Page 12 of 92

Orthodox Christians on Penal Substitutionary Atonement

July 22, 2018 / Robert Arakaki / 34 Comments

Comments from Two Readers on my article “Evidence for Christ’s Descent into Hell”

David Roxas on 10-June-2018 wrote:

“This is not to say that Protestants and Evangelicals should relinquish the penal model of salvation altogether, but that they should incorporate the ancient patristic model of Christus Victor into their theology.”

Scratching my head over this one. What exactly do you mean the penal mode of salvation should not be relinquished? Should the Orthodox then accept it? Forensic justification by faith alone and penal substitution go hand in hand so how do you propose to separate them if at all? How does penal substitution fit with salvation by participation in the uncreated energies of God (theosis)?

“I believe that there is some merit to the penal theory of atonement and that we need a balanced corrective to the dominant Protestant understanding.”

As Ricky said to Lucy “You got some ‘splainin’ to do!” Please tell us more about what you think the merits of penal theory of the atonement.

Anastasia Gutnik on 14-June-2018 wrote:

I had no idea you were a closet protestant! haha! After 6 years of blogging and you cannot get past penal substitution. that is hilarious Robert!

My Response

I appreciate David and Anastasia’s questions about a statement I made in the article “Evidence for Christ’s Descent into Hell. (6 April 2018)” I am also somewhat amused by their incredulity at my attempt to maintain a charitable openness towards Protestant soteriology. Becoming Orthodox did not entail my rejecting Protestant theology wholesale, but only that which is incompatible with the historic Christian Faith.

How Christ saves us is a tremendous mystery that cannot be reduced to a simple doctrinal formula as many Protestants seem to assume. While both Protestants and Orthodox Christians see great importance in Christ’s death, they approach it very differently. Whereas the Protestant understanding has been shaped by their reaction against medieval Roman Catholicism, the Orthodox understanding has been shaped by the early Church Fathers and the ancient liturgies. Unlike Protestantism, which has well-defined and clearly-articulated statements on how Christ saved us, the early Church had no clear-cut soteriology (McGrath Vol. 1 p. 23; Kelly p. 375). This means that it is difficult to draw a clear-cut black-and-white distinction between Protestant and Orthodox soteriologies. Whereas the Orthodox Church has rejected Protestant doctrines like justification by faith alone and double predestination, there has yet to be a formal condemnation of the theory of penal substitutionary atonement. While there are Orthodox Christians who are very critical of this theory, there are others who are receptive to it. I hope one day to write a more in-depth article on the differences and similarities between the two theological traditions. However, in light of the importance of David and Anastasia’s questions for Reformed-Orthodox dialogue, I believe that I should attempt a brief sketch in this article.

To answer their questions: Yes, Orthodoxy does believe in Christ’s substitutionary death on the Cross, but not in the same way as Protestants do. Below is a sketch of the paradigmatic differences between Protestantism and Orthodoxy over how Christ saves us through his death on the Cross. Then, further down in the article, I cite several contemporary Orthodox apologists—Kabane the Christian, Frederica Mathewes-Green, and Father Josiah Trenham—on their understanding of Christ’s saving death.

Problem – In Protestant theology, the big problem is the guilt that results from our violating the law and God’s wrath against guilty sinners. In Orthodoxy, the big problem is our alienation from God who is Life, and our captivity to the Devil and Death.

Solution – In Protestant theology, the solution is Jesus being punished on our behalf in order to pay the penalty we richly deserve. In Orthodoxy, the solution is Jesus’ dying on the Cross, his descent into Hades, the realm of Death, and his third-day Resurrection, in which the gates of Hell are shattered, captive humans set free from Death, and joined to Christ the Life of the World.

Emphasis – This explains why the key doctrine of Protestantism is justification by faith alone—the word “justification” puts the focus on the legal imputation of guilt, the requisite punishment for that guilt, and the imputation of Christ’s legal righteousness to those who have faith in Christ. In Orthodoxy, this explains why the emphasis is on our union with Christ who is Life, and on faith in Christ as faithfulness to Christ.

I would encourage readers to listen to the two podcasts linked below and to consider purchasing Father Josiah’s excellent book. I have provided a few transcribed remarks with time marks for their convenience.

Kabane the Christian’s “Do Orthodox Christians Believe in Penal Atonement?”

He states forthrightly: “Yes, Orthodox do believe in penal substitution.” [0:21] He also notes that the Church Fathers taught that Christ took the penalty we deserved. [0:53] He then goes on to explain that the penalty we deserve is death, the tearing of the soul from the body.

Kabane notes that in the West, death, which Orthodoxy views as the primary problem, gets shoved to the side and eternal hell is seen as the real punishment even though hell is not mentioned in Genesis 3. [5:20] For the Orthodox, hell is the eternal realization of death. [5:57]

Frederica Mathewes-Green’s “Orthodoxy and the Atonement”

She notes about Orthodoxy: “We just believe that God just forgives us. He doesn’t expect anyone to pay. It isn’t that he gets a third party to pay. He just lets it go.” [5:08] She notes that in the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Matthew 18:23-35) the Master forgives; he does not get a third party to pay off the debt owed him. In the Parable of the Prodigal Son the father forgives the son and welcomes him home [5:45]. The father does not demand that the son repay the money squandered (Luke 15:11-32).

