What do you think?
Rate this book
Christ the Conqueror of Hell: The Descent Into Hades From an Orthodox Perspective
This in-depth study on the realm of death presents a message of hope held by the first generation of Christians and the early church. Using Scripture, patristic tradition, early Christian poetry, and liturgical texts, Archbishop Hilarion explores the mysterious and enigmatic event of Christ's descent into Hades and its consequences for the human race. Insisting that Christ entered Sheol as Conqueror and not as victim, the author depicts the Lord's descent as an event of cosmic significance opening the path to universal salvation. He also reveals Hades as a place of divine presence, a place where the spiritual fate of a person may still change. Reminding readers that self-will remains the only hindrance to life in Christ, he presents the gospel message anew, even in the shadow of death.
231 pages, Paperback
First published November 20, 2009
15 people are currently reading
522 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews
June 28, 2019
In recent months, I have talked a great deal about politics and current events. It is time to pivot, for a moment, and talk about something totally different—the eternal. This book is a detailed analysis of Eastern Orthodox views of Christ’s descent into Hades, a core yet obscure Christian doctrine found in both the Nicene Creed and the shorter Apostle’s Creed. It was recommended to me by a friend of mine, a Presbyterian minister, who knows of my particular interest in the areas of theology implicated by this doctrine. And, as expected, the book highlights areas of both commonality and difference among separate branches of Christianity.
Where we usually stand in our church I face a very large Orthodox icon of the Resurrection, which at first I found difficult to fully comprehend. Like all Orthodox icons, it is laden with symbolism and follows a standard form with relatively minor variations. Other than the risen, triumphant Christ, its most prominent features are that Christ is standing on a broken bronze door, surrounded at his feet by keys and open locks scattered across a pool of darkness, and that he is lifting a man and a woman, on his left and on his right, from stone coffins. The meaning of this is not self-evident, but easy enough to find out. The man and woman are Adam and Eve; the doors are the doors of Hades, broken and thrown down by Christ; the locks those that had bound men and women who died prior to the Resurrection; and the darkness is Hades itself. That is to say, the descent into Hades, an event barely mentioned in the Bible, forms a large portion of the Orthodox view of the Resurrection.
As with all Orthodox iconography, there is a lot more to both the symbolism and the theology, which I am not even remotely qualified to discuss. But for today’s purposes, there are two critical elements in the doctrine of the Descent. First, that Christ descended to the realm of Death and Satan (called interchangeably Hades or Hell), destroying the power of both and releasing at least part of fallen humanity from the grasp of evil. Second, that Christ is the Victor and Conqueror; he did not come to negotiate or to reach a compromise solution, but to destroy Death, by his own death, and bring Life. This latter is a core theological element of Orthodox theology and one which distinguishes it somewhat from Western Christian theology, which often emphasizes Christ’s suffering more than his victory, sometimes even making Christ seem maudlin. The Orthodox tend to have more of a Chuck Norris view of Christianity, and their approach to the Descent is no exception. (It is also evident in such things as the differences in Holy Saturday liturgies, which in West are sorrowful, but in the East are already ramping up the sense of triumph, prior to the actual Resurrection.)
"Christ the Conqueror of Hell" was written by a Russian archbishop, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, and translated into English. It is a modern book, ten years old, although nothing is truly modern in the Orthodox Church, something that quickly becomes evident reading this book. The bare fact that Christ descended into Hades is necessarily shared by all Christians (it is not a theologoumena, or optional opinion), but in both the Eastern and Western traditions, there is no formal statement of the Descent—that is, either the details of what exactly happened, or of what that means as a result. The Metropolitan’s project is to examine all relevant Orthodox pronouncements on the doctrine and, to the extent possible, harmonize them, or, to the extent that is not possible, point out areas of contention, and what the theological downstream effects may be.
The Descent is a difficult doctrine, though, on many levels. Christians agree that prior to Christ’s death and resurrection, due to the Fall, Heaven was not open to any of the dead (other than perhaps Enoch and Elijah), and that Christ reversed that closure. The key question is who was permitted, after the Descent, to leave Hades, the abode of all the dead until that time, and enter Heaven? The Western church relatively early on answered that question with rigidity—only the righteous, that is to say, those who would have entered Heaven anyway. They just had had to wait a while. The Orthodox, on the other hand, who contain a distinct strain of universalism, often (but not always) espouse variations on the conclusion that the dead were able to listen to the Good News of Christ, first through the preaching of the also-dead John the Baptist and then from Christ himself, and choose Christ. That is, in effect, everybody got a second chance. The Metropolitan’s purpose, it is pretty clear, in writing this book is to provide support for this belief, what might be called “universalism lite.” Some even suggest that Christ released everyone in Hades and admitted them to Heaven, something the Metropolitan does not reject, but does not strongly endorse either.
As with all theological questions, which cannot be examined in isolation or from abstract principles, how one answers these questions depends on what authority one recognizes. Metropolitan Alfeyev exhaustively analyzes all Orthodox authorities. The most important, of course, is Scripture, but the Bible says relatively little about the Descent. Its most prominent mention is 1 Peter 3:18–21, which makes an explicit statement that it happened, and there are several more oblique mentions in both the New and Old Testaments, such as Paul’s statement in Ephesians 4:9 that Christ “descended into the lower parts of the earth,” and the statement made by Christ in Revelation 1:17, “I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.” For Protestants, who mostly view authority as personal interpretation of the Bible, this suggests that the Descent is on thin ground. But as the Metropolitan is at pains to make clear, the Descent was very clearly the universal belief of the early Church, and therefore can be in no doubt whatsoever, since tradition, as shown in the writings of the Fathers, the liturgy of the Church, and even some of the apocryphal writings, is a wholly valid basis for any Christian belief. “Scripture grew out of tradition and composes an inseparable part of it. Scripture is interpreted not spontaneously but from the perspective of tradition.” (Although this book is not a work of apologetics, rather one of exegetics, it is always interesting to me how much detailed thought went into the development of Christian doctrine, contrary to the simplistic views of today’s anti-Christian writers, who seem to think that stupidity and credulity were the norm then, and are now.)
Also included in the Metropolitan’s analysis are, naturally, the Church Fathers, as well as liturgical hymnography and poetry across the centuries, and the Liturgy itself. These latter he ranks higher in authority than the writings of the Fathers, which follows from the consensus-based approach of the Orthodox to theology. “The authority enjoyed by the liturgical texts in the Orthodox Church is based on a process of acceptance that occurred over the course of many centuries.” In fact, the Metropolitan goes to some length to emphasize that “some forget that the church’s lex credendi is based on its lex orandi and that Orthodox services are an organic and adequate expression of the church’s dogmatic teaching.” Most of what the Fathers say, if not confirmed by conciliar authority or by liturgical acceptance, is theologoumena. Powerful and persuasive, perhaps, but not truly authoritative.
Having noted and discussed Scriptural references to the Descent in the Old and New Testaments, the Metropolitan proceeds by looking at a range of apocryphal Scriptures. His point is not that these should be canonical, but that themes consistently appearing in the apocrypha were obviously important to the early Church, and are evidence of tradition that is doctrine. What he examines are not the anathemized apocryphal writings, such as the so-called Gnostic Gospels, which in some cases directly contradict core Christian doctrines, but other books that were influential and widely accepted as authoritative in the early Church but ultimately did not “make the cut.” Among these are The Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Pilate, and, for current purposes most importantly, the Gospel of Nicodemus, from which comes much of the Orthodox iconography of the Resurrection. All of these provide quite a bit of detail about the specifics of the Descent, in which Christ “destroyed Death by death.” The general idea is that prior to the Descent, Hell was a place God permitted to be outside of his purview and within the control of the Devil, but Christ shattered this darkness and ended the control of the Devil, exemplified in his hold over the dead. However, these writings are less clear on the precise effects of Christ’s descent on the souls then in Hell, or on souls of those that died after the Descent.
Next the Metropolitan analyzes the writings of the Church Fathers, beginning with those up to the third century, from Saint John Chrysostom to Saint Ephrem the Syrian, and continuing with Eastern theologians up to the eighth century (since when nothing of note has been added to the Orthodox tradition), such as Saint Cyril of Alexandria and Saint John Damascene. All these theologians spoke about the question at hand—what was the meaning of the Descent for those in Hell? The Metropolitan demonstrates the great subtly of thought among these men, with particular emphasis on their thoughts on the relationship of free will to the ultimate status of each human being. He shows that the general feeling, then as now, among Eastern theologians is that ultimately all will be united with God—but that for some, that unity will be suffering, because they chose to reject God’s love. They may not be in Hell precisely, but it is functionally the same thing. There is no true consensus on whether that rejection is or must be permanent, whether made before, during, or after the Descent.
