The Harrowing of Hell
Apr 9th, 2010 | By Bryan Cross | Category: Blog PostsOne week ago we celebrated Holy Saturday, the day between the death of Christ and His resurrection. What happened to the soul of Christ during that time? The Tradition answers this question in the line of the Apostles Creed: “He descended to hell,” referring there not to the hell of the damned, but to what is called Abraham’s bosom or limbus patrum. According to the consensus of the Church Fathers, Christ went there to liberate those souls who had died in a state of grace, but were not yet able to enter heaven, because Christ had not opened the gates of heaven by His Passion and death.
Unknown Russian Icon Painter (1500s)
Ikonen-Museum, Recklinghausen
For fifteen hundred years all Christians believed this. But in the sixteenth century John Calvin rejected this understanding of this article of the Creeds, calling it “childish.” He offered an innovation, proposing that the “descent into hell” meant that during the three hours on the cross, Christ’s soul descended into the hell of damnation, and was subjected to torments there from the wrath of God, the fear of eternal damnation, and the devil’s power. Last September Taylor posted about this here, provoking a fascinating discussion. This past Wednesday Professor Lawrence Feingold of the Institute for Pastoral Studies at Ave Maria University, gave an excellent lecture to the Association of Hebrew Catholics titled “The Harrowing of Hell,” in which he addressed this subject, defending the traditional position both from Scripture and the Fathers. What are implications of this doctrine? What are the implications of rejecting it? Listen to the lecture and the Q&A below.
“The Harrowing of Hell”
Lawrence Feingold: The Harrowing of Hell
Q&A
Q&A
Patristic evidence:
St. Ignatius of Antioch: (c. AD 107)
how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, having come, raised them from the dead. (Mag. 9)
St. Justine Martyr: (c. AD 160)
The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation. (Dia. 72)
St. Melito of Sardis: (c. AD 170)
by the cross death is destroyed,
and by the cross salvation shines;
by the cross the gates of hell are burst,
and by the cross the gates of paradise are opened.” (New Fragment III.5, lines 24-36)
I am He who destroyed death
and triumphed over the enemy
and tread down Hades
and bound the strong one
and bore man away to the heights of heaven. (PP 102, II. 760-64)
St. Irenaeus: (c. AD 180)
He also descended into the lower parts of the earth, to behold with His eyes the state of those who were resting from their labours, in reference to whom He did also declare to the disciples: Many prophets and righteous men have desired to see and hear what you see and hear.
For it was not merely for those who believed on Him in the time of Tiberius Cæsar that Christ came, nor did the Father exercise His providence for the men only who are now alive, but for all men altogether, who from the beginning, according to their capacity, in their generation have both feared and loved God, and practised justice and piety towards their neighbours, and have earnestly desired to see Christ, and to hear His voice.(Ad. Haer. IV.22.1-2)
He became a man subject to stripes, and knowing what it is to bear infirmity, and sat upon the foal of an ass, and was a stone rejected by the builders, and was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and by the stretching forth of His hands destroyed Amalek; while He gathered from the ends of the earth into His Father’s fold the children who were scattered abroad, and remembered His own dead ones who had formerly fallen asleep, and came down to them that He might deliver them (Ad. Haer. IV.33.1)
For they do not choose to understand, that if these things are as they say, the Lord Himself, in whom they profess to believe, did not rise again upon the third day; but immediately upon His expiring on the cross, undoubtedly departed on high, leaving His body to the earth. But the case was, that for three days He dwelt in the place where the dead were, as the prophet says concerning Him: And the Lord remembered His dead saints who slept formerly in the land of sepulture; and He descended to them, to rescue and save them. And the Lord Himself says, As Jonas remained three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth. Then also the apostle says, But when He ascended, what is it but that He also descended into the lower parts of the earth? This, too, David says when prophesying of Him, And you have delivered my soul from the nethermost hell; and on His rising again the third day, He said to Mary, who was the first to see and to worship Him, Touch Me not, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to the disciples, and say unto them, I ascend unto My Father, and unto your Father.
