe in; but their own theology ultimately derives from the very same "fathers" who were driven to invent the idea.

But then, wasn't Satan cast down to this same "hell", according to the thinking of the earlier "fathers"? Indeed. And so Origen devised a story of how at the crucifixion and supposed descent of Christ to "hell", Satan was bound and imprisoned in hell... and again there arose much debate as to whether therefore Satan has a chance of ultimate salvation, and which form of "hell" he was imprisoned in. For if he was in the one where good people were and yet were saved out of, then why hadn't he been put in the "lowest hell"? And so the explanations had to continue, and the tradition of Satan was embellished and added to.

(1) All this is documented in J.A. McCulloch, The Harrowing Of Hell: A Comparative Study Of An Early Christian Doctrine (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1930).

(2) For more on this, see Jaques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984).

I've adapted this from my material at http://www.realdevil.info/1-2-3.htm
which see for more detail

[Bill the Cat]

I do not think either of these passages are particularly difficult, the Greek is relatively straight forward in both cases.

Do you passages that support the believe of the Harrowing of Hell or do you mean passages that indicate the widespread belief among early Christians for the interpretation of the two passages cited as the Harrowing Hell.

From my understanding, the Harrowing of Hell was the release of those righteous in Abraham's Bosom, not the salvation of anyone damned. As someone who regularly debates Mormons on this particular issue, I am vehemently against any form of post-mortem salvation for anyone. Only those who died either a)believing in the promise of the Messiah prior to His coming, or b)believing on Him after His incarnation will be saved. The former were held captive until Jesus freed them. The latter are with Him upon death or at His coming again.

[carelinks]

Hi Bill
>From my understanding, the Harrowing of Hell was the release of those righteous in Abraham's Bosom

I agree with you against Mormons. BUT- where do you get the above idea from in Scripture?

I submit it's not there, and is an idea required by belief in immortal souls etc.

Duncan

[spitndirt]

...... but some of them are flawed -- for instance, they're inconsistent and inaccurate in their treatment of the word aionios.

This is copied from an old thread on the subject:

1) The reason the term 'aion' or forms thereof is applied to both 'the living' and 'the dead' is simple. TIME, though it began at some point, 'is' and 'is to be' a permanent fixture in reality. Therefore the term aion or forms thereof can accurately be applied to 'all things' that are called 'created'.

II) 'Age/ages' and 'perpetuity' are always complementary and never contradictory. Consider this analogy: All finite objects exist within the framework of time. Let's observe two hypothetical objects within this framework. X will represent an object that is finite and temporal. Y will represent an object that is finite and permanent. X will begin and end. Y will begin and continue. X will exist in perpetuity from one point to another. Y will exist in perpetuity from one point forward. The crux: When X reaches the end of its span it will enter again into a subsequent state of non-existence. Here's the thing. It can now be said of X that it will '...continue on perpetually in a state of subsequential non-existence...'. But how can we speak this way of something that does not exist? We can for two simple reasons - 1) X 'was so' for a span and therefore remains subject to the language of the place wherein it once existed. 2) Y continues on in perpetuity within the framework of time. These - Y and time - do not 'cease to be' simply because X is no more. Perpetuity is neither displaced by temporality, nor is it held captive by it.

III) The 100,000 dollar question becomes: What made X temporal and Y permanent? This too is simple. Let's add 'persona' to X and Y and introduce terms that signify 'quality and duration'. These are 'mortal (m)' and 'immortal (i)'. Now we have X(m) and Y(i). This explains why X(m) existed perpetually between two points and Y(i) exists perpetually from one point forward. And because Y(i) continues on it can be said of X(m) that its final state of non-existence will, likewise, continue on.

IV) Distinguishing between terms:

*Mortal/immortal --- applies to 'objects alone' and signifies the 'quality and duration' of those objects.
*Aion and forms thereof --- applies to 'objects in time' and signifies their 'nature of existence'.....and/or subsequential state of non-existence.