The Metropolitan does not advert to a difficulty that I face with some of these discussions, that they imply a temporal element that is generally thought to be lacking from the eternal, in Christian thinking. That the dead had to wait implies the passing of time, but if eternity is the eternal Now, what meaning does that have? This is related to another question—did the Descent have after-effects, such that it opened doors for those who have died since the Resurrection as well? The Metropolitan does touch on this latter question, but only briefly. I suppose I will have to wait for discussion of these questions; the Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart is coming out with a book on universalism this fall, so maybe he will touch on them.
Metropolitan Alfeyev also examines Western Fathers, such as Saint Jerome and Saint Augustine. Doctrine there diverged relatively early from that of the East, tending to the view that the Descent had no effect on the already-decided fates of those in Hell, and in general expressing some skepticism that the Descent is particularly relevant to God’s plan of salvation. Saint Thomas Aquinas completed this line of thinking, which is the position of the Roman Church today. As the Metropolitan points out, Aquinas, with his rigid and legalistic systematization, introduced an alien degree of certainty to this (and other) theological doctrines. In contrast, the Orthodox are often content to simply view doctrines as mysteries that cannot be more fully explicated than they already have been, and that is true of many aspects of the Descent.
Finally, we return to liturgy, both the liturgy itself and the hymns attached to it. The theology of hymns, in particular, provides an interesting contrast to the Aquinas-type reasoning to which we in the West often limit theology. The Orthodox believe that theology is not limited to bare reasoning but also comprehends glorifying God through poetry and metaphor. The Metropolitan extensively quotes a great deal of such hymnology and poetry, much of it in strictly defined forms strange to Western ears and only surviving in fragments in day-to-day Orthodox liturgical practice. The form is often point-counterpoint, complete with plotlines and refrains, with personifications of Death, Hades, and Satan playing roles as Christ descends and destroys them, leading the captives out of Hell. The net effect is a form of indirect theological exposition which has greater power by being more evocative of emotions and imagery.
The actual Orthodox liturgy contains many explicit references to the Descent. The Metropolitan analyzes hundreds of these, carefully parsing their phrasing. This is the central piece of the Metropolitan’s argument; his aim is to demonstrate that the substantial majority of Orthodox liturgical references indicate that Christ released all the souls in Hell, and those that suggest otherwise strongly suggest that all the souls were at least given the opportunity to be released, regardless of their actions during life. John the Baptist, “last of the prophets and first of the apostles,” preached the Good News to them, making straight Christ’s path in Hell as on Earth, and then Christ himself preached. The Metropolitan notes the Orthodox belief that the angels were astonished at the result of the Descent, and repeatedly advocates that this only makes sense if Christ did something more dramatic than simply release the righteous who had been waiting for Him.
In other words, the Metropolitan is advocating a form of universalism, apocatastasis, the universal reconciliation, which is pretty common line of thought among the Orthodox. He touches on related claims, including the belief, most prominent in Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor, that Hell can be salutary—in other words, not that Hell does not exist, which is agreed to be false, but that positive spiritual movement is possible after death. This is not the same as the question of the disposition of the souls in Hades as a result of the Descent, but is obviously related. In the West, answering this question led to the development of Purgatory. But the Orthodox reject Purgatory, believing it to be, like the filioque, a bogus innovation. And without Purgatory, this line of thought necessarily implies some variant on universalism.
The Metropolitan never formally endorses universalism, but this is not for the same reason that modern heretics in the Roman church, led by the chief heretic, Pope Francis, dance on the edges of their heresies—that is, in order to be able to deny they are espousing heresy. Rather, it is because the answer is unknowable. “The answer to this mystery will be revealed only in the kingdom to come, in which we will see God as he is and in which God will be ‘all in all.’ ” He does point out the broad support existing for his position—for example, that the Orthodox, most notably in the services of Pentecost, pray for those in Hell. This alone suggests that universalism cannot be ruled out within the Orthodox tradition. Nor can it be ruled in. We will all have to wait and see, and we’ll all find out eventually, much sooner rather than later, in the grand scheme of things.
It is interesting to note that although the Western churches, both Catholic and Protestant, have long rejected universalism, it has recently crept back into the Roman church, in particular through the efforts of Hans Urs von Balthasar. It’s not precisely the same as Orthodox universalism, though; differences exist that exemplify certain different tendencies between West and East. Most notably, von Balthasar (it is said as a result of his close relationship with the mystic Adrienne von Speyr) put forth the idea, also found in Calvinism, that Christ suffered in his descent into Hades in the same way, or in a variation on the same way, as did the dead, or even the damned. Such an idea is wholly rejected by the East (the Metropolitan quotes Saint Athanasius to this effect), which views Christ as the Victor, even in his death, and as the One who put fear into evil after his death, not the reverse. But again, I am not qualified to say much about such matters.
Books like this, aside from spiritual value and academic interest, are valuable because they remove us from the quarrels of the day. If you’re tired of hearing about whatever is on the news, I strongly recommend reading this book, or another that appeals to you, as a way to both improve your own spiritual condition and to help yourself take the longer view—the permanent view, in fact.
Where we usually stand in our church I face a very large Orthodox icon of the Resurrection, which at first I found difficult to fully comprehend. Like all Orthodox icons, it is laden with symbolism and follows a standard form with relatively minor variations. Other than the risen, triumphant Christ, its most prominent features are that Christ is standing on a broken bronze door, surrounded at his feet by keys and open locks scattered across a pool of darkness, and that he is lifting a man and a woman, on his left and on his right, from stone coffins. The meaning of this is not self-evident, but easy enough to find out. The man and woman are Adam and Eve; the doors are the doors of Hades, broken and thrown down by Christ; the locks those that had bound men and women who died prior to the Resurrection; and the darkness is Hades itself. That is to say, the descent into Hades, an event barely mentioned in the Bible, forms a large portion of the Orthodox view of the Resurrection.
As with all Orthodox iconography, there is a lot more to both the symbolism and the theology, which I am not even remotely qualified to discuss. But for today’s purposes, there are two critical elements in the doctrine of the Descent. First, that Christ descended to the realm of Death and Satan (called interchangeably Hades or Hell), destroying the power of both and releasing at least part of fallen humanity from the grasp of evil. Second, that Christ is the Victor and Conqueror; he did not come to negotiate or to reach a compromise solution, but to destroy Death, by his own death, and bring Life. This latter is a core theological element of Orthodox theology and one which distinguishes it somewhat from Western Christian theology, which often emphasizes Christ’s suffering more than his victory, sometimes even making Christ seem maudlin. The Orthodox tend to have more of a Chuck Norris view of Christianity, and their approach to the Descent is no exception. (It is also evident in such things as the differences in Holy Saturday liturgies, which in West are sorrowful, but in the East are already ramping up the sense of triumph, prior to the actual Resurrection.)
"Christ the Conqueror of Hell" was written by a Russian archbishop, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, and translated into English. It is a modern book, ten years old, although nothing is truly modern in the Orthodox Church, something that quickly becomes evident reading this book. The bare fact that Christ descended into Hades is necessarily shared by all Christians (it is not a theologoumena, or optional opinion), but in both the Eastern and Western traditions, there is no formal statement of the Descent—that is, either the details of what exactly happened, or of what that means as a result. The Metropolitan’s project is to examine all relevant Orthodox pronouncements on the doctrine and, to the extent possible, harmonize them, or, to the extent that is not possible, point out areas of contention, and what the theological downstream effects may be.
The Descent is a difficult doctrine, though, on many levels. Christians agree that prior to Christ’s death and resurrection, due to the Fall, Heaven was not open to any of the dead (other than perhaps Enoch and Elijah), and that Christ reversed that closure. The key question is who was permitted, after the Descent, to leave Hades, the abode of all the dead until that time, and enter Heaven? The Western church relatively early on answered that question with rigidity—only the righteous, that is to say, those who would have entered Heaven anyway. They just had had to wait a while. The Orthodox, on the other hand, who contain a distinct strain of universalism, often (but not always) espouse variations on the conclusion that the dead were able to listen to the Good News of Christ, first through the preaching of the also-dead John the Baptist and then from Christ himself, and choose Christ. That is, in effect, everybody got a second chance. The Metropolitan’s purpose, it is pretty clear, in writing this book is to provide support for this belief, what might be called “universalism lite.” Some even suggest that Christ released everyone in Hades and admitted them to Heaven, something the Metropolitan does not reject, but does not strongly endorse either.