Frederica notes that our problem is not so much forgiveness as death. “We have to be rescued. We’ve made ourselves captives of the Evil One. We’ve gotten ourselves enclosed in the prison of death through our sins.” [6:18]

Father Josiah Trenham’s Rock and Sand

Fr. Josiah notes:

The great problem with Protestant teaching on salvation is its thorough-going reductionism. In the Holy Scripture and in the writings of the Holy Fathers salvation is a grand accomplishment with innumerable facets, a great and expansive deliverance of humanity from all its enemies: sin, condemnation, the wrath of God, the devil and his demons, the world, and ultimately death. In Protestant teaching and practice, salvation is essentially a deliverance from the wrath of God. (p. 288; emphasis added)

The traditional Christian teaching expressed in the New Testament and the writings of the Fathers on the subject of the atonement of our Savior is the Cross saved us in three essential ways: on the Cross Jesus conquered death; on the Cross Jesus triumphed over the principalities and power of this evil age; on the Cross Jesus made atonement for human sins by His blood. Because the Protestants were working out of a soteriological framework of a courtroom and declarative justification, they read the teaching about the Cross through these lenses and as a result articulated a reductionistic theology of the atonement, which ignored the traditional emphasis on the conquering of death and the triumph of the demons. Everything for Protestantism becomes satisfaction of God’s justice, and by making one image the whole, even that image became distorted in Protestant articulation. (p. 294)

. . . the greatest reductionism is found in the immense neglect of emphasis upon the heart of the New Testament teaching on salvation as union with Jesus Christ . . . . The theology of the Church bears witness to the fact that the mystery of salvation is accomplished not just on the Cross, but from the very moment of Incarnation when the Only-Begotten and Co-Eternal Son united Himself forever with humanity in the womb of the Virgin Mary, his Most Pure Mother. Salvation as union and communion between God and Man drips from every page of the new Testament and in the writings of Holy fathers. (p. 296; emphasis added)

To be fair, two nineteenth-century Reformed theologians, John Williamson Nevin and Philip Schaff of the Mercersburg Theology school, sought to highlight the more holistic understanding of salvation within the Reformed tradition. (See my assessment of this small but important movement.) More recently, Anglican bishop N.T. Wright’s writings and some of his Reformed followers in the Federal Vision movement have moved away from this narrow, exclusively legal-forensic view. Sadly, in their attempt to incorporate aspects of patristic theology, they have been charged as heretics by their Reformed brethren for seeking to recover ancient Christianity! (See the Recommended Reading at the bottom which lists several articles about the alternative soteriologies that recently surfaced within the Reformed tradition.)

Conclusion

Oftentimes, when one experiences a feeling of disbelief and incredulity, they will say: “Pardon me. I don’t think I heard you right?” My response to David Roxas and Anastasia Gutnik is: “No. You did not hear me right. You are trying to understand my statements using the black-and-white theological categories that emerged from Protestantism’s conflict with Roman Catholicism in the 1500s.”

David Roxa’s assertion that justification by faith alone and penal substitution go hand-in-hand is an assumption that needs to be scrutinized in light of Scripture and the early Church Fathers’ reading of Scripture. While there is a penal aspect to Christ’s death, how we understand “penal” needs to be scrutinized for hidden assumptions. What also needs to be scrutinized is the centrality of justification (legal righteousness) to our salvation in Christ. Is justification central to salvation or an aspect of salvation? It seems that for Protestants, forensic justification is equivalent to salvation. But is that the case in light of the rich, diverse Scriptural teachings about how Christ saves us? My impression is that in defending sola fide (justification by faith alone) Protestant theology inadvertently ended up suppressing certain passages from their reading of Scripture. This gave rise to a theological paradigm that many Protestants today accept uncritically. It also gave rise to their ignorance of its novelty and sola fide’s being conditioned by medieval Roman Catholicism. If, on the other hand, it is union with Christ that is central to our salvation, of which justification is one aspect, then the penal substitutionary theory does not necessarily preclude theosis. This would address David Roxas’ concern that penal substitutionary atonement is incompatible with theosis – salvation as participation with the uncreated energies of God. This would help correct some of the overemphasis in Protestant theology and help Protestant inquirers integrate the Church Fathers into their understanding of how we are saved by Christ. Furthermore, it would validate my suggestion that a Protestant who wishes to become Orthodox would not necessarily need to relinquish the penal model of salvation provided that he or she seek to understand it within the context of the patristic consensus. Therefore, one need not be a “closet Protestant” as Anastasia Gutnik sarcastically alleged in her comment but in fact a solidly Orthodox Christian.

In closing, I urge David Roxas, Anastasia Gutnik, and other Protestants to be more open to the early Church Fathers who had a richer and more holistic understanding of Christ’s death on the Cross. I also urge them to learn from the ancient Eucharistic prayers that contain valuable insights into how the early Christians understood Christ’s saving death. While the Church Fathers affirmed that Christ died on behalf of sinners and that He paid the penalty we deserved, the judicial emphasis is quite subdued, and other motifs such as redemption and union with Christ are given greater emphasis.

Below are some excerpts from the early Church. In them one will encounter a theological paradigm that is strikingly different from that of Protestantism, which should cause thoughtful Protestants to rethink their theology.