If, then, the Lord observed the law of the dead, that He might become the first-begotten from the dead, and tarried until the third day in the lower parts of the earth; then afterwards rising in the flesh, so that He even showed the print of the nails to His disciples, He thus ascended to the Father;— [if all these things occurred, I say], how must these men not be put to confusion, who allege that the lower parts refer to this world of ours, but that their inner man, leaving the body here, ascends into the super-celestial place? For as the Lord went away in the midst of the shadow of death, where the souls of the dead were, yet afterwards arose in the body, and after the resurrection was taken up [into heaven], it is manifest that the souls of His disciples also, upon whose account the Lord underwent these things, shall go away into the invisible place allotted to them by God, and there remain until the resurrection, awaiting that event; then receiving their bodies, and rising in their entirety, that is bodily, just as the Lord arose, they shall come thus into the presence of God. (Ad Haer. V.31.1.)
Tertullian: (c. AD 200)
But what is that which is removed to Hades after the separation of the body; which is there detained; which is reserved until the day of judgment; to which Christ also, on dying, descended? (On the Soul, 7)
By ourselves the lower regions (of Hades) are not supposed to be a bare cavity, nor some subterranean sewer of the world, but a vast deep space in the interior of the earth, and a concealed recess in its very bowels; inasmuch as we read that Christ in His death spent three days in the heart of the earth, that is, in the secret inner recess which is hidden in the earth, and enclosed by the earth, and superimposed on the abysmal depths which lie still lower down. Now although Christ is God, yet, being also man, He died according to the Scriptures, and according to the same Scriptures was buried. With the same law of His being He fully complied, by remaining in Hades in the form and condition of a dead man; nor did He ascend into the heights of heaven before descending into the lower parts of the earth, that He might there make the patriarchs and prophets partakers of Himself. (On the Soul, 55)
St. Hippolytus: (c. AD 205)
He showed all power given by the Father to the Son, who is ordained Lord of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth, and Judge of all: of things in heaven, because He was born, the Word of God, before all (ages); and of things on earth, because He became man in the midst of men, to re-create our Adam through Himself; and of things under the earth, because He was also reckoned among the dead, preaching the Gospel to the souls of the saints, (and) by death overcoming death. (On the Antichrist, 26)
He also first preached to those in Hades, becoming a forerunner there when he was put to death by Herod, that there too he might intimate that the Saviour would descend to ransom the souls of the saints from the hand of death. (On the Antichrist, 45)
Origen: (AD 246)
“First therefore he bound him at the cross, and thus he has entered his house, that is, Hades, and from there “ascending on high, he led captivity captive,” those certainly who with himself are co-resurrected and have entered the holy city, heavenly Jerusalem. (Commentary on Romans 5:10)
Rufinus: (c. AD 400)
That He descended into hell is also evidently foretold in the Psalms, where it is said, You have brought Me also into the dust of the death. And again, What profit is there in my blood, when I shall have descended into corruption? And again, I descended into the deep mire, where there is no bottom. Moreover, John says, Are You He that shall come (into hell, without doubt), or do we look for another? Whence also Peter says that Christ being put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the Spirit which dwells in Him, descended to the spirits who were shut up in prison, who in the days of Noah believed not, to preach unto them; where also what He did in hell is declared. Moreover, the Lord says by the Prophet, as though speaking of the future,You will not leave my soul in hell, neither will You suffer Your Holy One to see corruption. Which again, in prophetic language he speaks of as actually fulfilled, O Lord, You have brought my soul out of hell: You have saved me from them that go down into the pit.” (Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed)
St. Augustine: (AD 414)
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? (Letter 164.2)
St. Gregory the Great: 6th century
Moreover, after your departure I learned from information given me by my most beloved sons the deacons that your Love had said that our Almighty Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, when He descended into hell, saved all who there acknowledged Him as God, and delivered them from the pains due to them. With regard to this subject I desire that your Charity should think very differently. For, when He descended into hell, He delivered through His grace those only who both believed that He should come and observed His precepts in their lives. (Book VII, Letter XV)
Once again Dr. Feingold’s teaching is making me feel like I’m reading the Scriptures for the 1st time! thank you for this link. I am curious about the reference Dr. Feingold made to the individual whom the Devil was frustrating by moving his bed, etc. Any background knowledge would be appreciated anyone has to offer would be appreciated. thank you.
Thanks Herbert. The reference was to the Cure D’Ars (St. John Vianney). I recommend this book.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
So there are (at least) 3 views:
1. The traditional Catholic view
2. Calvin’s view (3 hours of hell on the cross)
3. von Balthasar’s view (37 hours of hell from death to resurrection)
The third view was argued against by Professor Alyssa Pitstick a few years ago. An account can be found at:
https://whosoeverdesires.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/ratzinger-on-christs-descent-into-hell/
On this issue, the incorrectness of Balthasar’s view can be easily perceived, as I stated in the two last (and late) comments to the above post.