As with all theological questions, which cannot be examined in isolation or from abstract principles, how one answers these questions depends on what authority one recognizes. Metropolitan Alfeyev exhaustively analyzes all Orthodox authorities. The most important, of course, is Scripture, but the Bible says relatively little about the Descent. Its most prominent mention is 1 Peter 3:18–21, which makes an explicit statement that it happened, and there are several more oblique mentions in both the New and Old Testaments, such as Paul’s statement in Ephesians 4:9 that Christ “descended into the lower parts of the earth,” and the statement made by Christ in Revelation 1:17, “I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.” For Protestants, who mostly view authority as personal interpretation of the Bible, this suggests that the Descent is on thin ground. But as the Metropolitan is at pains to make clear, the Descent was very clearly the universal belief of the early Church, and therefore can be in no doubt whatsoever, since tradition, as shown in the writings of the Fathers, the liturgy of the Church, and even some of the apocryphal writings, is a wholly valid basis for any Christian belief. “Scripture grew out of tradition and composes an inseparable part of it. Scripture is interpreted not spontaneously but from the perspective of tradition.” (Although this book is not a work of apologetics, rather one of exegetics, it is always interesting to me how much detailed thought went into the development of Christian doctrine, contrary to the simplistic views of today’s anti-Christian writers, who seem to think that stupidity and credulity were the norm then, and are now.)
Also included in the Metropolitan’s analysis are, naturally, the Church Fathers, as well as liturgical hymnography and poetry across the centuries, and the Liturgy itself. These latter he ranks higher in authority than the writings of the Fathers, which follows from the consensus-based approach of the Orthodox to theology. “The authority enjoyed by the liturgical texts in the Orthodox Church is based on a process of acceptance that occurred over the course of many centuries.” In fact, the Metropolitan goes to some length to emphasize that “some forget that the church’s lex credendi is based on its lex orandi and that Orthodox services are an organic and adequate expression of the church’s dogmatic teaching.” Most of what the Fathers say, if not confirmed by conciliar authority or by liturgical acceptance, is theologoumena. Powerful and persuasive, perhaps, but not truly authoritative.
Having noted and discussed Scriptural references to the Descent in the Old and New Testaments, the Metropolitan proceeds by looking at a range of apocryphal Scriptures. His point is not that these should be canonical, but that themes consistently appearing in the apocrypha were obviously important to the early Church, and are evidence of tradition that is doctrine. What he examines are not the anathemized apocryphal writings, such as the so-called Gnostic Gospels, which in some cases directly contradict core Christian doctrines, but other books that were influential and widely accepted as authoritative in the early Church but ultimately did not “make the cut.” Among these are The Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Pilate, and, for current purposes most importantly, the Gospel of Nicodemus, from which comes much of the Orthodox iconography of the Resurrection. All of these provide quite a bit of detail about the specifics of the Descent, in which Christ “destroyed Death by death.” The general idea is that prior to the Descent, Hell was a place God permitted to be outside of his purview and within the control of the Devil, but Christ shattered this darkness and ended the control of the Devil, exemplified in his hold over the dead. However, these writings are less clear on the precise effects of Christ’s descent on the souls then in Hell, or on souls of those that died after the Descent.
Next the Metropolitan analyzes the writings of the Church Fathers, beginning with those up to the third century, from Saint John Chrysostom to Saint Ephrem the Syrian, and continuing with Eastern theologians up to the eighth century (since when nothing of note has been added to the Orthodox tradition), such as Saint Cyril of Alexandria and Saint John Damascene. All these theologians spoke about the question at hand—what was the meaning of the Descent for those in Hell? The Metropolitan demonstrates the great subtly of thought among these men, with particular emphasis on their thoughts on the relationship of free will to the ultimate status of each human being. He shows that the general feeling, then as now, among Eastern theologians is that ultimately all will be united with God—but that for some, that unity will be suffering, because they chose to reject God’s love. They may not be in Hell precisely, but it is functionally the same thing. There is no true consensus on whether that rejection is or must be permanent, whether made before, during, or after the Descent.
The Metropolitan does not advert to a difficulty that I face with some of these discussions, that they imply a temporal element that is generally thought to be lacking from the eternal, in Christian thinking. That the dead had to wait implies the passing of time, but if eternity is the eternal Now, what meaning does that have? This is related to another question—did the Descent have after-effects, such that it opened doors for those who have died since the Resurrection as well? The Metropolitan does touch on this latter question, but only briefly. I suppose I will have to wait for discussion of these questions; the Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart is coming out with a book on universalism this fall, so maybe he will touch on them.
Metropolitan Alfeyev also examines Western Fathers, such as Saint Jerome and Saint Augustine. Doctrine there diverged relatively early from that of the East, tending to the view that the Descent had no effect on the already-decided fates of those in Hell, and in general expressing some skepticism that the Descent is particularly relevant to God’s plan of salvation. Saint Thomas Aquinas completed this line of thinking, which is the position of the Roman Church today. As the Metropolitan points out, Aquinas, with his rigid and legalistic systematization, introduced an alien degree of certainty to this (and other) theological doctrines. In contrast, the Orthodox are often content to simply view doctrines as mysteries that cannot be more fully explicated than they already have been, and that is true of many aspects of the Descent.
Finally, we return to liturgy, both the liturgy itself and the hymns attached to it. The theology of hymns, in particular, provides an interesting contrast to the Aquinas-type reasoning to which we in the West often limit theology. The Orthodox believe that theology is not limited to bare reasoning but also comprehends glorifying God through poetry and metaphor. The Metropolitan extensively quotes a great deal of such hymnology and poetry, much of it in strictly defined forms strange to Western ears and only surviving in fragments in day-to-day Orthodox liturgical practice. The form is often point-counterpoint, complete with plotlines and refrains, with personifications of Death, Hades, and Satan playing roles as Christ descends and destroys them, leading the captives out of Hell. The net effect is a form of indirect theological exposition which has greater power by being more evocative of emotions and imagery.
The actual Orthodox liturgy contains many explicit references to the Descent. The Metropolitan analyzes hundreds of these, carefully parsing their phrasing. This is the central piece of the Metropolitan’s argument; his aim is to demonstrate that the substantial majority of Orthodox liturgical references indicate that Christ released all the souls in Hell, and those that suggest otherwise strongly suggest that all the souls were at least given the opportunity to be released, regardless of their actions during life. John the Baptist, “last of the prophets and first of the apostles,” preached the Good News to them, making straight Christ’s path in Hell as on Earth, and then Christ himself preached. The Metropolitan notes the Orthodox belief that the angels were astonished at the result of the Descent, and repeatedly advocates that this only makes sense if Christ did something more dramatic than simply release the righteous who had been waiting for Him.
In other words, the Metropolitan is advocating a form of universalism, apocatastasis, the universal reconciliation, which is pretty common line of thought among the Orthodox. He touches on related claims, including the belief, most prominent in Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor, that Hell can be salutary—in other words, not that Hell does not exist, which is agreed to be false, but that positive spiritual movement is possible after death. This is not the same as the question of the disposition of the souls in Hades as a result of the Descent, but is obviously related. In the West, answering this question led to the development of Purgatory. But the Orthodox reject Purgatory, believing it to be, like the filioque, a bogus innovation. And without Purgatory, this line of thought necessarily implies some variant on universalism.
The Metropolitan never formally endorses universalism, but this is not for the same reason that modern heretics in the Roman church, led by the chief heretic, Pope Francis, dance on the edges of their heresies—that is, in order to be able to deny they are espousing heresy. Rather, it is because the answer is unknowable. “The answer to this mystery will be revealed only in the kingdom to come, in which we will see God as he is and in which God will be ‘all in all.’ ” He does point out the broad support existing for his position—for example, that the Orthodox, most notably in the services of Pentecost, pray for those in Hell. This alone suggests that universalism cannot be ruled out within the Orthodox tradition. Nor can it be ruled in. We will all have to wait and see, and we’ll all find out eventually, much sooner rather than later, in the grand scheme of things.
