Loading...In my previous post I started to discuss the famous doctrine of the “Harrowing of Hell,” where Christ is said to have descended to Hades after his death (since he was a human, after all, and when humans die, they go to Hades. Part of the reason for the doctrine, then, is that if he didn’t go, he wouldn’t have had all the human experiences); but he did not go there forever obviously (in this way he was *unlike* everyone else!) but as the son of God he went to bring his salvation to those who had died previously (who could not be saved by his death because it hadn’t happened yet.)
I pointed out in the previous post that some theologians said that Christ went to Hades to preach to those who were there to give them the chance to repent (who wouldn’t want to get outta there?? Apparently some or lots?) but others claimed that he went to assert his raw power over his enemies to show who was Lord and King.
These reflections are drawn from the final chapter of my book Journeys to Heaven and Hell (Yale University Press, 2022). I continue here with a bit more from the chapter, dealing with another intriguing but scarcely known issue addressed by early Christian theologians reflecting on it.
******************************
Closely related to and often completely intertwined with the question of why Christ descended – to preach or to assert his power — is the issue of its salvific effect. At an early stage, the answer appears to have seemed rather obvious: Christ went to Hades to save patriarchs and prophets of Israel, that is, the saints who lived before Christ who could not, technically, believe in his salvific death and resurrection except proleptically. Once he fulfilled his earthly task, however, they were delivered from the darkness of Hades and brought to their heavenly reward (thus, e.g., Irenaeus Adv.haer. 4.27.2; Ep. Apost. 72; and even up to Augustine In sermo de symbolo 7). Very soon – possibly immediately – other righteous Israelites (who did not happen to be named in the Old Testament) came to be included among those delivered by Christ at his descent. This, for example, is the view attacked indirectly by Marcion, who left “all the righteous” (as Irenaeus termed them) in the infernal realm.
Further questions of equity arose, however. If righteous Jews were saved from Hades, why not
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Whether Christ went to save the righteous Jews, or all Jews, or Jews and Gentiles, there is still the question of how effective he was. If his goal was to preach his gospel of salvation, did he speak literally to everyone or just to those he knew would accept his message? Was he declaring them saved or giving them an opportunity to accept an offer of salvation? If he went to destroy the powers below, did he do it completely or only in part? If completely, did he provide an alternative arrangement for justice, some other form of punishment outside of Hades? Or did he deliver every single soul from damnation? Lots of interpretive options were on offer.
Those who wanted to magnify the glorious effects of Christ’s appearance in the world below often engaged in considerable rhetorical excess. If Christ’s preaching really was irresistible, or if his power actually was unstoppable, surely all would be saved. No one could resist. Some authors do say that, but most then qualify their claims. We see qualified exuberance already with our first surviving Christian author Paul, who, does say that in the end all creatures everywhere will worship Christ (Phil. 2:10-11) and that all who participated with Adam in sin (that is, every human being ever) will also participate with Christ in salvation (Romans 5). But he still speaks of divine wrath against sinners, coming destruction, and the judgment seat of Christ (e.g., Rom. 1:18; 2:6; 1 Thess. 5:3). So in what sense will everyone be saved?
Later admirers of Paul made similar bold claims, but often it is easy to see beneath the rhetorical excess. Origen can say that at his descent Christ completely destroyed the kingdom of death and led away its captives, liberating those who were held there (Comm.Rom 5.1.37; 5.10.12; In lib. Reg. Hom 2); but given his teaching of the apokatastasis, he clearly did not really mean it as a literal description of what happened. So too Cyril of Alexandria, who describes the Descent as having a universal effect: Christ descended “and preached to the spirits in Hades; he appeared to those confined in the house of prison, and he freed everyone from their bonds and pain (καὶ πάντας ἀνῆκεν δεσμῶν καὶ ἀνάγκης, Commentary on Luke 4:18 PG 72, 537). But that he does not mean “everyone” becomes clear elsewhere, most notably in his Commentary on John 3:36 (PG 73. 286-88), where he affirms that everyone will be raised from the dead, but not necessarily to “see life.” Those who do not believe will never see life; after their resurrection they will experience punishments far harsher then death itself (PG 73, 286-88).