Regarding Calvin’s view, the traditional Catholic teaching is that, in the redeeming love that always united Him to the Father, Jesus assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that He could say in our name from the cross: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Catechism of the Catholic Church #603). This view is not exclusive with that of the cry expressing what Jesus was feeling in Himself (in his human nature, of course), as explained in John Paul II’s catechesis on November 30, 1988 at:
https://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19881130en.html
And on this issue, and differing a little bit from the above JP_II’s catechesis (which for Catholics is clearly not definitive magisterium), I would like to offer to your consideration a couple of theologoumena that recently came to my mind. First let’s recall that it is generally accepted Catholic doctrine that the human soul of Jesus was endowed with the beatific vision: “For hardly was He conceived in the womb of the Mother of God when He began to enjoy the Beatific Vision” (Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis, 75). With that background, my theologumena are:
1) that the beatific vision was in general not 24 x 7, and, more important and pertinent to this issue,
2) that He was specifically deprived of the beatific vision during his Passion, which is what his abandonment consisted of.
I base my opinion 1) on human limitations, specifically the limitations inherent to the finite nature of the human soul in its earthly state, not the miseries derived from original sin. We know that the needs to eat, drink and sleep are intrinsic limitations of the human nature and not consequences of original sin – the Gospels attest that Jesus experienced hunger (the fig tree), thirst (the Samaritan woman) and sleep (on the boat during the storm). And the Catechism says in #472 that the “human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited”. Therefore it is safe to assume that, as with any human being, his soul’s capability regarding the number and intensity of stimuli He could process at the same time was limited. And I view the enjoyment of the beatific vision as an experience intense enough to prevent focusing on a task demanding concentration at the same time. So, in my view Jesus would not have been enjoying the beatific vision while He was building furniture, but He could while He was taking a rest, and of course He would while He was praying.
Quoting now from the above JP_II’s catechesis:
“Jesus had the clear vision of God and the certainty of his union with the Father dominant in his mind. But in the sphere bordering on the senses, and therefore more subject to the impressions, emotions and influences of the internal and external experiences of pain, Jesus’ human soul was reduced to a wasteland. He no longer felt the presence of the Father, but he underwent the tragic experience of the most complete desolation.
…
In the sphere of feelings and affection this sense of the absence and abandonment by God was the most acute pain for the soul of Jesus who drew his strength and joy from union with the Father. This pain rendered all the other sufferings more intense. That lack of interior consolation was Jesus’ greatest agony.” (End of quote)
Frankly, I cannot reconcile the experience of the beatific vision (“clear vision of God”) at THAT moment with “not feeling the presence of the Father” and “lack of interior consolation”. My opinion 2), then, is that at THAT moment Jesus was not experiencing the beatific vision. He surely DID have “the certainty of his union with the Father dominant in his mind” as a result of all those hours He had experienced the beatific vision along his life. But at that moment He was not seeing the Father, and had to trust Him. “But the Father was silent,” and “that silence of God weighed on the dying Jesus as the heaviest pain of all.”
In my opinion, then, the abandonment of Jesus during the three hours on the cross consisted in his being deprived of the beatific vision during that time.
Johannes,
Thanks for your comment. I addressed this briefly in comment #84 of the “Does the Bible Teach Sola Fide?” post last year.
I was fortunate enough to hear a talk given by Prof. Feingold on this very topic, at the American Maritain Association meeting in Boston in 2008, and my reply is informed by what he said there. Also, just a few weeks ago he gave a talk on this general subject of Christ’s sufferings, and in it he addressed the question of how to understand Christ’s statement “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” You can find that talk here.
Dr. Lawrence Feingold: The Suffering of Christ in His Passion
He starts addressing the question of Christ’s interior suffering around 29 minutes into the talk.