It is interesting to note that although the Western churches, both Catholic and Protestant, have long rejected universalism, it has recently crept back into the Roman church, in particular through the efforts of Hans Urs von Balthasar. It’s not precisely the same as Orthodox universalism, though; differences exist that exemplify certain different tendencies between West and East. Most notably, von Balthasar (it is said as a result of his close relationship with the mystic Adrienne von Speyr) put forth the idea, also found in Calvinism, that Christ suffered in his descent into Hades in the same way, or in a variation on the same way, as did the dead, or even the damned. Such an idea is wholly rejected by the East (the Metropolitan quotes Saint Athanasius to this effect), which views Christ as the Victor, even in his death, and as the One who put fear into evil after his death, not the reverse. But again, I am not qualified to say much about such matters.
Books like this, aside from spiritual value and academic interest, are valuable because they remove us from the quarrels of the day. If you’re tired of hearing about whatever is on the news, I strongly recommend reading this book, or another that appeals to you, as a way to both improve your own spiritual condition and to help yourself take the longer view—the permanent view, in fact.
May 15, 2019
The primary thought going through my head as I read this book was "wow, Eastern Christian theology has so much to teach us Western Christians."
The first part of this book is a look at the Bible and early church teaching on Jesus' descent into hell. Alfeyev shows, by quoting church fathers extensively, that the descent into hell was taken for granted. Within this though, there was mystery as to what exactly happened. Did Jesus release only the Old Testament saints? All righteous people? Everyone? In the face of this, we see how Augustine's view, which was not common at all, became the primary view in the west. Prior to Augustine, and in the entire Eastern church, no one believed God predestined some people while damning the rest. Sadly, this idea still pervades in much western Christianity.
Alfeyev spends the rest of the book going through later Eastern writers and then texts of the Eastern liturgy. In the end, he makes some conclusions that are rather mind-blowing. Christ descended into hell. But this was not a one-time thing, as nothing the incarnate Son did was only once. Rather, now there is no place in the Cosmos where God is not present. In the descent into hell, Jesus has conquered hell and hell remains a place of his presence.
On one hand, this could mean that people who continually resist God's love experience God's presence as hell. On the other hand, it means that people, even after death, have the freedom to choose to turn to God. Will everyone turn to God? Alfeyev does not say for certain, he leaves this as a mystery. That aside, I absolutely love this idea that in the Incarnation God has gone into every corner of the universe and there is nowhere without God's presence. Compare this view of the Incarnation with the common western idea that Jesus had to be God so the transactional nature of his death would work (God HAS to have wrath but thankfully God as Jesus can accept God's wrath). Apart from any other problems, it is continually amazing to learn the depth and breadth of other ideas and views about the meaning of the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection.
Agree or not, this book gives a lot to chew on in regards to who God is and what God has done.
The first part of this book is a look at the Bible and early church teaching on Jesus' descent into hell. Alfeyev shows, by quoting church fathers extensively, that the descent into hell was taken for granted. Within this though, there was mystery as to what exactly happened. Did Jesus release only the Old Testament saints? All righteous people? Everyone? In the face of this, we see how Augustine's view, which was not common at all, became the primary view in the west. Prior to Augustine, and in the entire Eastern church, no one believed God predestined some people while damning the rest. Sadly, this idea still pervades in much western Christianity.
Alfeyev spends the rest of the book going through later Eastern writers and then texts of the Eastern liturgy. In the end, he makes some conclusions that are rather mind-blowing. Christ descended into hell. But this was not a one-time thing, as nothing the incarnate Son did was only once. Rather, now there is no place in the Cosmos where God is not present. In the descent into hell, Jesus has conquered hell and hell remains a place of his presence.
On one hand, this could mean that people who continually resist God's love experience God's presence as hell. On the other hand, it means that people, even after death, have the freedom to choose to turn to God. Will everyone turn to God? Alfeyev does not say for certain, he leaves this as a mystery. That aside, I absolutely love this idea that in the Incarnation God has gone into every corner of the universe and there is nowhere without God's presence. Compare this view of the Incarnation with the common western idea that Jesus had to be God so the transactional nature of his death would work (God HAS to have wrath but thankfully God as Jesus can accept God's wrath). Apart from any other problems, it is continually amazing to learn the depth and breadth of other ideas and views about the meaning of the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection.
Agree or not, this book gives a lot to chew on in regards to who God is and what God has done.
November 8, 2023
(3.5 stars). A useful overview of the subject from an Eastern perspective, but far too short (and then half the book is just = liturgical hymns reproduced verbatim?); still, it's interesting to see the universal agreement (in the early/patristic era) on some version of the harrowing of Hell. Unfortunately, though, this book suffers from the standard shortcoming of the vast majority of Eastern Orthodox theological monographs published in the English-speaking world in the past few decades . . . namely, an incredibly shallow and cursory examination of Western/Catholic perspectives, where the author inevitably (1) mentions a random passage in Aquinas, (2) mentions a random passage in Augustine (usually late Augustine), and then, in mind-boggling fashion, reduces a vast and multifarious 2,000-year tradition of Western mystical / liturgical / dogmatic theology to these two passages, vaguely hand-waving away the entire Western Christian tradition as 'rationalist'.
* * *
Actually I might as well go into more detail here, as I did a ton of research on this, years ago: the only reason that Scholasticism didn’t catch on in the East (though it started there) was the trials in the 1070s-1080s against Platonists accused of corrupting Christian thought (John Italus and Michael Psellus), plus the general Byzantine anti-Roman bias and focus on mysticism and charismatic figures, etc. Ever since the Council of Sardica (342), and probably even earlier, it's clear that there was a different style/approach to theology in the East and West (in terms of understanding papal primacy, various ways of expressing theological truths, etc.); in the first thousand years this was largely seen as complementary by both sides, but of course by the Schism there was a more polemical attitude. Post-Schism scholarly humanists in Byzantium were not readily accepted, at all; the negative attitude toward Greek philosophy was mainly because Greek philosophy in the East tended to be Platonism . . . Aristotle is more easily folded into Christianity, whereas Platonism has tended to be used to support heresies (Gnosticism, etc).
Byzantium only accepted the fourth-seventh century synthesis of the fathers and pagan thought, but never the new synthesis found in Catholic Scholasticism. It's noteworthy, however, that Orthodox seminaries used neo-Scholastic manuals in the 1500s, 1600s, 1700s (until the modern Orthodox ressourcement movement, the Philokalia, etc.), and Catholicism, like most religions, has had mystics for its entire history . . . they just didn't teach in the schools at Paris and London. At the time of Aquinas, Scotus, Ockham, etc., you still had plenty of Catholic mystics who were popular among the laity.
In any event, the humanists in Byzantium (who were open to Scholasticism) were fully Christian, but every year all theologians were forced to repeat an anathema against Hellenic sciences. The typically uneducated Athonite monks who actually controlled Orthodox bishoprics and culture rejected Greek philosophy as “the deceiving appearance of true wisdom” (Meyendorff). The famous debate between Palamas and Barlaam led to a stronger emphasis on hesychasm/mysticism (versus Scholasticism) and unfortunately “the victory of the monastic party in 1347-1351 simply implied the reaffirmation of a watchdog policy of the church against possible resurgence of secular humanism” (Meyendorff again), even if such secular learning was used for good purposes. Orthodox tend to wrongly see Scholasticism as looking to nature in Aristotle’s sense (self-contained, divorced from nature as created by God) rather than natural man as the man in Christ. See de Lubac on this issue, however; it's an Orthodox misunderstanding of the premises of Scholasticism that confuses a handful of later Thomists with Aquinas himself.
It was only in the late fourteenth century that we begin to see the translation of great Western Scholastic works into Greek, used by many Byzantine theologians against Islam. Cydones was particularly important here (Meyendorff):
It's also worth noting that Greek theology was very "cultural" in the sense that all educated people knew it, and there were a lot of educated people in Byzantium; civil servants, random people on the street, etc., which led to cultural conservatism, more resistance to Scholasticism and development. In the West, the schools were separate in a cultural sense (using Latin versus vernacular, etc.), and hence had more independence. Byzantine monks were usually in the cities, and virtually all bishops were originally mystics/monks, which led to a very strong emphasis on mysticism and the traditional pre-Scholastic synthesis of philosophy/theology found in the first thousand years. See for example (quoted in Nichols) a Byzantine theologian in 1429:
In a sense you could say that Orthodoxy becomes Pietism, a curiously modern rejection of discursive rationality as used in Scholasticism. This leads to Orthodox readings of Catholic Scholasticism and mysticism that are . . . problematic (Patriarch Bartholomew):
This is, in my opinion, completely wrong; Catholicism obviously contains genuine mystical experience of God (?!) and there are plenty of ways to describe the experience of God without the theologically vague and problematic concept of essences/energies of God (also, as A. N. Williams shows, Aquinas and Palamas were saying roughly the same thing, just in slightly different terminology). As one Orthodox commentator puts it (Henry Reardon):
Maybe an even simpler rubric would just be to look at the general tendency in Christianity to have varying degrees of accommodation of pagan culture/philosophy: to give modern examples, at one extreme you have the early Luther (rejecting virtually all pagan philosophy and post-apostolic theology as being corrupted by a pagan 'Babylonian captivity'), and on the other end, Hegel, who literally subsumes/sublates Christianity within philosophy, stating in his letters that he considered himself to be a Christian theologian, and in his lectures on the philosophy of religion that he saw himself as the heir to the Scholastics, completing their project. The Orthodox rejection of, and Catholic embrace of, Scholasticism are closer to the middle of this spectrum . . . but there have been varying emphases on "mysticism-charismatic-subjectivity" versus "rationalism-theology-scholasticism," kataphatic versus apophatic theology, etc., throughout the history of Christianity.