Many early theologians who wanted to affirm universal salvation Christ brought at Christ’s descent but also the judicial need for eternal damnation simply claimed that Christ made salvation available to everyone in Hades – even the worst of sinners – but that not everyone accepted the offer. Even this idea was often challenged by orthodox thinkers: surely sinners would not be given a second chance after death. And so, we have the polemic of Filaster of Brescia:
“There are some heretics who say that the Lord descended to Hades and announced to all who had died there that if they confessed their faith there they would be saved…”
******************************
After this in my chapter I move to a discussion of some of the key texts that provide an actual narrative of Christ’s “Descent to Hell,” especially a little-known book called the Questions of Bartholomew and another book that may not be well known to today but was highly influential throughout the Middle Ages, the Gospel of Nicodemus – one of my favorite apocryphal Gospels. Maybe in later posts I’ll describe it. It’s got some real zingers in it, and some serious textual/historical problems that I wrestle with in my chapter….
It’s comforting to learn that righteous Israelites could be benevolently considered (once dead),even if at the end it was expected that they should accept Christ… or else.
If Heavens’ was ruled by the Father,and Earth by Christ,we could assume that Sheol/Hades/Gehenna was ruled by Satan.
Yet when Jesus descends into Sheol, there is no meet or confrontation with Satan.In Job, for example,God speaks to and instructs Satan.Jesus himself discussed the temptations with Satan.Therefore,Satan did not necessarily have to flee from Jesus descending into his abode.
Much of what I remember about the benefits of Christianity is that Jesus’ death and resurrection defeats Death,Evil and Satan. Now, that’s huge.
Yet,there seems to be nothing officially written about this,as Jesus descends into Satan’s realm.
Is Christ’s defeat of all those dark powers a post -NT theology?
Apropos sinners and Hell,I saw a terrific documentary,the Gospel of Judas (you are in it, you might recall).Throughout the movie I kept thinking, how could Judas and the Jews not have been forgiven? Wasn’t that a major point,learnt directly from Jesus?Poor Judas surely repented.
One hugely impressive thing in this film is the true Aramaeic spoken by Jesus and the disciples.It’s stunning,like being there with them,the real deal.
Yes, ha-satan in Job (part of God’s divine council) is decidedly not the Satan of later apocaylptic tradition (the arch-enemy of God and his people). Judas: yup, it depends which tradition you read about him. Generally he was thought to have committed an unpardonable sin. Taht’s ironic, of course, if he was ordained to do so and by doing so he allowed for salvation That’s one of the most amazing parts of the Gospel of Judas, where Jesus says to him “You will exceed all of them (i.e., the other disciples), because you will sacrifice the man that clothes me”
Slightly tangential: do any of the early Christian writers address why God would allow Satan to live until the end of the world, after he has caused so much grief? I compare it to me if I knew a bully was picking on my children but I didn’t deal with him until my children were dead. That’s not very good parenting!
I guess God has a different view of good parenting. 🙂
All the “after death” scenarios are quite sloppy. Do you live on in spirit or bodily? Hades must be full of spirits because the bodies for most are gone. if so, then, Christ went there in spirit? Where was his body? Still in the tomb? Was he resurrected at that time or only when his body resumed functionality? Questions, questions, questions…
Hi Bart. I am writing something totally unrelated here, but wanted to know your thoughts. The topic pricked my ears/eyes a while ago, but as I was reading today, I was reminded of my previous thoughts.
Reproving Another Who Sins -(Matt 18:15-18)
“If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector….”
I checked a few translations… and the Greek for the wording… and the context of Jesus’ sayings both before and after, but it seems to me to be a little out of place… as He seems to be either talking to the disciples or the multitudes.
Was there a fellowship/church at that time? Love to know your thoughts.
Ah, yes, this passage is famous among scholars for beinng one that almost certainly had to be placed on Jesus’ lips by story-tellers living later, when there actually *was* a “church” comprising Jesus’ followers! It really doesn’t make much sense during his lifetime.
Thanks for allowing and replying to my ‘off topic’ musing good sir.
I am grateful that this has entertained the minds of scholars before it stood out to me, as I hate the idea of seeing things that my not be there (in the text; in this case)
Wishing you and your closest a very merry Christmas and fruitful 2023… and beyond of course.
Best regards.
When certain family members join other more minor Christian sects today, there tend to be difficulties within the family due to the difference in theology, and sometimes even led to divorce.
When reading Luke 14:26, is it plausible that Jesus’ parents don’t agree much with their son’s theology which he probably learned from John the Baptist? Because there are lots of quarrels and debates amongst families when one introduce a very ‘un-common’ theology which the other family members did not like.