What do you think???

[Tladatsi]

You raise an excellent point. My point is that in the Tanakh and among the early Christians as is shown in the Gospels and Letters, a soul that is in the underworld is not damned. Sheol (translated into Greek as "Hades") is not a place for damnation. The souls of the dead (righteous and sinner alike) sleep beneath the earth in Sheol. So when Jesus preaches to the dead in Sheol / Hades, He is not preaching to the damned, just the dead. I would add that the Greeks did not think of Hades as a place of damnation either, it was just the place where the soul went after death so translating Sheol as Hades is not all that wrong. The difference is that the Greeks imagined the dead as awake and active while the Jew and early Christians imagined the dead as sleeping.

From my understanding, the Harrowing of Hell was the release of those righteous in Abraham's Bosom, not the salvation of anyone damned. As someone who regularly debates Mormons on this particular issue, I am vehemently against any form of post-mortem salvation for anyone. Only those who died either a)believing in the promise of the Messiah prior to His coming, or b)believing on Him after His incarnation will be saved. The former were held captive until Jesus freed them. The latter are with Him upon death or at His coming again.

[Bernie]

please read this.

What do you think about what it says?

The annihilationist is always 1/2 correct. From the link you provided....

When God says He is going to purge (baptize) with fire, He is not talking about a process of purifying saints. He is speaking of destroying or burning up sinners with fire—the hell fire described in His word and in this booklet. The above scriptures show that He will “fan” the flames so that the fire is hot enough to completely burn up and destroy all the “chaff” that did not choose to become “wheat” qualified to enter His kingdom.

Here's an example:

"Thus says the LORD, "As the new wine is found in the cluster, And one says, 'Do not destroy it, for there is benefit in it,' So I will act on behalf of My servants In order not to destroy all of them. And I will bring forth offspring from Jacob, And an heir of My mountains from Judah; Even My chosen ones shall inherit it, And My servants shall dwell there." (Isa 65:8-9)
I believe the "cluster" represents a multiplicity of elements within the human spirit (cluster) or soul, if you're a dichotomist. Who but Christ stands as intercessor and pleads the case with His Father, don't destroy all of them, for there is benefit (spiritual life; good) in it. (see also Isa 42:3) This much, the quote above correctly surmises from Scripture. His mistake is in stopping there.

God acting on behalf of His beloved Son goes on to say, very well, I won't destroy all of them. (see Jer 5:10, Ezek 21:2-5), and as our annihilationist brother correctly points out, He destorys those evil grapes within the cluster. God shows this principle a variety of ways in the Bible, for instance see Jer 24:1-8. Here's where our annihilationist brethren miss the mark: the miracle of salvation is a cycle of death and rebirth: "And I will bring forth offspring from Jacob, And an heir of My mountains from Judah" The destruction is only half the story; the bringing forth of offspring (new life from death) completes the cycle. This is the Christian message in a nutshell.

Usually the argument that salvation by faith is "an ecclesiastical thang". True, but regenerational fire is regenerational fire; those who submit to it to faith in time are spared the furnace in eternity. Easy way here or hard way there, either way God wins...and so, fortunately, does humanity.

[RND/SDA]

The annihilationist is always 1/2 correct. From the link you provided....



Here's an example:

"Thus says the LORD, "As the new wine is found in the cluster, And one says, 'Do not destroy it, for there is benefit in it,' So I will act on behalf of My servants In order not to destroy all of them. And I will bring forth offspring from Jacob, And an heir of My mountains from Judah; Even My chosen ones shall inherit it, And My servants shall dwell there." (Isa 65:8-9)
I believe the "cluster" represents a multiplicity of elements within the human spirit (cluster) or soul, if you're a dichotomist. Who but Christ stands as intercessor and pleads the case with His Father, don't destroy all of them, for there is benefit (spiritual life; good) in it. (see also Isa 42:3) This much, the quote above correctly surmises from Scripture. His mistake is in stopping there.