* * *
Actually I might as well go into more detail here, as I did a ton of research on this, years ago: the only reason that Scholasticism didn’t catch on in the East (though it started there) was the trials in the 1070s-1080s against Platonists accused of corrupting Christian thought (John Italus and Michael Psellus), plus the general Byzantine anti-Roman bias and focus on mysticism and charismatic figures, etc. Ever since the Council of Sardica (342), and probably even earlier, it's clear that there was a different style/approach to theology in the East and West (in terms of understanding papal primacy, various ways of expressing theological truths, etc.); in the first thousand years this was largely seen as complementary by both sides, but of course by the Schism there was a more polemical attitude. Post-Schism scholarly humanists in Byzantium were not readily accepted, at all; the negative attitude toward Greek philosophy was mainly because Greek philosophy in the East tended to be Platonism . . . Aristotle is more easily folded into Christianity, whereas Platonism has tended to be used to support heresies (Gnosticism, etc).
Byzantium only accepted the fourth-seventh century synthesis of the fathers and pagan thought, but never the new synthesis found in Catholic Scholasticism. It's noteworthy, however, that Orthodox seminaries used neo-Scholastic manuals in the 1500s, 1600s, 1700s (until the modern Orthodox ressourcement movement, the Philokalia, etc.), and Catholicism, like most religions, has had mystics for its entire history . . . they just didn't teach in the schools at Paris and London. At the time of Aquinas, Scotus, Ockham, etc., you still had plenty of Catholic mystics who were popular among the laity.
In any event, the humanists in Byzantium (who were open to Scholasticism) were fully Christian, but every year all theologians were forced to repeat an anathema against Hellenic sciences. The typically uneducated Athonite monks who actually controlled Orthodox bishoprics and culture rejected Greek philosophy as “the deceiving appearance of true wisdom” (Meyendorff). The famous debate between Palamas and Barlaam led to a stronger emphasis on hesychasm/mysticism (versus Scholasticism) and unfortunately “the victory of the monastic party in 1347-1351 simply implied the reaffirmation of a watchdog policy of the church against possible resurgence of secular humanism” (Meyendorff again), even if such secular learning was used for good purposes. Orthodox tend to wrongly see Scholasticism as looking to nature in Aristotle’s sense (self-contained, divorced from nature as created by God) rather than natural man as the man in Christ. See de Lubac on this issue, however; it's an Orthodox misunderstanding of the premises of Scholasticism that confuses a handful of later Thomists with Aquinas himself.
It was only in the late fourteenth century that we begin to see the translation of great Western Scholastic works into Greek, used by many Byzantine theologians against Islam. Cydones was particularly important here (Meyendorff):
The religious evolution of Demetrius Cydones was determined by his discovery of Thomism as a philosophical system. As he himself clearly states in his writings, he suddenly discovered that the Latin West was not a barbarian land of “darkness,” as Byzantine humanists since the time of Photius thought it to be, but a new dynamic civilization, where ancient Greek philosophy was prized more than in Byzantium itself. He then began to castigate his compatriots for considering that in the whole universe there are only Greeks and barbarians . . . that Latins in particular are never able to rise intellectually above the requirements of the military or merchant professions, while in fact so many Latin scholars were dedicated to the study of Plato and Aristotle . . . “They show great thirst for walking in the labyrinths of Aristotle and Plato, for which our people never showed interest.” . . . Thomas Aquinas, and certainly also the Italian Renaissance, were more “Greek” than Byzantium, especially since the latter has been taken over by the heyschasts [i.e. mystics]. . . . Who can blame him for discovering that the classical Hellenic heritage was better kept in the universities of the Latin West than among the religious zealots of Mount Athos?
It's also worth noting that Greek theology was very "cultural" in the sense that all educated people knew it, and there were a lot of educated people in Byzantium; civil servants, random people on the street, etc., which led to cultural conservatism, more resistance to Scholasticism and development. In the West, the schools were separate in a cultural sense (using Latin versus vernacular, etc.), and hence had more independence. Byzantine monks were usually in the cities, and virtually all bishops were originally mystics/monks, which led to a very strong emphasis on mysticism and the traditional pre-Scholastic synthesis of philosophy/theology found in the first thousand years. See for example (quoted in Nichols) a Byzantine theologian in 1429:
I too, if I wanted, could have sophistical arguments with syllogisms better than yours. But I do not want. I ask my proof from the fathers and their writings. You will oppose to me Aristotle and Plato, or perhaps your recent doctors; against them I put the sinners of Galilee with their frank speech, their wisdom and seeming madness.
In a sense you could say that Orthodoxy becomes Pietism, a curiously modern rejection of discursive rationality as used in Scholasticism. This leads to Orthodox readings of Catholic Scholasticism and mysticism that are . . . problematic (Patriarch Bartholomew):
Western Scholasticism reduced divine truths and god himself to mere concepts. Communion with God is a conceptual enterprise. And so the genuine experience of God, beyond concepts and ideas, the participation in the uncreated light and, generally, the uncreated energies – all of this becomes an impossibility for the west.
This is, in my opinion, completely wrong; Catholicism obviously contains genuine mystical experience of God (?!) and there are plenty of ways to describe the experience of God without the theologically vague and problematic concept of essences/energies of God (also, as A. N. Williams shows, Aquinas and Palamas were saying roughly the same thing, just in slightly different terminology). As one Orthodox commentator puts it (Henry Reardon):
What almost always passes for Orthodox theology among English-speaking Orthodox these days is actually just a branch of the larger Orthodox picture. Indeed, it tends sometimes to be rather sectarian. The Orthodox Church is an ancient castle, as it were, of which only two or three rooms have been much in use since about 1920. These two or three rooms were furnished by the Russian émigrés in Paris between the two World Wars. This furniture is heavily neo-Palamite and anti-Scholastic. It relies heavily on the Cappadocians, Maximus, and Gregory Palamas . . . Anything that does not fit comfortably into that model is dismissed as Western and even non-Orthodox . . . this popular neo-Palamite brand of Orthodoxy, though it quotes Damascene when it is convenient, never really engages Damascene’s manifestly Scholastic approach to theology. Much less does it have any use for the other early Scholastic theologians, such as Theodore the Studite and Euthymus Zygabenus. There is no recognition that Scholasticism was born in the East, not the West, and that only the rise of the Turk kept it from flourishing in the East.
Maybe an even simpler rubric would just be to look at the general tendency in Christianity to have varying degrees of accommodation of pagan culture/philosophy: to give modern examples, at one extreme you have the early Luther (rejecting virtually all pagan philosophy and post-apostolic theology as being corrupted by a pagan 'Babylonian captivity'), and on the other end, Hegel, who literally subsumes/sublates Christianity within philosophy, stating in his letters that he considered himself to be a Christian theologian, and in his lectures on the philosophy of religion that he saw himself as the heir to the Scholastics, completing their project. The Orthodox rejection of, and Catholic embrace of, Scholasticism are closer to the middle of this spectrum . . . but there have been varying emphases on "mysticism-charismatic-subjectivity" versus "rationalism-theology-scholasticism," kataphatic versus apophatic theology, etc., throughout the history of Christianity.
March 26, 2013
This book surprised me. Archbishop Hilarion (I love that name) Alfeyev has done great theological work, which he's presented very clearly. The perspective of the Orthodox Church is that Scripture's teaching (as well as the creeds and much of the tradition and the liturgy) emphasizes that Jesus planned to willingly descend into hell to break the bars and chains, set the captives free, and conquer death and hell for eternity. This materal was exciting (at least for someone like me) to read!