Irenaeus of Lyons, one of the earliest Church Fathers, who died circa 200, wrote:

Since the Lord thus has redeemed us through His own blood, giving His soul for our souls, and His flesh for our flesh, and has also poured out the Spirit of the Father for the union and communion of God and man, imparting indeed God to men by means of the Spirit, and, on the other hand, attaching man to God by His own incarnation, and bestowing upon us at His coming immortality durably and truly, by means of communion with God,—all the doctrines of the heretics fall to ruin. (Irenaeus of Lyons Against Heresies Book 5.1.1, ANF p. 526)

Athanasius the Great, a stalwart defender of Christ’s divinity during the Arian controversy of the fourth century, wrote:

. . . Even so was it with Christ. He, the Life of all, our Lord and Savior, did not arrange the manner of his own death lest He should seem to be afraid of some other kind. No. He accepted and bore upon the cross a death inflicted by others, and those others His special enemies, a death which to them was supremely terrible and by no means to be faced; and He did this in order that, by destroying even this death, He might Himself be believed to be the Life, and the power of death be recognized as finally annulled. (Athanasius the Great On the Incarnation §24)

In the fourth century liturgy of Basil the Great we find this statement in the Eucharistic prayer:

He gave Himself as ransom to death in which we were held captive, sold under sin. Descending into Hades through the cross, that He might fill all things with Himself, He loosed the bonds of death. He rose on the third day, having opened a path for all flesh to the resurrection from the dead, since it was not possible that the Author of life would be dominated by corruption. (Eucharistic prayer – Liturgy of Basil the Great, 4th century)

While not Protestant, the early Church Fathers were undeniably Christian in theology. There is much spiritual wisdom in the Church Fathers that both Protestants as well as Orthodox can benefit from.

Robert Arakaki

References and Recommended Readings

Robert Arakaki. “An Eastern Orthodox Critique of Mercersburg Theology.” OrthodoxBridge (2012)

Athanasius the Great. On the Incarnation.

Basil the Great. Divine Liturgy. Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America.

Jordan Cooper. “Thoughts on Mercersburg Theology.” Just & Sinner (2014)

Irenaeus of Lyons. Against Heresies 5.1.1. Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 1

J.N.D. Kelly. Early Christian Doctrines. 1978 edition.

Alister McGrath. Iustitia Dei: A history of the Christian doctrine of Justification. Vol. 1 The Beginnings to the Reformation.

Matt Powell. “Mercersburg and the Federal Vision.” Aquila Report (2016)

Alastair Roberts. “Approaches to Justification within the Federal Vision.” Alistair’s Adversaria (2006)

Father Josiah Trenham. Rock and Sand. (2015)

Obstacles and Encouragements for Inquirers

July 16, 2018 / Robert Arakaki / 1 Comment

Priest Igor Zyryanov

It is good to know that pastors and even entire congregations are becoming Orthodox in the US, other countries, and in Russia. The website Pravoslavie published an interview with a former Protestant pastor, Father Igor Zyryanov, who led his congregation into Orthodoxy. What I found striking about the article were the insights and anecdotes that can teach us how to do Orthodox outreach and how not to do Orthodox outreach. This is a very instructive and practical article. Read the whole article.

Taking it Slow

Because Protestantism is so different from Orthodoxy, it is advisable that inquiry into Orthodoxy be gradual. A take-it-slow approach can be quite fruitful. Oftentimes, converts will bring with them their family and even their congregation into Orthodoxy. One well-known instance of mass conversions is the reception of some two thousand American Evangelicals in 1987. Their journey to Orthodoxy took about five to ten years of careful study and visiting Orthodox churches. A rushed conversion can lead to missed opportunities. Father Zyryanov recounts:

Often priests who bring Protestants into Orthodoxy are in a hurry. They relate to Protestantism as to an enemy movement, and try to yank a person out of it abruptly. This is not always beneficial. For example, if a pastor starts thinking about Orthodoxy, the whole community may become Orthodox. But the priest to whom the leader has turned tries to convince him to receive Orthodoxy quickly. The pastor follows his advice, becomes Orthodox, and… looses [sic] his authority among his parishioners who have not had the chance to understand anything yet. The leader is kicked out of the congregations, and the parish receives a vaccination against Orthodoxy.

In our case, thank God, this did not happen. Fr. Viacheslav Pushkarev, the head of the missionary department of the Irkutsk diocese, was in no rush when he began to meet with us. He came to our meetings with lectures, allowed the whole community to understand Orthodoxy, to literally be permeated with it. Therefore we were all able to come into the Russian Orthodox Church, and we didn’t lose anyone.

As Father Igor noted, it is a mistake to think of Protestantism as an “enemy movement.” Behind what comes across as hostility is a sincere desire to defend right doctrine. Many Protestants have been brought up in a milieu of theological debates and bible memorization. Behind the outward aggressiveness is often an inner hunger – the unspoken sense that there is something more to the Christian life than bible study, intercessory prayer, simplistic praise songs, and evangelism. One thing many Evangelicals and Protestants are hungering for is the deep worship of the Liturgy and receiving Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist. Another is doctrine rooted in historic Christianity that traces back to the Apostles. Also, many are hungering for a radical spirituality like that exemplified by the Desert Fathers.

My journey to Orthodoxy was a gradual one that took about seven years. I needed the time because I had much to unlearn. When I did become Orthodox, I did so with assurance and confidence that I was entering into the Church founded by the Apostles. For a Protestant, it is a costly sacrifice to give up long-held doctrines. That is why Orthodox outreach requires considerable patience and sympathy.

Becoming Orthodox is more than a matter of learning new doctrines. One learns an approach to prayer and worship quite different from Protestantism, and a physical approach to holiness – fasting and prostrations – that informs the Orthodox way of life. Probably, one of the hardest things for a Protestant to learn is humility and obedience to Orthodox priests. These important lessons are not learned overnight but gradually, over months and even years. Thus, taking it slow is usually good advice for Protestant inquirers.

Debates Not Helpful

The best approach for Orthodox outreach is friendly dialogue, not competitive debates. One time I got into a debate with some members of a Calvary Chapel church in Hawaii. For about two hours we had a friendly give and take, going from one bible passage to another. While exciting and even fun, I came to the conclusion that it was a waste of time. It wasn’t fruitful because the timing wasn’t right. One needs to be ready to hear another point of view and ready to consider changing one’s views. Looking back on my past experience debating with Evangelicals, I can sympathize with Father Igor’s observation:

—And what about debates with Protestants, which were popular at one time?
—I think that this format is untenable. Let’s say we have a public debate and we win, while the Protestant leader loses. He is humiliated and insulted, and it’s highly unlikely that he’ll become Orthodox. If the Orthodox side didn’t have sufficient knowledge or good enough arguments and lost the debate, he has brought shame upon Orthodoxy. In both cases we have a fiasco.