First, I should point out that the nearly unanimous consensus of theologians from the beginning of the thirteenth century up until Pius XII held that Christ in His human soul possessed the Beatific Vision from conception, and has never been without it. So your proposal goes against a long theological tradition, and that should at least make you hesitant and cautious about it. You wrote:
The problematic premise in your argument is that the Beatific Vision is “an experience intense enough to prevent focusing on a task demanding concentration at the same time.” Such a notion is a Protestant either/or notion, as though grace destroys nature. Grace never destroys nature, but perfects it. It would imply that the saints in heaven must turn away from the Beatific Vision in order to hear prayers directed to them. In actuality, it is only through the Beatific Vision that they know of our prayer requests to them, as I explained here.
The infused knowledge [distinct from natural knowledge had by the senses, and the knowledge had by the Beatific Vision] had by the prophets and by Christ Himself did not detract from His naturally acquired knowledge or distract Him, as though He could only focus on one way of knowing at a time. His infused knowledge did not nullify His capacity to grow in wisdom (Luke 2:52). So likewise the Beatific Vision never detracted from His knowledge acquired through His human senses, or distracted from His attention to what He knew through His human senses. On the contrary, it enhanced it. Jesus always saw more clearly and poignantly through His human senses, because He always enjoyed (through His human intellect) the vision of God and thus in God the relation of all things around Him to God. (See Summa Theologiae III Q.11 a.5 ad 1)
Next you wrote:
If Christ lost the Beatific Vision during His three hours on the cross, then He did not consciously die for your sins and mine, but only for sins in the abstract, because by the natural power of His human intellect He could not have known all at once all the persons of the world and all our sins. Nor could He therefore have suffered for all our sins, interiorly. Only if He knew all our sins particularly and individually, could He grieve with the pain of contrition in solidarity with us, for each of our sins. And therefore only if He retained the Beatific Vision could He make atonement for each of our sins by His internal suffering. In the year 2000 Pope John Paul II wrote of this in his Apostolic Letter Novo millennio ineunte:
Pope John Paul II teaches here that it was precisely because Christ retained the Beatific Vision that He could (and did) see the full gravity of all human sins and therefore suffer for all of them in all of their offensiveness to God whom we should love above all things. How could He suffer more than anyone has ever suffered, while at the same time holding on to the joy of the Beatific Vision? Pope John Paul II says that this is a mystery, and thus we should not try to explain it away by eliminating either Christ’s Beatific Vision or His suffering. Pope John Paul II goes on in the next paragraph to say:
Here he points out how the great saints have a taste of this mystery in their own lives, in that they simultaneously in different but interrelated respects experience the joy of hope and charity to be fulfilled in the life to come, and the suffering and pain caused by the sins of one’s neighbor (and even of oneself) and by all the present woes due to the not-yet-ness of the culmination of all things in Heaven. On the cross Jesus in His human intellect didn’t lose sight of the loving face of His Father, but simultaneously He experienced in His body and soul the full measure of the desolation, disorder, madness and suffering of this world under the curse of sin. That’s what He is expressing in His “Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani?, His full and total immersion into the God-forsakeness of this fallen world of fallen man in its cursed condition in this present life. This is what it means that He bore the curse, namely, that He entered into the fallenness of this world, even unto death.
UPDATE: One of the best refutations I’ve seen online, of Balthasar’s claim that Christ did not have the beatific vision, is Unam Sanctum Catholicam‘s “Balthasar, Christ and the Beatific Vision.” See also Stephen Webb’s article “Why Von Balthasar Was Wrong About Holy Saturday.”
Also, the CDF’s 2006 “Notification on the works of Father Jon Sobrino” reaffirms the Church’s teaching on Christ’s possession of the beatific vision:
See also Fr. Simon Francis Gaine’s Did the Saviour See the Father?”: Christ, Salvation, and the Vision of God, (Bloomsbury, 2015). Hear Fr. Simon Gaine talk about this question in his interview titled “Did Jesus Christ See the Father?” (June, 2020)
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Thank you Bryan for your thorough response. BTW, my opinions are of a purely speculative nature, like “Could it be that…?”, are formulated as part of a learning process, and are mentioned only for the sake of discussion conducive to learning. I am not going to nail them to the door of any church!
Just a couple of comments on your response.
“I should point out that the nearly unanimous consensus of theologians from the beginning of the thirteenth century up until Pius XII held that Christ in His human soul possessed the Beatific Vision from conception, and has never been without it.”
Notice that I had quoted (and agreed with) “For hardly was He conceived in the womb of the Mother of God when He began to enjoy the Beatific Vision” (Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis, 75).
Notice also that Pius XII did not say that the enjoyment of the Beatific Vision was 24 x 7.
“The problematic premise in your argument is that the Beatific Vision is “an experience intense enough to prevent focusing on a task demanding concentration at the same time.” Such a notion is a Protestant either/or notion, as though grace destroys nature. Grace never destroys nature, but perfects it. It would imply that the saints in heaven must turn away from the Beatific Vision in order to hear prayers directed to them.”
But the souls of the saints in heaven are not burdened by a body! And in the case of St Mary, her body is glorified, so it does not burden her soul either. Thus it is obvious that they do not need to turn away from the Beatific Vision in order to hear our prayers, just as our guardian angels do not need to turn away from the Beatific Vision in order to look after us. Contrast that situation with Wisdom 9:15:
“For the corruptible body burdens the soul and the earthen shelter weighs down the mind that has many concerns.”
Now, I am not sure whether this refers exclusively to the human situation after original sin (let’s call it “misery”), or also to the human situation before original sin (let’s call it “limitation”). My point is that it is possible (again, I am speculating) that a soul constrained by a material (i.e. non-glorified) body cannot handle beatific vision and a task demanding concentration at the same time, unless given a special privilege by God (such as the bilocation granted to a few saints). IF this is so, and IF it is a “limitation” (i.e. not a consequence of original sin”), THEN it would have applied to Jesus UNLESS He was enjoying a “reprieve” from that limitation, which could have perfectly been the case.
“The infused knowledge [distinct from natural knowledge had by the senses, and the knowledge had by the Beatific Vision] had by the prophets and by Christ Himself did not detract from His naturally acquired knowledge or distract Him, as though He could only focus on one way of knowing at a time. His infused knowledge did not nullify His capacity to grow in wisdom (Luke 2:52). So likewise the Beatific Vision never detracted from His knowledge acquired through His human senses, or distracted from His attention to what He knew through His human senses.”
But that was not my point. Sure those kinds of knowledge could coexist in Jesus’ human intelligence, just as knowledge from Revelation, philosophy and science can coexist in ordinary people. But I was referring to the simultaneity of acquisition of those kinds of knowledge. Lots of people know how to surf and play chess, and the two knowledges do not interfere with each other. But can they acquire both at the same time? Could Jesus experience the beatific vision while simultaneously paying attention to St Joseph’s teaching Him the carpenter’s craft? Obviously He certainly could if granted a special privilege. And it COULD perfectly be the case that no special privilege was needed because the enjoyment of the beatific vision does not burden the central nervous system (Jesus’ or anyone’s) in the slightest, so that its capabilities are fully available for performing other activites. But it is not evident to me at this point this IS the case.
“If Christ lost the Beatific Vision during His three hours on the cross, then He did not consciously die for your sins and mine, but only for sins in the abstract, because by the natural power of His human intellect He could not have known all at once all the persons of the world and all our sins.”
I did not know that it was necessary (and therefore the factual case) that Jesus knew (in his human intelligence) specifically each person and each sin at the time of his sacrifice. Of course I believed that Jesus consciously offered his life to the Father in reparation for ALL sins of ALL people, but I thought He did that “in general”, whithout specifically knowing (humanly) each person, much less each sin of each person. Thus, I had interpreted St Paul’s statement in Gal 2:20 about “the Son of God who has loved me and given himself up for me” in the sense that Jesus has loved us all and given Himself up for all, and that, as each person is included in that “all”, each person can say that Jesus “has loved me and given himself up for me”.
On the other hand, it is clear that the only way for Jesus to “have known all at once all the persons of the world and all our sins” while in his mortal state was through the beatific vision. And I find support for your position in Catechism #616 which says that Jesus “knew and loved us all when he offered his life.” Though the “loved us all” can admit an interpretation “in general”, the “knew us all” makes it implausible.
Again, thank you for helping me learn!
Yesterday, Pope Benedict answered seven questions on Italian television. One of the questions was about Christ’s descent into hell:
(source)
From an ancient (c. fourth century) homily on Holy Saturday
Bryan,
Beautiful. Who wrote/preached it!
Michael,
It is an ancient homily, whose author is unknown.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
From the Catechism of the Council of Trent
From the poem Miracles:
For three days heaven patiently waited while earth debated.
The disciples were afraid and locked themselves indoors day and night.
The devils were afraid and were commanded to lock the gates of hell tight.