Apart from the content, I learned something from the author that I will treasure: his humility. He presents various perspectives respectfully and open-handedly, allowing one to make up one's own mind. I am chastened by his humility, and I hope to emulate it in my own writing from now on.
And I love some of the early (4th-8th) century dramas and dialogues (for instance, between Death and Hell, or Hades and Jesus); they are unique, creative, and at times had me laughing out loud.
Apart from the content, I learned something from the author that I will treasure: his humility. He presents various perspectives respectfully and open-handedly, allowing one to make up one's own mind. I am chastened by his humility, and I hope to emulate it in my own writing from now on.
And I love some of the early (4th-8th) century dramas and dialogues (for instance, between Death and Hell, or Hades and Jesus); they are unique, creative, and at times had me laughing out loud.
January 14, 2022
A most interesting exploration of the doctrine of Christ's Descent into Hell as seen through biblical and apocryphal texts, the church fathers, orthodox poetry, and liturgy. For the most part, the Easern Church assumed that Christ defeated the devil, stripped the power of hell, and opened the gates so that all might hear and respond to Christ's message of salvation. There were differences of opinion, as to whether all were released or only those who responded to the message. But what is clear, the audience was much wider than most western theologians allowed.
June 27, 2022
Hilarion has presented an incredibly well-researched and thorough analysis of the teachings of Christ's descent into hell from the Scriptures, early apocryphal writings, church fathers, and Orthodox liturgies. Though his analysis of the texts themselves is weak, Hilarion is concerned with establishing prayer and liturgical practices themselves as the primary purveyors of theological systems. Though he comes to some bizarre conclusions (for example, "[Adam's] liberation from the chains of hell signifies the renewal of all [people]," p. 166, or "Each person must vanquish hell and the devil within and overcome the inner power that opposes the will to God," p. 180), this book is worth reading for anyone open to learning more about why this doctrine has been so important in the history of the Christian church.
August 8, 2013
I found it an exciting overview of how liturgy and theology together reflect the Orthodox view of redemption in the narrow sense of Christ harrowing Hell. The early church writing as well as the poetry grow into a consistent liturgical package of the church's belief. It is based on a broad view of forgiveness and redemption.
I enjoyed it for the knowledge as well as the "hearing" of the verses.
I enjoyed it for the knowledge as well as the "hearing" of the verses.
March 7, 2017
Excellent exploration of the meaning of Christ's descent into Hades, the liturgical texts, and the festal meanings.
March 17, 2021
This is an excellent systematic study from New Testament thru early liturgies, thru the church fathers thru later liturgical innovations on the Paschal Troparion and the icon of the Harrowing of Hades. This Russian metropolitan creates a methodical case for all are save and then in his last chapter back tracks. I see the last chapter as his way of placating the hierarchy in the Russian Orthodox Church just enough to not get called on the carpet for his premise and the back up proofs. This lip service is sad but understandable for his viability in the church. Please read and let me know what you think.
November 6, 2023
Really quite excellent. Verged on 5 stars- while not paradigm-shifting, this study is perhaps the best argument for a ‘hopeful universalism’ I have yet read.
Alfeyev is obviously a genius, even of you disagree with him, and his writing is a pleasure to read.
Alfeyev is obviously a genius, even of you disagree with him, and his writing is a pleasure to read.
December 14, 2025
Such a powerful look into the church's teachings on Christ conquering hell and all its ramifications. A top 3 for me.
July 16, 2020
Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev's little book focuses on Christ's Harrowing of Hell, the event commemorated on the Holy Saturday in the Orthodox Church but relatively unknown to most people. In short, after His crucifixion, Christ is believed to have descended to Hell, preached to the damned and released people from Hell – the theologians disagree whether He released only some Old Testament saints who were residing in Hell's air-conditioned section or – indeed – all people, as sung in in a few Orthodox hymns. The latter interpretation is obviously flirting with universalism, although the Metropolitan doesn't go quite that far. He restricts himself to presenting the various texts on the topic and stating that the evidence is inconclusive.
Among the most fascinating parts of the book there are 4th and 5th century Christian hymns written by St Ephrem the Syrian and St Romanos The Melodist. They take the form of dialogues between the Christ, Satan and personified Death and they reminded me more of a Neil Gaiman book than a typical Christian Sunday School material.
Christ The Conqueror of Hell is written in an academic style easily approachable at least to anybody educated or willing to be educated, and despite the fringe subject of the book, it can be recommended to anybody interested in Orthodox Christianity or Christianity in general.
Among the most fascinating parts of the book there are 4th and 5th century Christian hymns written by St Ephrem the Syrian and St Romanos The Melodist. They take the form of dialogues between the Christ, Satan and personified Death and they reminded me more of a Neil Gaiman book than a typical Christian Sunday School material.
Christ The Conqueror of Hell is written in an academic style easily approachable at least to anybody educated or willing to be educated, and despite the fringe subject of the book, it can be recommended to anybody interested in Orthodox Christianity or Christianity in general.
May 4, 2024
A glorious compilation of liturgical, scriptural, and patristic texts regarding the decent of Christ into hades! This book literally blew my mind on so many levels that no review could suffice. Seriously, just read it.
“You descend, O beloved Child, into the abodes of Hades, In order to hide yourself in a refuge where you choose to be hidden.
However, descending into the darkest cave of Hades, You introduce to Hades the bitterest sting.
You descend into the valley of the dead and to the gates of darkness
Desiring to illuminate and shine upon the [human] race, To raise Adam, the father of mortals,
For whose sake you assumed and carried the image of the mortal.
You descend into a deep and gloomy darkness of Hades, Having accepted death from enemies and having left your,
Mother sorrowful.
But the good will of the Father will slay you In order to bring salvation to others.
It was the Father's goodness that brought you to death.
O bitter mourning! The earth receives you, O Child, When you descend to the dark gates of Hades In order to pierce Hades by the sharpest arrow.
For you descend there alone
In order to take the dead [with you] and not in order to be
taken by the dead
And in order to liberate all, for you alone are free.
For you are the only man who dares to do this, You alone suffer for human nature.
But the feats which you accomplished have now finished, And you win victory over the enemies,
Having put to flight Hades, the serpent and death....
Having seized the [human] race, you will immediately depart [from Hades] with glory, O King, immortal King, remaining God, But uniting human nature with your image.
And now you descend into the abodes of Hades, Desiring to illuminate and shine upon darkness.”
“You descend, O beloved Child, into the abodes of Hades, In order to hide yourself in a refuge where you choose to be hidden.
However, descending into the darkest cave of Hades, You introduce to Hades the bitterest sting.
You descend into the valley of the dead and to the gates of darkness
Desiring to illuminate and shine upon the [human] race, To raise Adam, the father of mortals,
For whose sake you assumed and carried the image of the mortal.
You descend into a deep and gloomy darkness of Hades, Having accepted death from enemies and having left your,
Mother sorrowful.
But the good will of the Father will slay you In order to bring salvation to others.
It was the Father's goodness that brought you to death.
O bitter mourning! The earth receives you, O Child, When you descend to the dark gates of Hades In order to pierce Hades by the sharpest arrow.
For you descend there alone
In order to take the dead [with you] and not in order to be
taken by the dead
And in order to liberate all, for you alone are free.
For you are the only man who dares to do this, You alone suffer for human nature.
But the feats which you accomplished have now finished, And you win victory over the enemies,
Having put to flight Hades, the serpent and death....
Having seized the [human] race, you will immediately depart [from Hades] with glory, O King, immortal King, remaining God, But uniting human nature with your image.
And now you descend into the abodes of Hades, Desiring to illuminate and shine upon darkness.”
August 7, 2014
excellent survey of the Orthodox view on the descent of Christ into hell after the crucifixion. the first part of the book examines the viewpoints of various Eastern (and a few Western) theologians and liturgists, and the second half includes numerous excerpts from the liturgical tradition of the church, which, as the Archbishop points out, is second only to Scripture in authority for the doctrine of the church. the last chapter is a theological summary of what Christ's descent means.
highly recommended for Christians of all persuasions.
highly recommended for Christians of all persuasions.
April 15, 2012
A good compilation of texts related to Christ's Descent into hades but, as I suspected, it's a bit dry and scholarly. If you want something along the same lines but a bit more accessible Fr. Anthony Coniaris' "No Matter How Deep the Darkness He Descends Deeper Still" is quite good.