It’s possible, but my sense is that it’s generally seen as more likely that the saying does not go back to Jesus himself but was put on his lips after his death by followers who had experienced serious splits within their families, and seen others in other families, because of their decision to follow Jesus.
“Proleptically”? Get out your dictionaries!
A great word!
Is it thought Jesus did away with Sheol?
In some traditions he shuts down Hades completely; in others he leaves just the Devil; in others a few people including Cain and Judas Iscariot; in others, everyone who refuses still to believe in him; in others, everyone who is not a saint.
Bart. I have been watching the series on Jesus becoming Christ: the early Christians on Frontline on PBS. In the first episode, one of the scholars mentions that as Jesus was growing up in Nazareth, he had access to the Roman city of Sepphoris nearby. The scholar states that Jesus must have been multilingual in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. If indeed he had knowledge of Greek wouldn’t the authors of the Gospels also have knowledge of Greek? In your analysis regarding the authors of the gospels, you said that Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John could not be the real authors because, for one reason, they were fairly illiterate and did not have knowledge of Greek or at least the advanced Greek they would need to pen the Gospels. Do you agree with the scholar who said that Jesus had knowledge of Greek? And, if so, couldn’t the authors of the NT have knowledge of Greek (of course, excluding Paul who did have knowledge of Greek).
I think that was Dominic Crossan. Right afterward Eric Meyers (one of the top archaeologest of ancient Israel in modern times) says that Jesus probably didn’t go to Sepphoris. (!) (I’m I’m rememvering it right. I thought that was veyr funny at the time).
The striking thing is that Espphoris is never mentioned in the NT. And Jesus is never said to go to the other large city int he region, Tiberius, either. Someone who grew up int he small hamlet of Nazreth would almost certainly not have travelled and gone somewere to learn Greek. LOTS of other reasons for thinking that as well. As the great scholar Ed Sanders pointed out, hand-to-mouth laborers like Jesus had to work six days a week, and were not allowed to travel on the seventh. Moreover, the only ones in Israel at the time who learned Greek were high level and wealthy elites living in cities, not peasants. Etc. etc. The Gospel writers were in a different class from Jesus.
You mention in your lecture on virgin births that the two accounts in the gospels contradict each other. In what way?
It is an interesting and informative presentation, but your audio needs work.
I love the blog!
Exercise for you: Make a careful list of everything that happens in Matthew 1-2; then do the same (without thinking about Matthew) in Luke 1-2. Then list everything that is similar. Then everything that is different. And ask if any of the differences canNOT be reconciled.
Thanks for your clarifying answer to my query above Bart. I always appreciate your insights. This afternoon I will tune in to your Misquoting Jesus youtube that was posted today. I never miss those enlightening discussions.
The Eastern Orthodox Easter (Pascha) Midnight Service is essentially Harrowing of Hell theology set to beautiful choral music. It includes an entire short sermon by Saint John Chrysostom on the subject.
Professor, you mentioned Paul’s apparent contradiction in all worshipping Jesus vs judgement. Curious thought on context of epistle writers of the time. Did they expect to be held to earlier writing’s to Say Corinth when next writing to somewhere in the other direction like Alexandria? After all, whats the chance someone could read both letters within the time of his ministry snd pin him down.
I’m not quite sure I’m following your question. Are you asking if the writer of a letter was concerned that he not contradict what he sais in some other letter sent to another place? If so, it’s an interesting question, but I’d say there’s no way to know. My guess it that writers were generally writing to address whatever situation they were facing and weren’t thinking specifically about what they had said to someone else at some other time, necessarily.
Today, I don’t believe very many protestants believe that the soul/spirit/consciousness of Jesus went to hell or purgatory after his body died (Jesus didn’t die; only his body stopped living). Paul and most of the 2,000+ other people who have reported having a near-death experience (NDE) do not report going to a place of torment. Similarly, the belief that the “death and resurrection of Jesus” atones for anyone else’s sinful behavior is clearly a “belief built on assumption” by first-century Jesus-followers. Each individual was and is responsible for whatever hurt they inflict on others. Some of this hurt may be justified, but we should leave it to God to make the judgment and to inflict a punishment. Human laws and imposed punishments beyond fines and modest imprisonments are necessary to maintain a viable civilization, but human governments may frequently impose penalties that are more excessive than what God considers to be appropriate. (For mean, “Christian” means “Jesus follower” no matter how others choose to define the term.)
William Steigelmann