God acting on behalf of His beloved Son goes on to say, very well, I won't destroy all of them. (see Jer 5:10, Ezek 21:2-5), and as our annihilationist brother correctly points out, He destorys those evil grapes within the cluster. God shows this principle a variety of ways in the Bible, for instance see Jer 24:1-8. Here's where our annihilationist brethren miss the mark: the miracle of salvation is a cycle of death and rebirth: "And I will bring forth offspring from Jacob, And an heir of My mountains from Judah" The destruction is only half the story; the bringing forth of offspring (new life from death) completes the cycle. This is the Christian message in a nutshell.

Usually the argument that salvation by faith is "an ecclesiastical thang". True, but regenerational fire is regenerational fire; those who submit to it to faith in time are spared the furnace in eternity. Easy way here or hard way there, either way God wins...and so, fortunately, does humanity.

God and His spirit are always depicted as a "fire" in scripture. Always.

Jdg 15:14
[And] when he came unto Lehi, the Philistines shouted against him: and the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon him, and the cords that [were] upon his arms became as flax that was burnt with fire, and his bands loosed from off his hands.

Deu 4:24
For the LORD thy God [is] a consuming fire, [even] a jealous God.

Deu 5:24
And ye said, Behold, the LORD our God hath shewed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth.

Psa 50:3
Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence: a fire shall devour before him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about him.

Psa 68:2
As smoke is driven away, [so] drive [them] away: as wax melteth before the fire, [so] let the wicked perish at the presence of God.

Eze 36:5
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Surely in the fire of my jealousy have I spoken against the residue of the heathen, and against all Idumea, which have appointed my land into their possession with the joy of all [their] heart, with despiteful minds, to cast it out for a prey.

[spitndirt]

Ok....time to spill the beans.

While our spirits are ours at present they are really God's ultimately. Spirit does NOT equal "soul" (soul = body + breath). We ourselves are souls and mortal souls at that. We are imbued with a spirit of life from God - or, part of God's own spirit. Yep..... the spirits of men are really God's and have come from God. Spirit is immortal in and of itself. My spirit, then, serves as sort of a divine hard-drive wherein all the information to do with my soul (being, person) is being stored from first to last while I am living. When I die my body will be absorbed into the earth from which it was taken (i.e, in Adam) and my soul will be suspended until resurrection. At the same time my spirit will return to God who gave it. There my spirit will be kept in state until the appointed time. It will contain every ounce of information to do with my soul while I lived so that my resurrection can be accomplished by the power of God.

You see, when our souls are raised in the last day it will be according to the information recorded on our spirits - which are really portions of God's immortal spirit (in a certain form). Then will come the judgment of souls. The Lake of Fire - literally called the Second Death - is indeed for purging all that is not of God. If one is found to be utterly godless he will experience this Second Death which will consist of his body being consumed and his spirit being purged of all the information that constituted his personal being (soul, person). Once purged of all the soul information the spirit will then be reabsorbed back into God who gave it of Himself. The soul of this one will no longer exist....nor will the information necessary to ever raise him again. All existing memory of this one will also perish in the process. And because God will be all and in all that remain we will likewise retain no memory of those who will have perished in the Lake of Fire. How else are all of our tears to be wiped away in the end? Got any better ideas about all of this??? ..... I would be interested in hearing them.

My take.....

[damienl]

Spirit does NOT equal "soul" (soul = body + breath).

I don't think so. If the body is simply part of the soul, then why does Christ say:

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Here, the soul is distinct from and set in opposition to the body. It wouldn't make any sense to say that you can kill part of the soul, but not the soul, or that God will destroy both the soul (i.e. body + breath) and part of it as if they were two separate things.

[mickiel]

I don't think so. If the body is simply part of the soul, then why does Christ say:


Here, the soul is distinct from and set in opposition to the body. It wouldn't make any sense to say that you can kill part of the soul, but not the soul, or that God will destroy both the soul (i.e. body + breath) and part of it as if they were two separate things.

More importantly, and most overlooked and misunderstood, is that God can destroy both body and soul in hell. Destroy. If God can destroy anything in hell, this means he can destroy hell also. God is called the end of all things, why are people so scared to believe that God holds the keys to death, to hell, to salvation, to all things? He will destroy death, destroy Hell, destroy the grave, destroy pain and misery, destroy suffering. Its the doctrines of men that seek to extend those things throughout all of eternity. Men don't like admitting to it in their arguements, but they want extension to those things, because it excites their belief, it tingles their desire, it fulfills what THEY want for unrepentant sinners.

Peace.

[spitndirt]

I don't think so. If the body is simply part of the soul, then why does Christ say:


Here, the soul is distinct from and set in opposition to the body. It wouldn't make any sense to say that you can kill part of the soul, but not the soul, or that God will destroy both the soul (i.e. body + breath) and part of it as if they were two separate things.

Ummm.....I don't think so. God formed Adam out of the dust and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life....and he became a living soul. What constitutes soul? Body + breath.

Breath signifies spirit. Body signifies identity - "thou art dust". The two in union and operating in reality = soul. I do not have a soul....I am a soul. The reason these seem like two separate things is....our bodies can be killed by men. Our souls cannot since men cannot touch God's spirit. If a man is killed his spirit returns to God. God can then resurrect the man based upon the information embedded in the spirit that returns to God. God, on the other hand, is able to purge this information from the spirit of the man and re-absorb it into Himself. If this happens the man's soul is destroyed for good cuz the information concerning the man will have been lost forever.

Next....how does my view exclude the ability of God to destroy a soul. I explained, in fact, precisely how this will be done.

The term "hell" in the verse you have quoted = hades, or the grave. The very hades that is found to be cast also into the Lake of Fire in the end. "...and death and hell (Hades/grave) were cast into the lake of fire...".

[Tladatsi]

So, this volcanic underworld of suffering souls called "hell", it is some sort of tool of God's to achieve His aims. Is that correct? If yes, then the demons who torment the souls in this subterranean torture chamber must be God's agents in this creation of His. Is this God the master of demons, creator and maintainer of a diabolical realm? If no, where did hell come from and why does God allow it to exist, especially since it would seem He has the power to destroy it.

I was just wondering.

BTW, none of this is found in the Bible. The fiery pit of hell where sinners burn is completely absent from the Bible. Since there is no hell, the Bible does not say that God can destroy it.

More importantly, and most overlooked and misunderstood, is that God can destroy both body and soul in hell. Destroy. If God can destroy anything in hell, this means he can destroy hell also. God is called the end of all things, why are people so scared to believe that God holds the keys to death, to hell, to salvation, to all things? He will destroy death, destroy Hell, destroy the grave, destroy pain and misery, destroy suffering. Its the doctrines of men that seek to extend those things throughout all of eternity. Men don't like admitting to it in their arguments, but they want extension to those things, because it excites their belief, it tingles their desire, it fulfills what THEY want for unrepentant sinners.

Peace.

[mickiel]

So, this volcanic underworld of suffering souls called "hell", it is some sort of tool of God's to achieve His aims. Is that correct? If yes, then the demons who torment the souls in this subterranean torture chamber must be God's agents in this creation of His. Is this God the master of demons, creator and maintainer of a diabolical realm? If no, where did hell come from and why does God allow it to exist, especially since it would seem He has the power to destroy it.

I was just wondering.

BTW, none of this is found in the Bible. The fiery pit of hell where sinners burn is completely absent from the Bible. Since there is no hell, the Bible does not say that God can destroy it.

Well yes, that is certainly true, this hell only exist in the minds and belief of people, mostly christians, the followers of God. So it must be destroyed there.
A wrong thought planted in the mind, can mislead many.

Peace.