March 30, 2012
A good summary of the Orthodox Church's view on Christ descent into the place of the dead from which He arises, destroying death in the process. Many quotes from texts canonical and non-canonical, from Church Fathers and the liturgical texts. A good book to immerse yourself into the topic.
March 13, 2024
Death, where is your sting ?
Hell, where is your victory?
Christ has risen and you are abolished!
Christ has risen and the demons have fallen!Christ has risen and angels rejoice!
Christ has risen and life has found freedom!
Christ has risen and there is not a single corpse in the grave!
The teaching on the decent into hades, as set forth in 1 Peter 3:18-21, brings an entirely new perspective into our understanding of the mystery of salvation.
“For existence after death is not a transfer from a dynamic into a static being, but rather a continuation on a new level of that road which a person followed in his or her lifetime”
The destination point for all humanity and every individual is the fullness of deification in which God becomes “all in all” it is for this deification that God first created man and then, when “the time had fully come” became man, suffered, died, descended to hades, and was raised from the dead.
Exhaustive examples of early church writings expounding on 1 Peter 3. In the book was A 1700 year old text that c.s Lewis seemed to mirror when writing thescrewtape letters, was very interesting to read.
“Now hell is no more a place of oblivion and abandonment by God but a place where he is present in his life just as he is in paradise. Gods love, however, a fount of joy and exultation for those who have attained the kingdom of heaven, becomes a source of never ending torment for those in hell. “
Since Christs descent, the way to resurrection has been opened for all flesh, salvation has been granted to every human being, and the gates of paradise have been opened for all who wish to enter through them. This is the faith of the early church, inherited from the first generation of Christians and cherished by Orthodox tradition.
This is the never-extinguished hope of all those who believe in Christ, who once and for all conquered death, destroyed hell, and granted resurrection to the entire human race.
Hell, where is your victory?
Christ has risen and you are abolished!
Christ has risen and the demons have fallen!Christ has risen and angels rejoice!
Christ has risen and life has found freedom!
Christ has risen and there is not a single corpse in the grave!
The teaching on the decent into hades, as set forth in 1 Peter 3:18-21, brings an entirely new perspective into our understanding of the mystery of salvation.
“For existence after death is not a transfer from a dynamic into a static being, but rather a continuation on a new level of that road which a person followed in his or her lifetime”
The destination point for all humanity and every individual is the fullness of deification in which God becomes “all in all” it is for this deification that God first created man and then, when “the time had fully come” became man, suffered, died, descended to hades, and was raised from the dead.
Exhaustive examples of early church writings expounding on 1 Peter 3. In the book was A 1700 year old text that c.s Lewis seemed to mirror when writing thescrewtape letters, was very interesting to read.
“Now hell is no more a place of oblivion and abandonment by God but a place where he is present in his life just as he is in paradise. Gods love, however, a fount of joy and exultation for those who have attained the kingdom of heaven, becomes a source of never ending torment for those in hell. “
Since Christs descent, the way to resurrection has been opened for all flesh, salvation has been granted to every human being, and the gates of paradise have been opened for all who wish to enter through them. This is the faith of the early church, inherited from the first generation of Christians and cherished by Orthodox tradition.
This is the never-extinguished hope of all those who believe in Christ, who once and for all conquered death, destroyed hell, and granted resurrection to the entire human race.
September 11, 2021
In this book Metropolitan Alfayev exposes the reader to the doctrine of Christ’s descent into and conquering of Hades through a survey of apocryphal, patristic, poetic, and liturgical texts of the Eastern (and some Western) tradition. I came to this book already enticed and majorly convinced of the idea of apokatastasis detailed in St. Gregory of Nyssa’s writings, but I was never confronted with the absolute wealth of material, particularly in the liturgical texts, which detail the absolute destruction of Hades and Christ’s saving all the dead. Of course, some in the Western (mainly) and Eastern tradition see the effect as limited, but the overwhelming majority of patriotic sources as well as liturgical sources see it as universal. Met. Alfayev details at the end of the book that the liturgy holds a high place (he states it is second after scripture) in the hierarchy of authoritative sources in the Eastern tradition, which inevitably means that the belief that everyone was saved from hell is allowed and not condemned since the liturgy affirms this belief. A particularly poignant part of the book was when he mentioned the Pentecost Vespers special kneeling prayers which pray for those immured in hell. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the topic but even those who are skeptical or ignorant of it. Met. Alfayev gives a balanced and thorough treatment to the doctrine of the divine descent that is indispensable given the paucity of the topic in modern scholarship.
May 10, 2025
I started this book forever ago and it has taken me a while to get through it. It is much more of a study on the way the Orthodox have historically understood the Resurrection and the theological understanding. Not an easy read as it leans heavily into the scholarship side of theology and I kept being reminded while reading it of books I referenced or read for religion classes in college. It is explored through the writings of church fathers, hymnography, iconography, and services of the church.
I really enjoyed the section on Romanos the Melodist and learning about his contributions the hymnography of the church. The liturgy is so old it is easy to forget that he he kontakion, troparia, and cannon were not something that all came together at the same time but developed through the ages and in different centuries.
“The decent into Hades does not fit in with our usual, human ideas of justice, retribution, fulfillment of duty, the rewarding of the righteous, and the punishment of the guilty.”
“The salvation o humanity, a fruit of synergy between God and man, had already been accomplished by Christ through his incarnation, suffering, death, descent into Hades, and resurrection.”
This quote stood out to me when talking about dogma and the Orthodox Church and personal opinion, “If personal opinions are expressed by a father of the church and not condemned by a church council, they are considered to be within the boundaries of what is allowed and possible. They cannot, however, be regarded as obligatory for the Orthodox faithful.”
I really enjoyed the section on Romanos the Melodist and learning about his contributions the hymnography of the church. The liturgy is so old it is easy to forget that he he kontakion, troparia, and cannon were not something that all came together at the same time but developed through the ages and in different centuries.
“The decent into Hades does not fit in with our usual, human ideas of justice, retribution, fulfillment of duty, the rewarding of the righteous, and the punishment of the guilty.”
“The salvation o humanity, a fruit of synergy between God and man, had already been accomplished by Christ through his incarnation, suffering, death, descent into Hades, and resurrection.”
This quote stood out to me when talking about dogma and the Orthodox Church and personal opinion, “If personal opinions are expressed by a father of the church and not condemned by a church council, they are considered to be within the boundaries of what is allowed and possible. They cannot, however, be regarded as obligatory for the Orthodox faithful.”
July 6, 2023
Growing up Methodist, I said the Apostles Creed regularly. But, since I became Evangelical, I've challenged the idea of Christ descending into hell. A younger me would say it's weird, unnecessary, and unbiblical.
More recently, I've accepted the common view that the Apostles Creed is inerrant, and, thus, Christ must have descended into hell. This book helped make sense of that belief. Not only is Christ's descent fitting, it's theologically necessary. Otherwise, everyone would go to hell when they died. Christ descended in order to destroy the locks of hell. Additionally, all people aren't merely destined to die, they're destined to descend into hell. Thus, for Jesus to atone for our sins via substitution, he had to descend into hell in our place. He suffered and died in our place, and it's fitting he'd go to hell in our place too. Otherwise, humanity hasn't served its entire sentence. Lastly, the descent demonstrates the theological need for Christ to return. When he ascended the first time, he brought the saints in hell with him. For the newer saints to ascend, Christ must come again.
Christ The Conqueror Of Hell was a thorough and convincing, yet humorless look into church history concerning Christ's descent into hell. Additionally, it was helpful to contrast Catholic vs Orthodox teaching on the matter. I highly recommend this book, but only to folks that are invested enough in the subject material to overcome its dry style.
More recently, I've accepted the common view that the Apostles Creed is inerrant, and, thus, Christ must have descended into hell. This book helped make sense of that belief. Not only is Christ's descent fitting, it's theologically necessary. Otherwise, everyone would go to hell when they died. Christ descended in order to destroy the locks of hell. Additionally, all people aren't merely destined to die, they're destined to descend into hell. Thus, for Jesus to atone for our sins via substitution, he had to descend into hell in our place. He suffered and died in our place, and it's fitting he'd go to hell in our place too. Otherwise, humanity hasn't served its entire sentence. Lastly, the descent demonstrates the theological need for Christ to return. When he ascended the first time, he brought the saints in hell with him. For the newer saints to ascend, Christ must come again.