Only the Holy Spirit can prepare people’s hearts and minds. Our role is to be there as humble servants helping those who want help. So now, when I meet a Protestant asking questions about Orthodoxy, I try to discern if he or she is genuinely open to Orthodoxy and if there is a spiritual hunger behind their questions. If they just want a debate, then I take a pass on that. But when I do meet an inquirer who might become Orthodox but has a hard time letting go of certain Protestant teachings, I will present a clear and pointed critique drawing on Scripture, church history, and the Church Fathers. This is for the purpose of helping a struggling inquirer, not for putting down a theological rival.

Slamming the Door in Someone’s Face

Orthodox outreach is everyone’s job, not just the priest. Every member of the local parish can affect Orthodox outreach for good or bad. Not too long ago, I met a man who came to the local Greek Orthodox parish for a class assignment. This being his first time at an Orthodox church, he was understandably nervous. He arrived during Matins and was wondering if he was even at the right place, because it looked like no one was there. Finally, the lady manning the candle stand opened the door and asked: “Do you want to come in?” This was a tiny gesture but a very significant one.

Father Igor relates a painful incident in which the opposite attitude was displayed.

One woman, a third generation Baptist, started thinking about Orthodoxy, came to a church and asked the grandma at the candle desk if she could speak with a priest. The grandma said, “Are you even baptized?” The woman answered that she wasn’t. The old lady told the woman off, saying that batiushka would not even talk to her in that case. The woman did not give up after one try, and wrote to our center. Finally she met with a priest in another church. And this is not an isolated incident, unfortunately.

The Anarchist with a Green Mohawk Source

Orthodox Christians need to be prepared to welcome all kinds of people, some who look like us as well those who look different. On several occasions, I have heard from inquirers about how they felt unwelcome when they visited an ethnic parish. Another challenge can be welcoming visitors who look outwardly very different, e.g., wearing black Goth-style clothing or bearing a heavily tattooed body or sporting a bright green Mohawk.

Orthodox priests need to remind parishioners that they too have a role to play in Orthodox outreach and that the Orthodox Church is not confined to one particular ethnicity but is a house of prayer for all nations (Mark 12:17). For example, outreach can take place during the coffee hour following the Liturgy. If a first-time visitor is not welcomed within the first few minutes, they will likely leave thinking that Orthodoxy is unfriendly and uncaring – a rejecting religion! So, if you see someone standing by themselves during the coffee hour, excuse yourself from your friends, and introduce yourself to the visitor. A short friendly conversation can be a life changing event for the visitor. The purpose of your introducing yourself should not be to debate, but simply to be friendly and welcoming. Perhaps setting the stage for another conversation later . . . maybe even later that same week over coffee!

Orthodox Christians should have in mind the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15). Protestant inquirers are often like the Prodigal Son yearning for home. The son in the parable was lucky the father saw him in the distance and came running to greet him. The elder brother had a harsh, judgmental attitude and the story would likely have a quite different ending if it had been the elder brother who greeted the returning Prodigal Son. Thus, the ordinary church member can sometimes be more important than the priest in Orthodox outreach. The parishioner is often the first Orthodox Christian a Protestant inquirer will meet. And many will make a judgment about Orthodoxy – for good or ill – based on the first encounter. Therefore, we should strive to treat all inquirers and visitors with courtesy and charity.

The Need for Nicodemus Ministry

Nicodemus and Jesus’ night time meeting

There is a need for Nicodemus ministries, where interested pastors and other inquirers can meet in private. Quiet, discreet inquiry is necessary for pastors to do the needed study and spend time in prayer in order to make up their minds about Orthodoxy. It is hard for a pastor to make a firm, reasoned decision to convert if he is embroiled in theological debates and suspicion that he is betraying his ordination vows. Fr. Igor noted:

In order for a person to find the true faith many conditions are needed, which are first and foremost created by the Lord Himself. A small part of this work, by God’s grace, is ours. Many Protestants come to me, mainly ministers. There are those to want to meet and talk secretly. We go to meet with them, answer their questions, and tell them about our own experience.

It is not easy for a Protestant pastor to be an inquirer into Orthodoxy. It takes humility to admit that one’s theology may be wrong. Some pastors at their ordination have made solemn vows that they would inform the leadership if they no longer hold to the teachings of their denomination. So, for some pastors even a curious inquiry into Orthodoxy is very risky. It also takes considerable courage to be open to wrenching changes in one’s job situation. Another factor likely weighing on the minds of inquiring pastors is how their wives, family members, and close friends will react. We need to be ready to respond, not just to theological questions about Orthodoxy, but also to practical questions about how to make the transition into Orthodoxy.

It would be good if an Orthodox priest is knowledgeable about the Bible and Protestant theology, but oftentimes an Orthodox priest may not have that background. My advice to Orthodox priests who feel unprepared to meet with a Protestant pastor interested in Orthodoxy are: (1) become acquainted with brother priests who have converted from Protestantism, (2) read helpful books like Fr. Josiah Trenham’s Rock and Sand or visit blogs like the OrthodoxBridge, (3) be humble admitting you don’t know the answer, and (4) don’t ignore the question – do your best to refer them to someone who can assist the inquirer. By being willing to treat a difficult question seriously you treat the Protestant inquirer with dignity and respect. Orthodox outreach is fundamentally team work. Another possibility are closed FaceBook groups where inquirers can ask questions and voice their concerns about Orthodoxy. Such groups do exist, however joining these group usually require a personal connection to ensure confidentiality. With our different gifts and backgrounds, we complement each other and build up the Church.

Orthodoxy’s Rich Spiritual Treasures

The word “evangelism” comes from the Greek word “εὐαγγέλιον” which means “good news.” When we come across a great restaurant or see a outstanding movie, the natural reaction is to tell others about it. In the case of Orthodoxy, when we encounter the richness of Orthodoxy we will be eager to tell others about it. The treasures of the Orthodox Church consist of its prayers, the wisdom of the Church Fathers, the example of the saints and martyrs, icons, and chants. We should not be reluctant to let non-Orthodox know about these treasures. A Protestant will often find the quote from a Church Father or an icon of Christ exotic and intriguing, sparking a desire to learn more. The fact that our Sunday worship goes back to the fourth and fifth centuries will attract Protestants. Even the beeswax candle we light upon entering the church will strike some Protestants as exotic and daring. Father Igor notes:

Clergy who are involved in missionary activities in a Protestant milieu should make contact with pastors who are open to having contact. It is helpful to tell them about the faith, to suggest some patristic reading. In this case the whole community will have the opportunity to understand the beauty of Orthodoxy, to know what the Church is. I think that after this the majority of the members of the congregation will receive Orthodoxy. There simply can be no other outcome for a Protestant who sincerely seeks God. Having learned the facts about the Orthodox Church, about the Sacraments, about apostolic succession, a person simply cannot remain a Protestant.

Father Igor’s advice reminds me of the ice cream shop where the server hands out tiny spoons with samples. At first, you may have some reservations, but usually trying out the unfamiliar flavor will win you over, and you end up buying a scoop. Needless to say, a smiling, encouraging server behind the counter makes a difference in your decision to step into the shop and try out the unfamiliar flavors.

A Window of Opportunity

We are living in a period that can be considered a window of opportunity for Orthodox outreach. Our attitudes will affect the way we relate to inquirers. Effective Orthodox outreach requires the conviction

• that Christ came to seek and save the lost,
• that in Orthodoxy we have a rich and priceless heritage,
• that the Orthodox Church has the fullness of the Faith,
• that many people are spiritually hungry but do not know where to look, and
• that we ought to be open to all kinds of seekers: some who look like us and others who look very different and scary, e.g., heavy metal rockers covered with tattoos or anarchists with a green mohawk. Let us remember the words of Christ: “I was a stranger and you welcomed me.” (Matthew 25:25; RSV)

Welcome to our church! Source

Let us open doors, not close them. We ought to welcome visitors to our church. Let us tell people: Come in and see!

Robert Arakaki

LINKS

“WELCOME HOME: The Story of the E.O.C.”

“I UNDERSTOOD: EITHER I GO WITH CHRIST OR I DIE: Interview with Igor Kapranov, former vocalist of metalcore band, ‘Amatory’.” Pravoslavie 16 January 2016

“THE ANARCHIST WITH THE GREEN MOHAWK: A story of one soul’s healing on the Holy Mountain.” Pravoslavie 9 January 2017

“FROM PASTOR TO PRIEST: Priest Igor Zyryanov on Protestantism and Orthodoxy.” Pravoslavie 30 April 2018

Interested Protestant Pastors may contact the following:

Nearest local Orthodox parish

Missions and Evangelism Department of Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese

Evidence for Christ’s Descent Into Hell

April 6, 2018 / Robert Arakaki / 23 Comments

Christ standing over the shattered doors of Hell and rescuing Adam and Eve

On Holy Saturday, the Orthodox Church celebrates Christ’s descent into Hell (Hades). For many Protestants and Evangelicals this is a strange idea. When I was a Protestant, I was often puzzled by the line in the Apostles Creed: “he [Christ] descended to hell.” I thought this line was bizarre and unnecessary. As a Protestant, I was never taught the theology behind the historic creeds of the Church. However, after attending the Orthodox Easter (Pascha) services I began to see how Christ’s descent into Hell is important for our salvation.

Recently, the Rev. Scot McKnight wrote an insightful article “Holy Saturday: What Happened on Saturday to Jesus?” In it he listed bible verses that taught Christ’s descent into Hell. The article helped me to understand familiar passages in a new light. I thought I knew the Bible pretty well, but I was surprised to find that I had overlooked bible passages that support Holy Saturday, a feast day that takes place just before Easter Sunday. Thank you, Pastor McKnight! In this article, I examine the biblical basis for Christ’s descent into Hell, the witness of the Church Fathers to this doctrine, and John Calvin’s rejection of this important doctrine.

Icon – Jonah and the Whale

What the Bible Teaches

Christ’s descent into Hell (Hades, Sheol) can be found in both the Old and New Testaments. It forms a part of the arc of biblical narrative of how God saves us through Jesus Christ. Hell can be understood as the holding place where the souls of the good and the bad went after death (Luke 16:19-31). It is to be distinguished from Gehenna, the place of eternal torment (Mark 9:42-48; Revelation 20:14).

Christ’s descent into Hades was anticipated by Jesus himself in Matthew’s Gospel.

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” (Matthew 12:40: OSB; emphasis added)

Here Jesus saw in the Prophet Jonah’s three nights in the whale a foreshadowing of what would happen to him in his impending death.

The Apostle Peter spoke of Jesus’ descent into Hell in his Pentecost sermon:

He [David], foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. (Acts 2:31; OSB; emphasis added)

Here Peter was making reference to Psalm 16 verse 10, one of the messianic psalms. One of the greatest concerns expressed throughout the Book of Psalms is the fate of the souls after death. In this passage we learn that death is not the final word and see hints of the Messiah’s victory over death.

The Apostle Paul in his letter to the Ephesians developed the theme of Christ’s elevation to the highest position in the cosmos for our salvation. In Ephesians 4, Paul discussed Christ’s descent into Hades in light of Christ’s later ascension to heaven.

Now this, ‘He ascended’—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? (Ephesians 4:9; OSB; emphasis added)

In his epistle, the Apostle Peter gave a more detailed explanation of Christ’s descent into Hell in light of the impending Judgment Day.

By whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah. (1 Peter 3:19-20; OSB; emphasis added)

For this reason the gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. (1 Peter 4:6; OSB; emphasis added)

Apparently, in preparation for the Final Judgment everyone, both living and dead, will have some knowledge of the Gospel.

Protestants pride themselves on their biblical exposition, but I had never heard a sermon on these verses or on the theme of Christ’s descent into Hell during my twenty-plus years as a Protestant. The reasons for this oversight is not all that surprising. These verses don’t fit in well with the Protestant dogma sola fide (justification by faith alone) which gives heavy emphasis to the penal atonement model of salvation. Yet what we see here is a strand of biblical teaching that began in the Old Testament, is reiterated by Christ, and expounded by the two preeminent Apostles: Peter and Paul.

Protestant and Evangelical readers might ask: So what are the practical implications of Christ’s descent into hell? Below are some of the practical implications:

Hell is not an unknown place, for Christ has gone there for us.
Hell is not a place of complete hopelessness, for Christ has evangelized Hell.
Hell is not Satan’s domain, for Christ has invaded Hell and taken death captive.
Hell is not the final destination, for the gates of Hell have been shattered and the captives liberated.
We need not fear death, for Christ our Captain has gone before us leading the way to heaven.

Resurrection Icon – Death Taken Captive

The Apostles’ Creed

This strand of biblical teaching would later find expression in a line in the Apostles Creed that many Protestants find baffling:

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From there he will come to judge the living and the dead. (Source)

The Apostles Creed represents an ancient baptismal creed that became part of the liturgical life of western churches. Because the early Christians regularly recited the Apostles Creed, Christ’s descent into Hell was widely known. This stands in contrast to modern day Evangelicalism which is largely ignorant of the Apostles Creed and the theology behind it. My former Protestant home church said the Apostles Creed every few years. That’s how rarely we used it!

The Witness of the Church Fathers

An examination of the Church Fathers shows a widespread acceptance of Christ’s descent into Hell. Irenaeus of Lyons (died c. 200), one of the earliest Church Fathers, in Against Heresies 4.27.2 (ANF Vol. 1 p. 499) paraphrases 1 Peter 3:19-20:

It was for this reason, too, that the Lord descended into the regions beneath the earth, preaching His advent there also, and [declaring] the remission of sins received by those who believe in Him.

Here we see an explicit reference to the Gospel being proclaimed in Hell by none other than the Lord Jesus himself. Hell is no longer a place of hopelessness, but one in which the dead can be saved through faith in Christ.

Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 310-386) in his catechetical lectures taught Christ’s descent into Hell to redeem the righteous.

He was truly laid as Man in a tomb of rock; but rocks were rent asunder by terror because of Him. He went down into the regions beneath the earth, that thence also He might redeem the righteous. (Lecture 4.11; NPNF Vol. 7 p. 22; emphasis added)

He also linked Christ’s descent into Hell to a puzzling verse in Matthew’s Gospel (27:52-53) which spoke of the dead rising and entering into Jerusalem:

I believe that Christ also was raised from the dead; for I have many testimonies of this, both from the Divine Scriptures, and from the operative power even at this day of Him who arose — who descended into hell alone, but ascended thence with a great company; for He went down to death, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose through Him. (Lecture 14.18; NPNF Vol. 7 p. 99; emphasis added)

Hilary of Poitiers (c. 315-368), one of the less well-known Church Fathers, was a staunch defender of Christ’s divinity against the Semi-Arians. In On the Trinity (De Trinitate) Hilary discussed Christ’s descent into Hell in connection with the confession made by the Good Thief:

When He descended to Hades, He was never absent from Paradise (just as He was always in Heaven when He was preaching on earth as the Son of Man), but promised His martyr a home there, and held out to him the transports of perfect happiness.

. . . for the Lord Who was to descend to Hades, was also to dwell in Paradise. Separate, if you can, from His indivisible nature a part which could fear punishment: send the one part of Christ to Hades to suffer pain, the other, you must leave in Paradise to reign . . . . (On the Trinity 10.34; NPNF Vol. 9 p. 190; emphasis added)

The point Hilary is making is that the alleged contradictions that appear to contradict Christ’s divinity can be cleared up by taking into account Christ’s two natures, that is, Christ was at the same time both divine and human in his Incarnation.

Gregory of Nazianzen (330-389) in his Second Oration on Easter (Orations 45.24) declared:

If He descend into Hell, descend with Him. Learn to know the mysteries of Christ there also, what is the providential purpose of the twofold descent, to save all men absolutely by His manifestation, or there too only them that believe. (NPNF Vol. VII p. 432; emphasis added)

Gregory’s phrase “twofold descent” refers to Christ’s descent from heaven to earth, and then from the world of the living to the world of the dead. Christ’s purpose for doing so is for our salvation. The phrase “save all men absolutely” points to a broader understanding of salvation than just the forgiveness of sins.

Ambrose of Milan (c. 339-397) in On the Christian Faith related Christ’s two natures to his descent into Hell:

Distinguish here also the two natures present. The flesh hath need of help, the Godhead hath no need. He is free, then, because the chains of death had no hold upon Him. He was not made prisoner by the powers of darkness, it is He Who exerted power amongst them. (Book 3.4.28; NPNF Vol. 10 p. 246; emphasis added)

Then,

Now, if it please you, let us grant that, in accordance with the mystic prophecy, the substance of Christ was present in the underworld—for truly He did exert His power in the lower world to set free, in the soul which animated His own body, the souls of the dead, to loose the bands of death, to remit sins. (Book 3.14.111; NPNF Vol. 10 p. 258; emphasis added)

Here Ambrose showed how Christology relates to the Christus Victor understanding of salvation. Ambrose is a prominent and influential Latin Father. It was he who brought Augustine to faith in Christ.

Augustine of Hippo (354-430), whose teaching gave rise to the theology of Western Christianity, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, in no uncertain terms affirmed Christ’s descent into Hell. He wrote in Letter 164 Chapter 2:

It is established beyond question that the Lord, after He had been put to death in the flesh, “descended into hell;” for it is impossible to gainsay either that utterance of prophecy, “You will not leave my soul in hell,” — an utterance which Peter himself expounds in the Acts of the Apostles, lest any one should venture to put upon it another interpretation — or the words of the same apostle, in which he affirms that the Lord “loosed the pains of hell, in which it was not possible for Him to be holden.” Who, therefore, except an infidel, will deny that Christ was in hell?

Augustine wrote this letter because even back then there were people who doubted that Christ descended to Hades. His fierce retort against the skeptics of his time, likening them to unbelievers, should give pause to our present-day Protestant skeptics.

John of Damascus (c. 675-c. 749) wrote the closest thing to a systematic theology in the early Church. In his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Chapter 29), Saint John devoted one brief chapter to Christ’s descent into Hades.

The soul when it was deified descended into Hades, in order that, just as the Sun of Righteousness rose for those upon the earth, so likewise He might bring light to those who sit under the earth in darkness and shadow of death: in order that just as He brought the message of peace to those upon the earth, and of release to the prisoners, and of sight to the blind , and became to those who believed the Author of everlasting salvation and to those who did not believe a reproach of their unbelief, so He might become the same to those in Hades: That every knee should bow to Him, of things in heaven, and things in earth and things under the earth. And thus after He had freed those who had been bound for ages, straightway He rose again from the dead, showing us the way of resurrection. (NPNF Vol. 9 pp. 72-73; emphasis added)

In this short passage, John of Damascus interweaves several biblical passages around the theme of Christ’s descent into Hades: Malachi 4:2, Isaiah 9:2, 1 Peter 3:19, and Philippians 2:10. Saint John teaches us that Christ took his ministry of miracles and preaching to Hades when he died. We learn that Hell is not exempt from Christ’s ministry of salvation for Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior of all people everywhere, both the living and the dead.

In summary, we find a patristic consensus that ranges from Irenaeus of Lyons in the second century to John of Damascus in the eighth century. Both Greek and Latin Fathers bore witness to this doctrine. Furthermore, we find this doctrine expressed in the worship life of the early Church, e.g., the Apostles Creed, which is still used by Western Christians and in the Holy Saturday services celebrated by the Orthodox. Thus, we can say that the doctrine of Christ’s descent to Hades is a fundamental Christian teaching as it meets the criteria set forth in the Vincentian Canon: “Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est” (That Faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all). (Commonitory [6])

Calvin’s Break From the Patristic Consensus

John Calvin

It came as a surprise to me to find that John Calvin understood Christ’s descent to Hades metaphorically. In his discussion of the fate of those who died and the place of the dead known as Limbo (Limbus), Calvin regards this to a “fable” and something “childish” taught by “great authors” (the Church Fathers):

Though this fable has the countenance of great authors, and is now also seriously defended by many as truth, it is nothing but a fable. To conclude from it that the souls of the dead are in prison is childish. And what occasion was there that the soul of Christ should go down thither to set them at liberty? (Institutes 2.16.9; Vol. 1 p. 514; emphasis added)

Calvin was of the opinion that the line in the Apostles Creed regarding Christ’s crucifixion, death, and burial referred to Christ’s physical sufferings and the following line about Christ’s descent to Hades referred to Christ’s internal suffering as he experienced divine wrath on behalf of sinful humanity.

But, apart from the Creed, we must seek for a surer exposition of Christ’s descent to hell: and the word of God furnishes us with one not only pious and holy, but replete with excellent consolation. Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death. In order to interpose between us and God’s anger, and satisfy his righteous judgment, it was necessary that he should feel the weight of divine vengeance. . . . .

But after explaining what Christ endured in the sight of man, the Creed appropriately adds the invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he endured before God, to teach us that not only was the body of Christ given up as the price of redemption, but that there was a greater and more excellent price—that he bore in his soul the tortures of condemned and ruined man. . . . .

Hence there is nothing strange in its being said that he descended to hell, seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God. (Institutes 2.16.10; Vol. 1 p. 514; emphasis added)

Calvin’s emphasis here is on Christ’s sufferings to appease the wrath of an “angry God.” Here we see in stark terms the penal atonement model of salvation (which assumes a wrathful deity) that many find grossly overplayed, if not deeply repugnant. What I find surprising is how Calvin cavalierly discards the ancient Christus Victor model of salvation and replaces it the penal atonement model. Also upsetting was Calvin’s condescending attitude towards the Church Fathers. To ignore the teaching on Christ’s descent to Hell, Calvin brings a novel, allegorical reading to the Apostles Creed. That Calvin’s reading is a minority position can be seen in the fact that Martin Luther did not jettison the traditional reading of the Apostles Creed. In his 1533 sermon at Torgau, Luther affirmed the traditional understanding that Christ entered Hell as Victor over Satan and his host (Bente). While Luther introduced a new soteriology (doctrine of salvation) with his novel understanding of justification (sola fide), Calvin made even bigger break with a soteriology based on the penal atonement model, which would grow to largely ignore, if not exclude the ancient patristic models of salvation used by the Church Fathers for centuries

Pastor John Piper

Calvin’s dismissive attitude towards the doctrine of Christ’s descent into Hell would have long term consequences. It would lead to the descensus controversies that would roil sixteenth century Protestantism (Bagchi p. 198). Calvin’s innovative understanding was accepted within Reformed circles, but when brought into contact with other Protestant traditions it traditions it came across as bizarre. Nonetheless, Calvin’s view became part of the Reformed tradition. It can be found in Question 44 of the Heidelberg Catechism. Reformers like Theodore Beza would, on their own imitative, omit that line (Bagchi p. 199). Even today, prominent Reformed theologians like John Piper have taken the liberty to omit that line. They “retain” aspects of ancient Christianity and throw out what they don’t like. This is like wanting to have one’s cake and eat it too.

When I studied church history at seminary, I learned that Protestantism’s heavy emphasis on the penal aspects of Christ’s dying on the Cross is a relatively recent doctrine that emerged to prominence in the 1500s. What we see in the Apostles Creed reflects the theology of the early Church which reflected the patristic doctrine of Christus Victor. The fact that many Protestants today are unfamiliar with Christ’s descent in Hades and even the Apostles Creed show how far Protestantism has drifted from its ancient Christian roots. This is not to say that Protestants and Evangelicals should relinquish the penal model of salvation altogether, but that they should incorporate the ancient patristic model of Christus Victor into their theology. A good resource for this is Gustav Aulen’s theological classic Christus Victor. Protestantism has paid a heavy price in forsaking its roots in the early Church. It has adopted a novel soteriology accompanied by a new form of worship resulting in their estrangement from Ancient Christianity.

Two Paradigms of Salvation

When I was a Protestant it was hard to fit the verses about Christ’s descent to Hell into the penal substitutionary theory of salvation. In this model, all that mattered was Christ’s suffering and dying on the Cross. His death was the crucial element; everything else was superfluous. This led to strained attempts to explain how Christ’s resurrection was necessary for our salvation. More prominent in the early Church was the recapitulation theory in which Christ as the Second Adam retraced human existence from birth to death, from conception in his mother’s womb to his descent into the underworld. The underworld was where all the dead souls—good and bad—awaited the Final Judgment. Like the other humans who died, Christ descended into Hades. However unlike other humans, this was the uncorrupted Second Adam who was unjustly sentenced to death, Immanuel who is “God With Us.” John Chrysostom in his famous Easter sermon declared:

It [Hell] took a body [Jesus Christ], and, lo, it discovered God.
It took earth and behold! it encountered Heaven.
It took what it saw, and was overcome by what it could not see.
O death where is your sting? O Hades [Hell], where is your victory?
Christ is risen, and you [Hell] are annihilated.
Christ is risen and the demons have fallen.
Christ is risen and the Angels rejoice.
Christ is risen and life is liberated.
Christ is risen, and the tomb is emptied of the dead. . . .

Where Protestantism puts the emphasis on the forgiveness of sins obtained through Christ’s death on the Cross, Orthodoxy puts the emphasis on the defeat of sin, death, and the devil through Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. What saves us is not an event but rather a Person, Jesus Christ. This is not to say that Protestantism’s doctrine of salvation is all wrong. However, Protestantism’s reductionism unduly emphasizes only one part of a far richer and fuller picture of Salvation in Christ. Orthodoxy’s holistic understanding of salvation is multifaceted. It teaches us about the many ways Christ saves us: freeing us from captivity to Satan and the demons, the healing our souls and body, bringing us back home and restoring us to our standing as God’s beloved children, making us wise, transforming us into his likeness and more. Unlike Protestantism’s novel approach to salvation, Orthodoxy preserves the teachings of the early Church to the present day.

This year [2018], Orthodox Easter will come one week after Western Easter. This will give Protestants and Evangelicals an opportunity to compare their celebration of Easter with Orthodoxy’s ancient liturgy. It may come as a surprise that on Saturday there are two services. On Saturday morning, the Orthodox Church celebrates Christ’s harrowing of Hell. The mood of this service is that of a quiet joy in anticipation of the Easter service. We invite our Protestant friends to come to the Saturday morning service and celebrate with us Christ’s descent into Hades to set the captives free. Then Saturday midnight, the Liturgy is celebrated with exuberance and extravagance. Over and over, we cry out: Christ is Risen! This service is the high point of Orthodox worship. Tip: Check ahead for the specifics of the service. Better yet, ask an Orthodox friend to take you along.

Come and see!

Robert Arakaki

Additional Readings

Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev. 2002. “Christ the Conqueror of Hell” (lecture)

Gustav Aulen. 1931. Christus Victor: A Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement

David V.N. Bagchi. 2008. “Luther Versus Luther? The Problem of Christ’s Descent into Hell in the Long Sixteenth Century.” Perichoresis 6.2.

F. Bente. “XIX. Controversy on Christ’s Descent into Hell.” The Book of Concord

Robert B. Kruschwitz. 2014. “He Descended into Hell.” Christian Reflection – A Series in Faith and Ethics

Scot McKnight. 2018. “Holy Saturday – What Happened on Saturday to Jesus?” Jesus Creed

John Piper. 2008. “Did Christ Ever Descend to Hell?” DesiringGod.org