Then down through the dark corridors of death, walked the long lean legs of the Crucified Lamb and stood as a lion before the doors of the devil’s domain.
His face shone bright and His voice reverberated with might, that caused Satan to fall off his makeshift throne. He came to set the captives free and take them home.
Then the Lord said with a commanding and thunderous voice, “Lift up your heads, O ye gates and be ye lift up ye everlasting doors, the King of glory shall come in!”. Who is this King of glory? (cried the demons within) The response was immediate,” the Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle! ”
Just then a host of fallen spirits surrounded the gates as reinforcements, the tension escalates, souls are at stake, whosoever wins this war, will take the keys of death and hell’s door!
Then, suddenly, the Spirit of prophesy presented Himself, and quoted the prophetic words of Jesus, “On this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail!”
At that moment, like a crash, the gates were lifted off their rusty hinges, the chains were broken, and the Light of the world stepped in. The demons fell back, horrible creatures, fled for fear, and Satan on his knees, bowed his head and gave up the keys….Resurrexit sicut dixit! Alleluia
Duccio di Buoninsegna
Pope Benedict XVI, Homily on Holy Saturday, 2007:
Bryan (re:#4),
I am curious how these ideas/distinctions might relate to Jesus’s statement in Matthew 24:36.
Matthew 24:36: But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.
Those who assert Jesus is not fully God point to this verse in defense of their claim viz. if Jesus is God than He is omniscient and would know the day and hour. A common Christian response to this is that Jesus was speaking according to His humanity, which is limited, and so the objection doesn’t go through. But, given they way you’ve explained things, if Jesus possessed infused knowledge and the beatific vision in His humanity, then wouldn’t He know the day and the hour in His humanity? It appears your analysis closes the door on this common explanation. And if that’s the case, I’m curious how you would answer those adducing Matthew 24:36 as evidence that Jesus is not God.
Peace,
John D.
JohnD (re: #13)
As is typically the case, interpreting this verse properly requires the Tradition. Otherwise, if you took “Father only” in an unqualified way, you would give the Trinity three intellects, by positing that neither the Second nor the Third Persons of the Trinity knew the day of Christ’s return. But in the patristics we see that the meaning is that what Christ is said to “know” is what the Father has given Him to reveal. Hence He clarifies after the resurrection, when the Apostles once more ask him (Acts 1:6) “will You at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” And He replies by explaining that it is not for them to know the times. In other words, it is not part of His mission [at His first coming] to reveal this. That is the meaning of the earlier times He said “not even the Son.” St. Chrysostom explains this in his second homily on the Acts of the Apostles.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan (re:#14),
Thanks for the reply. This is not exactly on-topic for this thread so it will be my last question/comment on this verse.
Yes, I have noticed this theme when you are asked to offer exegesis, and it is certainly a consistently-Catholic approach!
Ok, but the verse also mentions the fact that the angels of heaven do not “know” so it seems the interpretation you describe implies that (1) the angels were likewise not given this information to reveal or (2) “know” is applied to angels in a different sense than the Son. Would you say either is a better interpretation of the angels clause or are both acceptable?
Peace,
John D.
JohnD (re: #15),
The time of Christ’s return was not given to the angels to reveal. This does not entail that the Son and the angels are in the same epistemic condition regarding the time of Christ’s return.
But this question is far removed from the topic of this post. Please exercise self-restraint; I would prefer not to have to delete comments.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
In the fourth century, St. Cyril of Jerusalem wrote:
This is precisely the way all the Church Fathers understood Christ’s descent into hell; this is the Tradition on this subject. On the relevance of this topic to Catholic-Reformed dialogue, see Taylor Marshall’s “John Calvin’s Worst Heresy: That Christ Suffered in Hell.”
Also relevant here is Pope John Paul II’s General Audience titled “He descended into hell” given on January 11, 1989.
Fr. Thomas Joseph White, OP: “The Descent Of Christ into Hell” (March 2016)
Hey Bryan!
I just wanted to thank you for your research and awesome patristic collection of quotes on the descent of Christ into Hades!
I just recently illustrated the descent to hell as a graphic novel and would love if you check it out and let me know what you think! https://hyperurl.co/b8atfs
[…] the early Church’s teaching on the harrowing of hell supports the doctrine of purgatory, because it shows that some defect can hinder the reception of […]