Christ The Conqueror Of Hell was a thorough and convincing, yet humorless look into church history concerning Christ's descent into hell. Additionally, it was helpful to contrast Catholic vs Orthodox teaching on the matter. I highly recommend this book, but only to folks that are invested enough in the subject material to overcome its dry style.
April 23, 2021
This book is nothing if not comprehensive and has been perhaps the most enlightening of my lenten reads. Like all things worthwhile in Orthodox theology and apologetics this book (unlike so much that I read on any particular topic when I was a protestant) is totally holistic, showcasing how there is nothing "narrow", "unique", or even "special" about Christ's descent into hell but how it was and is (and remains) a defining and necessary doctrine in Orthodoxy. Metropolitan Hilarion has a gift for being at once incredibly detailed (and even repetitive) while simultaneously illustrating the specific yet universal depth of a multitude of scriptural, "apocryphal", patristic, and especially liturgical texts on this most important event in cosmic soteriological history. He also contrasts Western and Eastern understandings (and does so chronologically) further solidifying the REAL distinctions between the Eastern and Western churches IN TIME; yes, Catholicism and Protestantism do INDEED have more in common with one another when it comes to the "big stuff" then does Orthodoxy and Catholicism. One odd recommendation–it might ACTUALLY be helpful to read the first few pages of the epilogue FIRST (but not the entire epilogue) as he very expertly elucidates how Orthodoxy responds to and "ranks" sources of doctrine. Perhaps that would have made a helpful preface on its own. Χριστος Ανεστη!
April 27, 2021
This was a fascinating read, one that I started during Holy Week and continued to read during the Paschal season. Some reviews I'd read critiqued it for being quote-heavy, but I really appreciated that about it. Archbishop Hilarion really lets his points about the significance of Christ's descent into hell be made by scripture, liturgical tradition and the writings of the Church fathers. The texts quoted from all of these sources are beautiful, thought-provoking, and powerful to meditate upon, and they're well-organized, explaining well the hierarchy of sources from which Orthodox tradition is drawn, and what, from the Orthodox perspective, is considered general Church teaching, and what is considered the personal opinion of various Fathers of the Church. I appreciated his emphasis on the importance of liturgical texts, for "lex credendi, lex orandi".
He really challenged my relatively Western mindset on the subject of Christ's descent into Hades and its significance for salvation of all mankind. I was amazed by the sheer number of liturgical texts and writings of the Church fathers which put forth such a rich tradition about Christ's descent into hell; which I think is somewhat taken for granted in the West which places so much emphasis on Christ's physical, earthly sufferings prior to death. I definitely think this will be a book I will come back to, especially during Great and Holy Week.
He really challenged my relatively Western mindset on the subject of Christ's descent into Hades and its significance for salvation of all mankind. I was amazed by the sheer number of liturgical texts and writings of the Church fathers which put forth such a rich tradition about Christ's descent into hell; which I think is somewhat taken for granted in the West which places so much emphasis on Christ's physical, earthly sufferings prior to death. I definitely think this will be a book I will come back to, especially during Great and Holy Week.
March 24, 2019
This is the second book I have read specifically for Lent this year. It is more an anthology than a proper work of theology. In it, Alfeyev surveys the Eastern Orthodox tradition in relation to that ever mysterious part of the New Testament narrative, Christ's descent into hell (hell is also called Hades, Sheol, etc.). The Orthodox tradition is congruent and continuous with the earliest Christian writings after the New Testament era. The idea, roughly, is that Christ's taking on of humanity ended not on earth but in the place of the dead, where He entered not as defeated by death but as victorious over it. Whereas prior to this hell was an inescapable prison, after Christ's death the gates of hell are broken; hell becomes a place where God Himself is present rather than absent. As a result, there is hope that the offer of salvation has been extended to all humanity, not just in life but in death; and there is even hope that all will accept the offer of salvation (if anyone stays in hell, it is only by their own choice). As a Protestant who has always avoided the topic of Christ's descent to hell due to the lack of clear biblical data on it, this was an informative read!
May 30, 2018
A very interesting and informative overview of Christ's descent into hell (beginning with an explanation of the differences between terms, such as "hell", "Gehenna", and "Tartarus", commonly used interchangeably resulting in confusion for all).
The Harrowing of Hell is a far more complicated and multi-faceted doctrine than I had been lead to believe by experiences in western Christianity including the inseparable relationship between it and the so-called "Christus Victor" theory of atonement.
I found the teachings quoted and alluded to extremely insightful. Many such teachings, especially St. John of Damascene's last quoted text, gives credence to the idea of inclusivism as an outworking of Christ's victory of Death, Hell, and Satan.
All in all I recommend for anyone interested in theology, especially those looking for a flushed out view of early Christian soteriological perspectives.
The Harrowing of Hell is a far more complicated and multi-faceted doctrine than I had been lead to believe by experiences in western Christianity including the inseparable relationship between it and the so-called "Christus Victor" theory of atonement.
I found the teachings quoted and alluded to extremely insightful. Many such teachings, especially St. John of Damascene's last quoted text, gives credence to the idea of inclusivism as an outworking of Christ's victory of Death, Hell, and Satan.
All in all I recommend for anyone interested in theology, especially those looking for a flushed out view of early Christian soteriological perspectives.
April 5, 2019
The Archbishop provided a thorough survey of the tradition of Christ's descent into hell. While it gets a little repetitive because of the frequent citing of liturgy and hymns, it nevertheless strongly get across the point that its happening, contra Protestantism, was undisputed doctrine in the universal church. The Archbishop's honesty concerning differences between the East and the West on the salvific significance of this doctrine was important and refreshing. While I found myself to be on the Eastern side I now have a better understanding of why the West believes what it does about this event. In addition, this book is a knock-down argument against the notion that post-mortem conversion is impossible.
July 19, 2019
Extremely thorough, informative, and clear.
This book surveys Christian writings concerning the descent of Christ into Hades beginning in the NT and NT apocryphal literature, going through Patristic sources, later poetic and liturgical texts, and then finally current Orthodox Liturgical texts. One thing this book establishes clearly is that for the Fathers, and in the eastern liturgies, the descent of Christ is extraordinarily significant. It is central to their understanding of Christ's victory over death and hell.
Having said that, unless you are very interested in a thorough survey on this topic, you will find yourself skimming a good deal.
This book surveys Christian writings concerning the descent of Christ into Hades beginning in the NT and NT apocryphal literature, going through Patristic sources, later poetic and liturgical texts, and then finally current Orthodox Liturgical texts. One thing this book establishes clearly is that for the Fathers, and in the eastern liturgies, the descent of Christ is extraordinarily significant. It is central to their understanding of Christ's victory over death and hell.
Having said that, unless you are very interested in a thorough survey on this topic, you will find yourself skimming a good deal.
August 3, 2024
This book looks at Christ's descent into hell or hades on Holy Saturday to set free those who had died before his coming. It was written by a Moscow-based Orthodox priest, so it focuses on the Orthodox tradition, although it also includes some Western Christian thinkers as well. The author explains the Orthodox perspective that Christ destroyed hell, and set everyone free who was there. It is an interesting subject, but the book is more of a literature review, and doesn't really lay out the author's own perspective very clearly.
March 22, 2025
Very interesting overview of the different strains of early Christian and contemporary Orthodox thought when it comes to Christ's descent into hell.
I can't imagine a better outline of the topic for someone (like myself) who knew very little about it. Alfeyev writes in a detailed (but not pedantic) manner that really helps with understanding the sources of these different strains of thought, elucidating them clearly, and finally wrapping up in a nice epilogue that ties everything explored neatly together.
I can't imagine a better outline of the topic for someone (like myself) who knew very little about it. Alfeyev writes in a detailed (but not pedantic) manner that really helps with understanding the sources of these different strains of thought, elucidating them clearly, and finally wrapping up in a nice epilogue that ties everything explored neatly together.
June 28, 2020
A compilation of texts from the Orthodox tradition that deal with Christ's descent into Hades. There are texts from scripture, the early Church Fathers, the orthodox liturgy and liturgical poetry. Many support a Universalist interpretation, some a more limited one -- it is not a settled question in Orthodox theology. You have to be very interested in this subject to make it through this book, especially if you're not a Christian, but I wanted to see the source material.
April 26, 2021
Excellent work from His Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion of the Russian Orthodox Church in demonstrating and explaining the Orthodox view of Christ's decent into hell and the implications of this doctrine. He looks at Biblical, patristic (East and West), and Liturgical data that show that Christ defeated death, plundered it, and freed its captives. Hell has no more power through the power of the Cross.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews