Is hell eternal?

[Hermit]

Forgive me if this has been discussed, I'm new to this Doctrine forum. I've never been able to fully believe that hell is necessarily eternal, in spite of Matthew 25:46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

This seems inconsistant with God's infinite love and mercy, and even justice.


Kyriacos C. Markides reports an interview with Father Maximos of Cyprus in his book, The Mountain of Silence (Doubleday 2001):
"The theological significance of this story (praying for an elder in hell to gain his release) is that it goes contrary to conventional beliefs about hell and damnation," I commented. "Hell in this case does not appear to be a necessarily permanent state. A human soul can in fact achieve liberation from that condition."
"Of course that is possible," Father Maximos said emphatically, as if it were self-evident. "We are naturally speaking of people who are receptive to sanctification. There are always those who are simply not amenable or receptive to such assistance. You can pray for demons as much as you want. In my opinion they are incapable of accepting Grace, although elder Paisios did pray for the salvation of demons."


Is this universally believed and taught by the Orthodox? I had thought you believed in eternal hell like Catholics.

A few paragraphs later, "... according to the holy elders, Hell is the experience of God, not as light and eternal Grace but as eternal fire instead. God, however, is not eternal fire. It is human beinggs who create the distortions, not God. It is therefore the souls of human beings that need to be healed so that they may be able to have the vision of God as light and not as fire that torments."

[Richard McBride]

That's an interesting point, Hermit;

There is a great deal of strange stuff passed around in Orthodox circles on hell. The toll houses as used by Seraphim Rose was only one of them. I should be glad to hear if this problem was ever solved in Canons?

My own understanding (which is worth nothing) is that hell is eternal becasue it is inhabited by those who refused redemption.

Have you checked with Matthews' pages on this?

richard

[John Wilson]

This seems inconsistant with God's infinite love and mercy, and even justice.

From what I understand it is precisely because God loves them and they are incapable of receiving that love that they are in torment. You might find "The River of Fire" by Alexander Kalomiros helpful in your understanding. You can find it at http://www.stvladimirs.ca/library/river-of-fire.html


"My brothers, unhappily for us, paradise or hell does not depend on God. If it depended on God, we would have nothing to fear. We have nothing to fear from Love. But it does not depend on God. It depends entirely upon us, and this is the whole tragedy."

John.

[John Wehling]

Met. HIEROTHEOS (Vlachos) has written a book that deals with eschatology in general and with this question specifically in the chapter on Paradise and Hell. Much of the book is available online here (http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b24.en.life_after_death.00.htm). His treatment of hell as uncreated energy is very good, it seems to me.

Also, Nikolaos Vassiliadis' "The Mystery of Death" has a long chapter full of quotes from the Scriptures and the Fathers affirming the eternality of hell.

Hope this helps,
John

[Owen Jones]

Dear John,

Any idiot can quote Scripture to "prove" that hell is eternal. It's right there in black and white. The real question is, what does that mean? What does eternal mean? I'm not sure anyone really knows what that means. Holy Scripture is also repleat with symbolism, something which virtually all Protestants deny. What is to be understood symbolically, and what is to be read literally? Do we know? Do we have the mind of the Fathers that permits us to understand the inner meaning of Scripture? Now, these are all questions that most people dare not ask, because they base their faith, not on a living reality, but on proofs. Which I find very tiresome, if not disturbing. The man who bases his faith on proof is a very unreliable partner in faith. For if you throw something at him that might undermine his cold, calculating mind, he becomes quite vicious and attacks like a dog whose territory has been threatened. But a faith that is a living, inner reality, is unfazed by any threats or attacks. He has an inner assurance that does not require proofs. So that when all around him his doubt and fear, he is undisturbed.

Part of our problem is that human intellect demands justice on our terms. So we base our faith on the "undisputed fact" that the evil man will suffer eternal torment, and the good man will receive his reward in heaven. This is as it should be, according to our standards of justice. But God's standards, while not whimsical, are different than ours, and beyond our comprehension. So that a man we might judge to be evil, is, perhaps, in God's eyes, far better than us.

We, as believers, should all fear for our own souls. Because we judge ourselves as the greatest of all sinners. For we have been given a great gift that we habitually squander. The ignorant man is judged by God more mercifully. As is the prostitute and the murderer. These are lesser crimes than squandering the spiritual gifts that God has given us. An even greater crime is to be in a position of spiritual authority over another man, and use that authority to dominate that person, to turn religion into a burden and a curse. This sin is, we are told, unforgivable. These are just examples of what I glean to be God's inscrutable standards of justice which fly in the face of our very convenient standards. Now, I am not advocating jail time or the death penalty for religious leaders who misuse their authority. I will leave that to God to handle, and try not to add to their crimes myself by worrying my poor little head about such things that are beyond my comprehension.

[John Wehling]

Owen wrote:

>>Do we have the mind of the Fathers that permits us to understand the inner meaning of Scripture? Now, these are all questions that most people dare not ask, because they base their faith, not on a living reality, but on proofs. Which I find very tiresome, if not disturbing. The man who bases his faith on proof is a very unreliable partner in faith. <<

Owen,are you implying that the sources to which I referred are just such examples of men who, rather than having the mind of the Fathers, quote "proofs" out of their petty little need to secure justice for the wicked and a desire to exert spiritual authority over others? If that is not what you are implying I am at a loss to understand the intent of your message.

John

[John Wehling]

One might also argue, convincingly I think, that many people who believe in universal salvation (generally), or apokatastasis (specifically), or whatever name you want to give it, do so out of the very same sense of human justice which you (rightfully) decry in your post. After all, doesn't the argument--or at least the motive behind it--genrally run something like this: it is not fair that a person be eternally punished for a sin or sins committed in this life which is temporal and in which they cannot understand the full consequences of their sin? We look at people, the much celebrated noble and virtuous pagan, for example, and say it would not be just for God to punish them eternally for sins of which they could not really understand the ramifications, or for which they were less than adequately equipped to avoid.

I am not advocating that we judge anybody, nor that we preach justice as the final standard of salvation or damnation. The Scriptures and the Fathers warn us against this presumption. But I think it interesting that in both cases--the person who judges the "wicked" man as deserving hell, as well as the person who insists that hell must be temporal or non-existent--often it is this very human standard of justice that is being applied.

John

[Owen Jones]

So I guess what you are asking for is a literal exegesis of my commentary? Literally, I am saying that most religious leaders today have a tendency to teach a mechanical faith, not a living faith. So the tendency is to find assurance of one's faith through "proofs". But there is no proof of anything that we believe, apart from faith. Faith is the proof. In and through a living faith, there is the proof, notably, the change, the transoformation, that takes place when we have a living faith. That is the only proof. To point to Scripture and say, there it is written in black and white, that Hell is eternal, tells us absolutely nothing, without a living faith. We would like to presume that exists as the context, but as the old song goes, "it ain't necessarily so." So to "proof text" something only raises more questions than it answers. The response to that I often hear is, "you are a relativist," or, "you are a heretic." And it is true that the liberals are the ones who are fond of complaining about the way "traditionalists" use Scripture as a proof text. But that does not change the requirement for us to have a living faith. To simply point to Scripture and quote something as a proof proves absolutely nothing. As a British truism goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating of it. I know nothing about the people you quoted. I was responding to the point made that Scripture says that Hell is eternal, as if it takes some great genius to do that. It doesn't take a saint, let alone a scholar to do that. Anyone can do that, believer or non-believer. A non-believer can read Scripture and read the same words and say, "look here, it says right here, Hell is eternal." but does that have any impact on the non-believer? He will likely conclude that that is proof of the validity of his non-belief. Or he will grudingly admit in his subconscious that there is some truth there and run away from it. The real question I have is this, what difference does it make? I'm not washing my hands of the problem. I take the problem very seriously. I don't want to run away from the question, "is Hell eternal?" I simply do not think that it is sufficient to point to the Bible and say, "here, it says right here, that Hell is eternal," as if that is the answer to the question. It isn't. The answer to the question is, how must I live today in response to that question. Another question. Christ always answered the Pharisees' questions (trying to trip him up with proof texts) with another question. Every question leads to another question, and the answer is always a living faith. Something that is embodied and evident in and through some transformation. The fathers stated emphatically that we cannot understand Scripture without this transformation. Without an inward illumination. How many of us can say that we have that? So you see, I cannot answer your question. I can only pose more questions.

[John Wehling]

So we must have a living faith vs a mechanical faith. Agreed.

And note that I said these writers quote the Scriptures and the Fathers, the latter, I assume, having this very living faith, and by and through whom we understand the Scriptures. If they, in their living faith, teach that hell is eternal, then I can try--with living faith--to uphold their teaching as truth.

I don't see what proof or certainty has to do with it. It only clouds the discussion, or so it seems to me.

John

[Owen Jones]

My comment had nothing to do with the doctrine of universal salvation. My comment has to do with the meaning of the statement, "Hell is eternal." The non-believer can believe that that is a true statement, just as much as the believer. But the meaning is totally different. What does the statement mean? That is the issue, not whether it is a true statement or not. And we can only have a glimpse of what it means, and then only in the context of a living faith. Now, that may be the prior assumption of all discussions of theology and Scripture. However, I dare say it should not be assumed as a given. The truth of a statement in the Bible cannot be ascertained apart from a living faith, a painful faith, a suffering faith, an illumined faith, a costly faith. Show me a man who demonstrates that, and I will listen to what he has to say. But I become wary when someone simply points to Scripture and says, as if it is the end of the story, here it says so in Scripture. That is only the beginning of the story, not the end. What is meant by eternal? Is it by our standards? Or by God's standards? I am told that time is relative, not only experientially but measurably. So by eternal are we talking about a measurement of time? If we are, then its meaning is relative to some absolute standard. And now we are being told by scientists that even that absolute standard (the speed of light) is not an absolute.

Does not a man falling from a high building to his death, review his entire life before he hits the ground? Is that few seconds not an eternity to him? For God are not all the thousands of years of creation (or billions if you believe in carbon dating) not an instant flash, always a present moment? Likewise, perhaps there is a spiritual meaning to the term eternity which we cannot fathom. But perhaps it is measurable in time by a nono-second.

[Hermit]

I'm also not particularly impressed by theologians offering proof texts, since the Bible if read literally in English appears to be full of contradictions and mistakes, that only vanish when the Greek and Hebrew are read with discrimination. Or by a person with wisdom.

I'll always take the explanation of a saint who has been given a vision of hell, over the word of a theologian using Biblical proof texts.

In the case of the book I referred to, Orthodox saints (including Father Maximos in my opinion) saw a vision of a person in hell they had been praying for, eventually come out of hell as a result of their prayers.

It makes a great deal of sense to me that while hell might be generally eternal, some might come out due to prayers for them (or perhaps a true repentance, not simply from the suffering?).

Also remember that Jesus preached to the souls in "prison" according to Peter ... why do that if it could have no effect? And in the gospel of Matthew (?), spoke of an imprisonment that would not end "until the last penny is paid".

[John Wehling]

Gentlemen,

This is all very fine and dandy. Now could someone please tell me where this whole notion of "proof texts" entered this discussion? It certanly was not by me offering any at all for the eternality of hell. I simply noted a resource which quotes the Bible and the Fathersaffirming that hell is eternal. As for Vlachos, he offers a chapter on why the Orthodox Church does not uphold the RC teaching of purgatory, or as he calls it, the purgative fire. If these books do not suit your fancy, fine. But please do not misconstrue my words to your own ends, weaving them into a strawman. If that was not your intention, forgive me, for I have misunderstood. I offered no argument nor proof text, but only a couple of sources where one might look to see what the Bible and the Fathers have said on this subject, since Hermit's question was regarding the Orthodox teaching on hell.

John

[Owen Jones]

Dear Hermit,

I agree with your fundamentally pastoral approach to our understanding of Hell. Owen Jones

[Richard Leigh]

"Holy Scripture is also repleat with symbolism..."

This is true.

"...something which virtually all Protestants deny."

This is not true.

Richard

[Andonis]

i agree with you Owen. to try and extract a literal meaning of the term eternal hell, is not as important as understanding its implication. the way i like to think of it is, that if in this life we strive and struggle to live as God has asked, than we can expect insurmountable blessings and joys the closer we get to perfection. our first steps towards reaching for God are based mostly on faith, and as deification takes place more on spiritual wisdom. the word eternal appears to be more symbolic than defining of a time period. for the saints whom reached holy illumination, they could probably testify as living in a state of eternal paradise even whilst on earth.

on the other hand the evil and unjust whom drift further and further away from the divine light of God begin to dwell in what one may indeed describe as eternal hell. i know last time i got food poisoning i was so sick, that the forty eight hours of vomiting and dehydration felt more than eternal to me. in fact i would plea with God to make me better and in return i would be prepared to do anything so that i may redeem myself.
in conclusion i guess our earthly existence is hell enough for some people, in that they strive to live in Christ and yearn for the salvation described in the gospel. for others whom have become accustomed to the darkness of evil, a more intense hell may be required to bring them to repentance. to me this confirms that God in his infinite justice and mercy, does all he can to bring all to repentance, even if that means granting them eternal hell...

[John Wehling]

"The truth of a statement in the Bible cannot be ascertained apart from a living faith, a painful faith, a suffering faith, an illumined faith, a costly faith. Show me a man who demonstrates that, and I will listen to what he has to say."

“Let us not then make ourselves unworthy of entrance into the bride-chamber: for as long as we are in this world, even if we commit countless sins it is possible to wash them all away by manifesting repentance for our offences: but when once we have departed to the other world even if we display the most earnest repentance it will be of no avail, not even if we gnash our teeth, beat our breasts, and utter innumerable calls for succour, no one with the tip of his finger will apply a drop to our burning bodies, but we shall only hear those words which the rich man heard in the parable "Between us and you a great gulf has been fixed."....For when you hear of fire, do not suppose the fire in that world to be like this: for fire in this world burns up and makes away with anything which it takes hold of; but that fire is continually burning those who have once been seized by it, and never ceases: therefore also is it called unquenchable. For those also who have sinned must put on immortality, not for honour, but to have a constant supply of material for that punishment to work upon; and how terrible this is, speech could never depict...” --St John Chrysostom, To Theodore on his Lapse 1.9-10

“Seest thou how the devil has disposed us to be enemies and adversaries to ourselves? For once let us be sober, let us open our eyes, let us watch, let us lay hold on eternal life, let us shake off this long sleep. There is a Judgment, there is a Punishment, there is a Resurrection, there is an Inquisition into what we have done! The Lord cometh in the clouds "Before Him," he says, "a fire will be kindled, and round about Him a mighty tempest" (Ps. 1. 3, Sept) A river of fire rolls before him, the undying worm, unquenchable fire, outer darkness, gnashing of teeth. Although you should be angry with me ten thousand times for mentioning these things, I shall not cease from mentioning them. For if the prophets, though stoned, did not keep silence, much more ought we to bear with enmities, and not to discourse to you with a view to please, that we may not, for having deceived you, be ourselves cut in sunder. There is punishment, deathless, unallayed, and no one to stand up for us.” –St John Chrysostom, Homily 9.5 on 1 Thess.

St John Chrysostom was deathly ill, exiled, and died on a forced march in 407. He is one of the Three Holy Hierarchs, along with St Basil the Great and St Gregory the Theologian.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

I think that by this point it has been well established that the employment of passages from the Fathers or holy Scripture simply as 'proof texts' is not in accordance with Orthodox thought. The words of the Fathers are helpful to us inasmuch as they reveal to and inspire within us the mind and heart of the Fathers. But let us also remember that most of us will never come to know the mind or the heart, without reading the words.

On the question of the eternity of hell, much more can be said. John has mentioned the work by Metropolitan Hierotheos and offered quotations from St John Chrysostom. The latter's comments present a theme common in many of writings of the Fathers -- but it is by no means the 'full' patristic conception in its entirety. St John is speaking, it might be said, of the 'final judgement' (though he speaks only of 'after departing this life'); there is an intervening period, a 'middle state', of which the quotations offered do not speak, and yet with regard to which the Church has much to say.

Chrysostom is also, especially in his letter to Theodore, engaging in the kind of 'pastoral reflection' upon Hell that Owen and others have mentioned here. How does the understanding of hell make me act now, in the present? How shall it change my life? Such are the sorts of questions that he is raising in this particular text. But the fullness of St John's 'theological conception' of hell must come from the whole of his thought.

If we're to examine the question of the eternity of hell in an authentic way, we must start from the same place as did the Fathers: what does the revelation of God in the Church, combined with our experience of God through the Church, teach us about the fullness of the divine economy and its realisation in our own lives? We cannot talk about hell's eternity until we've first addressed more fundamental questions: what is this present life? What is hell? What is eternity?

This may seem at first simply to expand the question uncontrollably. But it is the safe route to take. We must be very careful not to extract one aspect of a divine truth for our attention, and thereby distort the whole.

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

Dear Matthew,

You've not only studied a lot, but you have clearly thought and prayed about it and contemplated this question -- of how you approach God via the Orthodox way in a manner that doesn't slice and dice. That's not to say that on the level of experience, one thing can't be more significant to me and another more significant to you, especially as converts (presumably we both are). But is there a unifying principle that you have found useful to you that keeps you from focusing on one thing at the expense of the whole? Some methodological principle perhaps? Just as an analogy -- I have the privilege of working with a lot of alcoholics and drug addicts. The one "system" that works is the AA system. It's the only thing that has a track record over time. The AA "system" so to speak comprises the steps, the fellowship, the literature, lots of meetings on a regular basis, sponsorship, a willing heart, and helping other alcoholics who are still suffering. Those are the main components. What I have observed is that a person will typically focus on one thing at the expense of the other things. A person will, for example, go to lots of meetings, but not work the steps. Another person will do a lot of work helping other alcoholics, but use that as an excuse not to work on himself. Others will work the program mechanically but still use other people selfishly, especially in sex relationships.

Typically, that only works for a while and the person gets drunk. It's typically when someone takes advantage of the fullness of the program that they not only stay sober, but are happy and in a state of spiritual tranquility.

In your opinion, how does an Orthodox Christian enable himself to participate in all of the levels that the Church and the world offer us and not fixate on just one thing. I know in ORthodoxy there are those that just focus on the intellectual aspect, others on just the liturgy, others just on asceticism, and so on.

[M.C. Steenberg]

But is there a unifying principle that you have found useful to you that keeps you from focusing on one thing at the expense of the whole? [...] how does an Orthodox Christian enable himself to participate in all of the levels that the Church and the world offer us and not fixate on just one thing. I know in Orthodoxy there are those that just focus on the intellectual aspect, others on just the liturgy, others just on asceticism, and so on.
Ah, the eternal question! On a personal level, I have always thought that perhaps this very issue was in the mind of the Lord when He reminded His disciples that the faithful must be as children; for children stare openly and expectantly at the whole world before them. They know whom they love, and their mind is keen to embrace the whole of the universe around them: a small piece of wood is as fascinating as a skys****er. But both are fascinating, and a child will rarely dwell only on one thing in exclusion of others for too long a time.

St Irenaeus of Lyons used to say that the mark of the heretic was one who saw the whole of the Faith, picked a portion that suited him or her, and 'ran with it'. We can thus create religions centred upon God as a friendly man, or God as a suffering man, or heaven as temporal, or hell as eternal. But we can never thus recreate the whole of Christianity.

But as to your question directly, Owen, I can only repeat some words that I heard many years ago, about working always to keep the Christian life in full perspective:


"You must be a Christian. You must read; but reading does not make you a Christian. You will be educated, perhaps educated about the Faith, but you will not be a Christian. You must attend the holy services; but such attendance does not make you a Christian. You will know the Liturgy, you will bow as appropriate, but you will not be a Christian. You must pray; but prayer does not make you a Christian. It is essential, but it is not the end.

"Be a Christian. Be a whole Christian. When you are reading the holy Fathers or studying one of the sacred doctrines, and you do not understand, go to the Liturgy. When your prayer is dead and dry, take up a holy book. When you bow in the temple but do not worship, work on your prayer.

"If you find that your heart is filled with concerns of hell, read for a while about almsgiving, or manual labour. Your questions about hell may not be answered in this way; but you will be a better Christian. And if you are a true Christian, a faithful Christian, understanding will come as it ought to come, when it ought to come."

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

Dear John,

I was assuming, of course, an Orthodox context to the question, what does it mean? Not a pharisaical or heretical one. IN a sense, the whole Patristic corpus is a response to that question. If everything in Scripture were self-evident, without any need for illuminated explication, then, hey, we wouldn't have needed any patristic writings, no Councils, no sermons.

[John Curtis Dunn]

Owen: I guess it was your statement: "I'm not sure anyone really knows what that means." which mislead my reply. I certainly do not believe everything in the Scripture is self-evident; but neither is everything in need of a corpus of theological dissertations. While I have no desire to prop Protestatantism in any way or form, still, I do not believe it teaches everything in Scripture is self-evident.

Your statement and question addressed a specific topic in Holy Scripture and repeated several ways. I have already made a general reference to the unquenchable fire of Gehenna. We could also mention that there our Lord described a "worm that never dies."

We are fast approaching the Sunday of the Last Judgment on which we will chant some very specific statements about the eternal nature of Hell (Gehenna). Such phrases as "everlasting torment."

Now I do concede that the concept of "everlasting" breaks itself the boundries of my little brain; but this is because I have no experience of everlasting. However, if it lacks any certain meaning so as to mute the obvious meaning (without end) then it is also possible to question what "everlasting life" means (a life without end?)

If I were to speculate based upon my Orthodox readings, I would posit that the state of Hell is one of eternal stagnation while that of Heaven is eternal transformation. The worm which never dies is a frighting image of a endless torment.

To question whether it is a literal worm or a smybolical worm seems to peer into that which God has not revealed to us. However, the imagery taken from our present fallen world's experience was adequate enough for our Lord to communicate the certainty of the reality of that future experience. This is also repeated on this same day of Judgment:

"I lament and weep when I think of the eternal fire, the outer darkness and the neither world, the dread worm and the gnashing of teeth, and the unceasing anguish that shall befall those who have sinned without measure, by their wickedness arousing Thee to anger, O Supreme in love"

In the above the subject of the eternal condition of Hell (Gehenna)receives its Patristic response..."I weep when I think of..." Sadly, for me, most of my thoughts of these matters have been speculative theologizing and it was not until I read the book On the Soul after Death by Fr. Seraphim, prior to becoming Orthodox that I began the correction of my thoughts towards these matters. I began, but the last line of that last quote reads: "Among them in my misery I am first: but, O Judge compassionate, in Thy mercy save me."

There in lies the true saddness of my present circumstance: "I am first." It is not speculation or arbitration with the meaning of the word "eternal" which holds hope of escape from the certain reality of hells eternality; that is derived from that last phrase: "O Judge compassionate, in Thy mercy save me."

If the eternal nature of hell is open for speculative arbitration; then might also be the compassionate Judgment of God? This latter is the hope given to me by the Gospel, such as that which motivates the prodigal son to show his face again. I suspect this prodigal cleaned himself up as best as he was able before making his appearance, but the marks of his way of life were no doubt present upon his body: such as his anemia.

This latter often strikes at the soul, especially as we approach this great fast. Already I have begun to tremble, not for the loss of food, but for the reality that I have done so little to prepare myself for this journey.

But I digress...

I did not mean to be contentuious.

john

[Owen Jones]

To ask questions or to speculate on the meaning of Biblical statements is not to downgrade their significance. But terminologies take on different meanings and lose their meaning entirely in different cultures. "I am the Good Shepherd" loses its meaning in an industrial society. It helps to watch a sheepherder in action up close for a long time to understand what that means. Also, most of the imagery of the Incarnation is monarchical. Only it inverts the imagery that would have been traditional at that time. The monarch in most societies was seen as the divine incarnation. Certainly in Rome and in Egypt which were the two competing empires of the day. But Christ the King is born in a manger! What does that mean? It's difficult for people in a democratic society to even begin to comprehend the meaning of that, because we no longer live in a culture that defines social relationships in terms of nobility and commoners. So we redefine Scripture in terms of the political and social relationships of the day, and God's "Kingdom" has become a progressivist social enterprise based on democratic populism. I'm just raising unanswerable questions for the most part. But the Church in its wisdom has understood that some aspects of Scripture are so obscure in its meaning that it almost inevitably leads to heresy, therefore, to use one example, the more apocalyptic passages are not part of the lexicon. By the way, do you know what Gehenna specifically refers to? It is a concrete symbolism. It refers to something that every person in Jerusalem could readily identify with, but we cannot.

[Owen Jones]

Dear John,

I meant lectionary, not lexicon. Sorry.

oaj

[Owen Jones]

Dear John,

I can't vouch for the source, but this is at least an interesting discussion of some of the root words and contexts surrounding our discussion of hell. If nothing else, it shows that it's a pretty complicated subject.

http://www.concordant.org/expohtml/DeathAndJudgment/TheGehennaOfFire.html

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Just as a note, there are numerous quotations from the Triodion, regarding hell, judgement, torment, pain, eternity, etc, in an article I wrote a few years ago for the Sunday of the Last Judgement (http://www.monachos.net/great_lent/last_judgment.shtml). The article itself does not have much to say to the present discussion; but the quotations should.

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

Just some personal thoughts on the meaning of fear of hell and eternal punishment. I think the point Christ makes is always simple (and always part of a larger whole). God's justice is triumphant, powerful, unrelenting. So we need not concern ourselves with the evil in others. We will all receive our just rewards. We must concern ourselves with our own injustice, within ourselves and that which we inflict on others. For that there will be an accounting. We should fear God's justice as a sailor fears an oncoming storm brewing on the horizon. But the goal is to pass through the fear, chastened and humbled.

[John Curtis Dunn]

Owen Jones Posted on Friday, 28
"By the way, do you know what Gehenna specifically refers to? It is a concrete symbolism. It refers to something that every person in Jerusalem could readily identify with, but we cannot."

Yes, and growning up on my Grandfather's farm in the fifties and early sixties did give to me a graphic concrete illustration to identify with the Jewish one.

I concede your point about "terminologies take on different meanings." but please expound how the term "eternal" has different meanings? I can accept there may be different inflections since the concept of eternal is personified in Christianity versus that of Taosim, but the basic idea remains, does it not?

I certainly do not accept that God's kingdom is a "progressivist social enterprise based upon democratic populism"

Archmandrite Constantine of Holy Trinity Monastary wrote warning that the loss of the memory of Monarchialism within the Church would be the opening of the door to the appearance of Anti-Christ. I personlly do not possess tha memory, but I revere it within the memory of those who do or did.

I really didn't disagree with you much, I just disagreed little.

john

[Owen Jones]

I think eternal in the Biblical passages referring to Hell is akin to John Kennedy's eternal flame. Regarding the progressivist, democrat influence on the Church, it's just a fact, not something I believe in. It's a social fact that the Church today reflects liberal, progressivist, populist biases. Anything else is seen as xenophobic, anti-semitic, reactionary, bad -- from those who are most effective in managing public opinion. In most Orthodox parishes in America, it's public opinion that counts. That's what governs. And public opinion is based on secular premises. What we have is a secular Church, with something called "religion" relegated to the sphere of a personal hobby that you "study," and that makes you feel good about yourself, maybe like model airplane building or bowling.

[John Curtis Dunn]

Posted by Owen Jones on Sunday,
"I think eternal in the Biblical passages referring to Hell is akin to
John Kennedy's eternal flame."

So the word unquenchable really has nothing to say about the state of hell?

This is how our Lord described the eternal fire in Mark 9:43-48, five times to be precise. This was also rehearsed in the Canons of the Last Judgment.

The eternal flame memoralizes Pres. John Kennedy, that is to say, it immortalizes him. Is this really what you mean to suggest? Those who are in hell have had their names blotted out of the book of life and told: "Depart from Me, I never knew you."

You wrote: "But the Church in its wisdom has understood that some aspects of Scripture are so obscure in its meaning that it almost inevitably leads to heresy, therefore, to use one example, the more apocalyptic passages are not part of the lexicon."

I don't think we are in dispute about the general statment, but it seems you want to place the meaning of "eternal" into the category of the obscure and that is what I have asked you to explain.

My argument was that whatever "eternal" means, it also conveys the same meaning when we say "eternal life." It seems to me that the word "eternal" conveys a clear message; indeed, in Hebrews the Apostle lists the doctrine of the "eternal judgment" as one of the beginning principles in the knowledge of Christ. (6:2) This seems to suggest it is a fairly simple concept to convey, correct?

john

[Owen Jones]

I could be totally wrong concerning the meaning of hell. But as to whether or not it is a fairly simple concept to convey, then why are Christians always fighting over it and other concepts? I don't think any spiritual concept is fairly simple to convey, no matter how simple the concept itself might seem.

[John Curtis Dunn]

Posted by Owen Jones on Monday
"I could be totally wrong concerning the meaning of hell. But as to whether or not it is a fairly simple concept to convey, then why are Christians always fighting over it and other concepts? I don't think any spiritual concept is fairly simple to convey, no matter how simplen the concept itself might seem."
-----
I really don't know of whom you are describing. Where are there any Orthodox Christians fighting over the meaning of "Eternal?"

Are we fighting? If so, I was unaware of it.

john

[Hermit]

Could whatever Aramaic word translated as "aionios" have meant something other than mathematically infinite time? Could it have referred to a system of time such as that of our material universe, that when this universe ends aionios ends?

Could Jesus have meant a concept that simply didn't translate perfectly into the primitive Aramaic vocabulary?

It seems to me one couldn't accurately call God loving, merciful or even just if He were to punish infinitely (in the mathematical sense) for a finite period of sin by such little creatures as we are.

We also know Jesus made statements that were hyperbolic by modern standards, or not as exact as we might like. For example, Matthew 21:21Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. 22If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

Of course we have all asked in prayer for things we didn't receive.


English Strong's Greek (Root form) Tense

And [2532] kai
these [3778] houtos
shall go away [565] aperchomai
into [1519] eis
everlasting [166] aionios
punishment: [2851] kolasis
but [1161] de
the righteous [1342] dikaios
into [1519] eis
life [2222] zoe
eternal. [166] aionios

[An observer]

About eternal: you have to think *beyond* time, rather than *endless* time.

[Owen Jones]

This last message states what I would like to have said, simply.

oaj

[John Wilson]

Could Jesus have meant a concept that simply didn't translate perfectly into the primitive Aramaic vocabulary?

Primitive Aramaic vocabulary? I don't believe such an animal exists. Of course, if you are a linguist with years of research under your belt then I will have to take your word for it.


It seems to me one couldn't accurately call God loving, merciful or even just if He were to punish infinitely

Well you certainly couldn't call God just, I mean look at the parable of the workers and their wages, even the ones who started working at the eleventh hour getting paid the same as those who had worked all day. You call that just?


Of course we have all asked in prayer for things we didn't receive.

Like praying that I'd pass my exams despite my not having studied.

Like praying that I'd win the lottery, though the sudden wealth would probably draw me away from God and I would lose my salvation, getting caught up in the world.

Like praying for healing from an illness, though God allowed the illness in the first place to enable me to grow in patience so that I might be able to help others.

In the prayer Jesus gave us for when praying to God our Father, I think the key words to remember in the Lord's prayer are "Thy will be done".

John.

[Rev. Hieromonk Averky]

such questions coming from Christians always strike me as a bit oddd:If Christ Himself tells us that if we deny Him, He will deny us to His Father, and if we understand that God's grace never stops, but it is we who turn our backs on that grace, how can we think of God being "unjust?" People love to limit and judge God, using anthropomorhic deism, that is, giving to god the attributes of man. ( and its inherent limitations) It brings to mind why Our Savior said often in the Gospel, "let he who has ears to hear, let him hear." We read the Holy Scriptures, but because of our sinfulness, alas our understanding remains wholly of this world, not that of the heavenly. This last Summer, when I was reading the usual Sunday Gospel, as I read it to the faithful, I happened to notice a short phrase at the beginning which I had passed over year after year, never recognizing its importance; God in His mercy had, at this particulsar moment to understand something that I had not understood before; it had been given me to "hear" those words for the very first time! When someone dies senslessly, when something seeemlingly good goes awry, we begin to blame God, forgetting that to toil, to get sick and to die are all the results of sin, but people, when judging how "unjust" and "merciless" God might be, somehow forget to factor in their own pride and sinfulness; we are all shamefully proud and arrogant! Great Lent is soon upon us, so let us judge ourselves, not God. It is almost laughable that we would want to sqirm out of God's judgement by relying upon poor translations! As to say that we have all prayed for something that we did not receive, surely we understand that all prayers are heard, and answered by God; "no" is an answer, "not now" is an answer, "be patient, because I have something better in mind for you" is an answer, but again in our folly, we think that our prayer has not been answered because we did not get what we "wanted," as if our every desire is God's command - now really! Have we all lost interest in aqcuiring at least a few of the virtues?

[demetrios karaolanis]

I think he makes a very good point. however it was translated it does not matter hell is an awful eternal place and we should accept that that is how it is and just live with it and try to lead better lives to avoid such a misserable damnation rather than dwelling upon wether it is eternal or not.

[John Curtis Dunn]

In a message dated 3/4/2003 5:33:42 PM one observer posted:


About eternal: you have to think *beyond* time, rather than *endless*
time.



Followed by this post by Owen Jones:

This last message states what I would like to have said, simply.

------------

Please forgive me, I must point out that the words of the observer are pious nonsense. Owen may have understood its meaning, but how is beyond me.
For whom of us is capable of thinking "beyond time?"

As Orthodox Christians we confess the following as part of our prayers:

"And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of Whose Kingdom there is no end."

The above is commonly known as the 7th article of the Creed; does it have anything to say about how we Orthodox Christians are to think about eternity?

Both Heaven and Hell are the boundaries of God's incomprehensible mercy and His benevolent justice and righteousness. These markers were not introduced into our human vocabulary by the mere philosophical speculation of man. Orthodoxy clearly affirms that man is fully capable of rejecting the mercy of God and the means of his own Salvation which God freely opened. This latter informs us that our LORD "will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4). Yet, we also know the way of salvation is narrow and there are few who find it.

We dare not introduce an understanding into our Lord's words which places conditions and limits upon either his mercy or his justice. Our Lord was careful to convey to us the meaning of the eternality of gehenna when 5X He said, "the fire is unquenchable." It may be true that our human language cannot capture the full reality of what the eternal fire is and means, but it cannot mean less than what has been revealed to us by our Lord, who said of that place "the worm never dies."

To introduce our own feebleness by saying, "It seems to me one couldn't accurately call God loving, merciful or even just if He were to punish infinitely (in the mathematical sense) for a finite period of sin by such little creatures as we are." says more about ourselves than it reveals anything of substance about God being "accurately" called: loving, merciful or even just.

We should rather say, 'If the eternal torment of gehenna fires seem unmerciful, unjust and unloving, that only touches the reality to what those who will endure its eternal flame will experience. If we, who yet have the way of salvation open to us doubt the justice and mercy of that eternal flame; what will those who are cast into that eternal flame (by their own selves, St John Chrysostom notes) cry out in their torments.

The problem modern man has with the concept of endless fire and torment originates not from within some true insightful revelation of God's love and mercy, but from his own false imagination that he is incapable of destroying himself. Modern man believes he is incorruptible and that every soul enters into heaven when it dies. We heard these kinds of thoughts expressed after the recent night club tragedies in the US.

St. Theophan the Reculse addressed the question of the eternal nature of gehenna and its unquenchable flame thus:

"The righteous will go into eternal life, but the satanized sinners into eternal torments, in communion with demons. Will these torments end?

If satanism and becoming like satan should end, then the torments can end. But is there an end to satanism and becoming like satan?

We will behold and see this then. But until then we shall believe that just as eternal life will have no end, so also the eternal torment that threatens sinners will have no end.

No conjectures can show the possibility of the end of satanism. What did satan not see after his fall! How much of the powers of God was revealed! But still he is incorrigible, he constantly opposes; and the farther he goes, the more stubborn he becomes.

No, there is no hope at all for him to be corrected! And if there is no hope for him, then there is no hope either for men who become satanized by his influence. This means that there must be hell with eternal torments."

Man cannot think beyond time, if he does attempt to do so, it is only his own imagination which he employs and that is wholly unacceptable in our knowledge of God. We are prohibited from making images of God according to our imagination, even if our imagination depicts God as wholly loving and merciful and incapable of giving to man a reward of "eternal torments, eternal flames and the eternal worm."

St. John Chrysostom said, "Many foolish people desire only to be delivered from gehenna; but I consider much more tormenting than gehenna the punishment of not being in that glory. And I think that he who is deprived of it should weep not so much over the torments of gehenna as over being deprived of the good things of heaven, for this alone is the cruelest of all punishments." (Homily 1, To Theodore).

Also, we must no venture our imaginations beyond the boundaries set for our Orthodox understanding of the eternal torments and fires of gehenna. What boundaries have been established? The Firth Ecumenical Council condemned as a heresy the idea that demons and impious people shall only suffer only for a limited definite time, even if that time is a very long time. The Church has clearly adopted the language of the Apocalypse (Revelation) of St. John by calling the eternal state of gehenna a "second death." (Rev. 20:14)

I concede we humans can have only a finite comprehension of the eternal fire and torments of gehenna. But this finitude does not exaggerate the reality of the dread "eternal judgment of Christ" who says, "Depart from me, I never knew you." Rather, it is wholly more terrifying and horrible than we can imagine. So terrible it is, that though this gehenna was prepared originally for the devil and his demons, our Lord said of one person, "It would have been better if he had not been born."

These last are in my estimation, some of the most frightening words ever spoken by our Lord. What horrendous judgment awaits us, if we betray our Lord with a kiss as did that Judas? If we, who yet have the way of salvation open to us, doubt the eternal-endless torments, why should anyone fear. For if we suggest there is a way of escape from that second death, might we not lead some ignorant souls to hope where there is no justification for hope? Shall we not add to our own punishment when we lead others into our imagination which mutes the meaning of a dread final judgment?

Our Lord appeared the first time with a message of peace and good will to men. He Himself bridged the path out of hell (Sheol/Hades) with His own precious Body and Blood, supported by the beams of the wood of His Cross. There is no word or promise that that Cross will span the endless gulf which will separates the eternal fires from the eternal blessedness. Yet, those who doubt the eternality of those fires are suggesting just such a thing. On what basis do they offer such hope? Upon their own imagination which cannot reconcile God's justice with his mercy. Using the frail logic of imagination they point out what seems to them a 'disproportion between' temporal crimes and the punishment of eternal fire for man's puny sins.

Heaven and Gehenna mark the borders or boundaries of God's mercy and justice. They have been firmly planted by our Lord, His Apostles and Prophets. Dare we move them because they chaff our sensibilities or because we fail to comprehend their meaning?

I reiterate, the eternal condition of hell is comparable to eternal life. If the former can cease, than so can the latter. Who among us is ready to suggest the latter? For such would make God wholly capricious and untrustworthy.

john

[Hermit]

There's only one place in Scripture were Jesus speaks directly of the hellish torments as being "ainios," usually translated as eternal (we don't know which Aramaic word he actually used, or what thought he had when speaking that Aramaic word translated into Greek, then translated into English).

Why do we take that passage with extreme literalness, but we don't understand Matthew 21:21Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. 22If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."
in a purely literal way? I've actually tried the mountain thing and it didn't work. Others have prayed for food or rescue from peril, yet died even though 22 says literally, You WILL receive WHATEVER you ask for.

How about Matthew 10:34
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. " Wouldn't that contradict the saying that peacemakers are blessed, if we understood with extreme literalness?

There are many contradictions in the Bible if we read it that closely and literally .... I suppose that's why Jesus wanted us to "judge rightly", and to not understand things like the "bread of the Pharisees" to literally mean bread.

[Justin]

Hermit


(we don't know which Aramaic word he actually used, or what thought he had when speaking that Aramaic word translated into Greek, then translated into English).

Thank goodness some of us follow the mind of the Fathers, which shows us the correct interpretation of the Scriptures, and we don't have to rely on the latest, very fallible and usually absurd, pseudo-scientific scholarship, and our own fanciful ideas. (this isn't directed at you Hermit... just a comparison of two approaches)


Why do we take that passage with extreme literalness, but we don't understand Matthew 21:21

I take it literally. I'm sure the saints who actually fulfilled the saying and moved literal mountains understood it literally as well. Was it a bit hyperbolic (regarding the amount of faith needed)? Yeah, definately. But, any one of us--potentially--could still move literal mountains.


"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. " Wouldn't that contradict the saying that peacemakers are blessed, if we understood with extreme literalness?

But we don't http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif And yes, wooden literalism is never a good idea--we should always read the text as it was meant to be understood.

Justin

[Owen Jones]

Come now, John. Not every symbolic interpretation of Scripture makes one a modernist. There is no motive on my part to get people, or myself, off the hook for sin here, as seems to be implied. By the way, the Fathers defined God as Beyond. If anything, I think it is thoroughly modernist to restrict Christ to history, or to heaven spatially or having chronology in time. The search for the historical Jesus is a thoroughly modern project. It's not simply a problem of literalism vs. symbolic understanding or allegorizing or typologies or other "methods" of Biblical exegesis. Rather, the spiritual world inhabited by the fathers is multi-layered. There is an underworld, there is the vault of heaven, and there is an in-between world. For the modernist, everything is flattened out and there is no in-between reality. WE are either alive or dead. Saved or not saved. Mortal or immortal. Nothing in between. We simply cannot speak of things in terms of finality because we have no access to that. We exist in between. To admit that does not deny finality, of judgment or whatever. It's just too "far" beyond us to comprehend. So it's reasonable to assume that Christ is speaking to us in language that we have some access to cognitively and experientially, as creatures in an in-between state of existence.

[John Wilson]

Others have prayed for food or rescue from peril, yet died even though 22 says literally, You WILL receive WHATEVER you ask for.

Wow, they end up seated in glory at the great wedding banquet and you say their prayers were not answered?!?

[John Wilson]

Hermit, after spending a bit of time away from the forums I came to realise that the tone of my posts in response to yours has been wholly inappropriate for someone who claims to be a christian. I have responded not with the love that seeks to understand your views, but rather with sarcasm which can do no good. Rather than build you up I have sought in my pride to tear you down.

I humbly apologise and seek your forgiveness.

I also apologise to the other members of this forum for sullying the spirit of this discussion.

The least of all,
John.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Earlier in this thread, it was suggested that the following words: <blockquote>About eternal: you have to think &#42;beyond&#42; time, rather than &#42;endless&#42; time.</blockquote>were <blockquote>pious nonsense.</blockquote>I might caution that these words are perhaps more insightful than they have been taken to be.

The question is not, essentially, &#39;Is hell eternal?&#39; for, as ample quotations offered here have shown, the Fathers and Christ Himself have spoken to the effect that it is &#40;though, simply as an interesting aside, some Fathers have suggested otherwise; but in any case they are vastly in the minority&#41;. The question is, rather, &#39;What does &#39;eternal&#39; mean, in this context or in any other?

It is simply a limited and human view to suggest that &#39;eternal&#39; means a mathematically infinite progression of time without end -- a timeline that, wherever it begins or began, extends on to infinity in a forward direction. This is how we are inclined to regard the notion of eternity, but we do so because, within the context of our present experience, this is the general manner in which time itself works and progresses; thus we extrapolate &#39;eternity&#39; as our present experience of time without the limitation of a terminus or end-point. Eternity is thus the notion of time as presently experienced, but without the finality of the conclusion to time-bound existence as we experience it in our own lives.

While it is impossible to describe fully or completely the genuine character of true eternity &#40;for eternity is an aspect of God which, like God Himself, transcends our understanding in this regard&#41;, we do however possess ample &#39;glimpses&#39; of eternity in the Scriptures, the life of the Lord Christ, the Fathers, and the worshipping life of the Church, to understand that genuine eternity is not simply the kind of mathematical infinity of time as described above.

Take, first of all, the revelation given to St John the Theologian. In this the Saint is taken up into the eternity of the Kingdom of God: he is brought into the experience of eternity while still living in the temporality of the present world. To be &#39;in the eternal&#39; is manifested as a state of being &#40;i.e. in the New Jerusalem&#41; that lies outside the very conception of temporality by which we experience the world. We can certainly say it is not finite &#40;in other words, we agree with the Fathers that eternity, whether in heaven or hell, will not &#39;end&#39;&#41;; but we cannot say it is &#39;infinite&#39; in the usual mathematical sense. It is &#39;time&#39; in a sense that simply stands apart from our present experience of time.

As a second example, we have the worshipping life of the Church. The notion of &#39;sacred time&#39; as experienced in the liturgical life is perhaps our best witness to the character of eternity. We stand in the Church and, through the services, enter into the fullness of God&#39;s eternal economy: we are able to say &#39;Today Adam is created from the dust&#39; even as we are able to say &#39;Today is the day of Judgement&#39;. The notions of &#39;past&#39; and &#39;future&#39; slip away in the liturgical entrance into the Kingdom: all things are present in a way that confuses our normal senses of &#39;before&#39;, &#39;after&#39;, &#39;beginning&#39; and &#39;end&#39;. We cannot say that the crucifixion of Christ happened &#39;before&#39;: we stand and say that it happens now. We cannot say that the Passion is &#39;over&#39;, that it has &#39;ended&#39;: we confess in the services that it is happening today, that it will happen tomorrow.

The period of the Great Lent, into which the Church is now entering, is a prime example of this perpective on time. We are waiting for the Resurrection. We know that it has already come, but we also know that it is still coming. Christ has risen, but for the Orthodox this is emphatically not an &#39;historical&#39; statement: it is a statement of present reality. At midnight on Pascha we celebrate the fact that we are present at the Resurrection. It happens now.

None of this &#39;answers&#39; the question of eternity; but it does give us clues as to the nature of time in the experience of God. &#39;Chronology&#39;, the temporal sequence of events that we experience in our present reality and by which we define &#39;past&#39;, &#39;present&#39; and &#39;future&#39;, are not wholly lost in this image of time; but neither are they the same as we now know them to be.

INXC, Matthew

[Hermit]

John Wilson said, &#34; I have responded not with the love that seeks to understand your views, but rather with sarcasm which can do no good. Rather than build you up I have sought in my pride to tear you down. I humbly apologise and seek your forgiveness.&#34;

I don&#39;t think there&#39;s any need to apologize, I rather enjoy a punchy reply every now and then as long as there&#39;s no personal attack against me. And you haven&#39;t personally attacked me, but even if someone did so, I&#39;d try to accept it as part of my nearly hopeless attempt to learn some humility.

I&#39;m grateful for the wisdom of everyone here, don&#39;t want to single anyone out, you&#39;ve all been helpful in one way or another.

[Fr Averky]

M.C. Streenburg, your comments are well taken. How could we even begin to comprehend that all of time fits into eternity? I personally do not want to have the opportunity to find out if hell is eternal or not, and I certainly would not pose the question if heaven also might not last forever. I do not think that I will be posting much longer, but I will follow this community with interest. I have never belonged to such a community before, but in a few days I have been quite amazed at what I have read. All of you have a spiritually beneficial Great Lent

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

It has come to my attention that my last post to this Is Hell Eternal? thread was truncated for some users who receive posts by email delivery.

The complete post can be found at:

http://www.monachos.net/cgi-bin/mb/show.cgi?tpc=4225&post=3121#POST3121

INXC, Matthew