Let's Talk About Hell

[Christos Anesti]

Propitiation is translated from the Greek 'ilasterion (hilasterion), ... Another Greek word, 'ilasmoV (hilasmos), is used for Christ as our propitiation

"ilasterion" doesn't seem to be that differnt than "hilasterion"?

 

[Christos Anesti]

I think this article does a good job of providing an Orthodox understanding of the attonment. It's a little vociferus in its attacks on "Western theology**" (and for that I apologize) but it makes some really good points so i will link to it anyway.


** He seems to lump all of the diverse theologies of the West into one single "Western Theology" and then attack it for example. I also don't like the fact that he implies that St Augustine should have been labeled a heretic ! He may not have been right on everything but he was still a great Christian.

THE RIVER OF FIRE

Here is a brief excerpt:


The "God" of the West is an offended and angry God, full of wrath for the disobedience of men, who desires in His destructive passion to torment all humanity unto eternity for their sins, unless He receives an infinite satisfaction for His offended pride.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]What is the Western dogma of salvation? Did not God kill God in order to satisfy His pride, which the Westerners euphemistically call justice? And is it not by this infinite satisfaction that He deigns to accept the salvation of some of us?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]What is salvation for Western theology? Is it not salvation from the wrath of God? [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Do you see, then, that Western theology teaches that our real danger and our real enemy is our Creator and God? Salvation, for Westerners, is to be saved from the hands of God![/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]How can one love such a God? How can we have faith in someone we detest? Faith in its deeper essence is a product of love, therefore, it would be our desire that one who threatens us not even exist, especially when this threat is eternal.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Even if there exists a means of escaping the eternal wrath of this omnipotent but wicked Being (the death of His Son in our stead), it would be much better if this Being did not exist. This was the most logical conclusion of the mind and of the heart of the Western peoples, because even eternal Paradise would be abhorrent with such a cruel God. Thus was atheisrn born, and this is why the West was its birthplace. Atheism was unknown in Eastern Christianity until Western theology was introduced there, too. Atheism is the consequence of Western theology. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Atheism is the denial, the negation of an evil God. Men became atheists in order to be saved from God, hiding their head and closing their eyes like an ostrich. Atheism, my brothers, is the negation of the Roman Catholic and Protestant God. Atheism is not our real enemy. The real enemy is that falsified and distorted "Christianity".[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]III[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Westerners speak frequently of the "Good God" (E.g., in France le bon dieu is almost always used when speaking of God.). Western Europe and America, however, were never convinced that such a Good God existed. On the contrary, they were calling God good in the way Greeks called the curse and malediction of smallpox,[/FONT]EULOGIA[FONT=Arial,Helvetica], that is, a blessing, a benediction, in order to exorcise it and charm it away. For the same reason, the Black Sea was called[/FONT]Eu xeinoV PontoV [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]— the hospitable sea — although it was, in fact, a dreadful and treacherous sea. Deep inside the Western soul, God was felt to be the wicked Judge, Who never forgot even the smallest offense done to Him in our transgressions of His laws.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]This juridical conception of God, this completely distorted interpretation of God's justice, was nothing else than the projection of human passions on theology. It was a return to the pagan process of humanizing God and deifying man. Men are vexed and angered when not taken seriously and consider it a humiliation which only vengeance can remove, whether it is by crime or by duel. This was the worldly, passionate conception of justice prevailing in the minds of a so-called "Christian" society.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Western Christians thought about God's justice in the same way also; God, the infinite Being, was infinitely insulted by Adam's disobedience. He decided that the guilt of Adam's disobedience descended equally to all His children, and that all were to be sentenced to death for Adam's sin, which they did not commit. God's justice for Westerners operated like a vendetta. Not only the man who insulted you, but also all his family must die. And what was tragic for men, to the point of hopelessness, was that no man, nor even all humanity, could appease God's insulted dignity, even if all men in history were to be sacrificed. God's dignity could be saved only if He could punish someone of the same dignity as He. So in order to save both God's dignity and mankind, there was no other solution than the incarnation of His Son, so that a man of godly dignity could be sacrificed to save God's honor.[/FONT]

 

[Christos Anesti]

St Anthony the Great ( 251–356 AD) also explains it well:

"God is good, dispassionate, and immutable. Now someone who thinks it reasonable and true to affirm that God does not change, may well ask how, in that case, it is possible to speak of God as rejoicing over those who are good and showing mercy to those who honor Him, and as turning away from the wicked and being angry with sinners. To this it must be answered that God neither rejoices nor grows angry, for to rejoice and to be offended are passions; nor is He won over by the gifts of those who honor Him, for that would mean He is swayed by pleasure. It is not right that the Divinity feel pleasure or displeasure from human conditions. He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm, remaining always the same. We men, on the other hand, if we remain good through resembling God, are united to Him, but if we become evil through not resembling God, we are separated from Him. By living in holiness we cleave to God; but by becoming wicked we make Him our enemy. It is not that He grows angry with us in an arbitrary way, but it is our own sins that prevent God from shining within us and expose us to demons who torture us. And if through prayer and acts of compassion we gain release from our sins, this does not mean that we have won God over and made Him to change, but that through our actions and our turning to the Divinity, we have cured our wickedness and so once more have enjoyment of God's goodness. Thus to say that God turns away from the wicked is like saying that the sun hides itself from the blind."

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Jesus went to hell for 3 days, so was he burned in a fire torture pit too? Of course not.

It's called the harrowing of Hell..

Jesus has all authority over Hell and Heaven and all that is under Heaven. Obviously he is not hurt by it because he is King over it. The fires of hell and the demons curtail to his authority. Haven't you read revelation where Jesus says he hold's the Keys of Hades? Christ's passion and ressurection burst open the doors of Heaven, which were closed shut until his sacrifice. And when Christ went to Hades for 3 days he took with him all the patriarchs and faithful with him who were waiting in sheol for his harrowing.

No one if worthy of heaven unless the merits, passion, and atonement of Christ are applied to them.

 

[Christos Anesti]

This part is good too. Sorry about all the quotes

Many will say: "Does not Holy Scripture itself often speak about the anger of God? Is it not God Himself who says that He will punish us or that He will pardon us? Is it not written that 'He is a rewarded of them that diligently seek Him' (Heb. 11:6)? [SIZE=-1]33[/SIZE] Does He not say that vengeance is His and that He will requite the wickedness done to us? Is it not written that it is fearful to fall into the hands of the living God?" [SIZE=-1]34[/SIZE]


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]In his discourse entitled That God is not the Cause of Evil, Saint Basil the Great writes the following: "But one may say, if God is not responsible for evil things, why is it said in the book of Esaias, 'I am He that prepared light and Who formed darkness, Who makes peace and Who creates evils' (45:7)." And again, "There came down evils from the Lord upon the gates of Jerusalem" (Mich. 1:12). And, "Shall there be evil in the city which the Lord hath not wrought?" (Amos 3:6). And in the great Ode of Moses, "Behold, I am and there is no god beside Me. I will slay, and I will make to live; I will smite, and I will heal" (Deut. 32:39). But none of these citations, to him who understands the deeper meaning of the Holy Scriptures, casts any blame on God, as if He were the cause of evils and their creator, for He Who said, "I am the One Who makes light and darkness," shows Himself as the Creator of the universe, not that He is the creator of any evil.... "He creates evils," that means, "He fashions them again and brings them to a betterment, so that they leave their evilness, to take on the nature of good." [SIZE=-1]35[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]As Saint Isaac the Syrian writes, "Very often many things are said by the Holy Scriptures and in it many names are used not in a literal sense... those who have a mind understand this" (Homily 83, p. 317).[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Saint Basil in the same discourse [SIZE=-1]36[/SIZE] gives the explanation of these expressions of the Holy Scriptures: "It is because fear," says he, "edifies simpler people," and this is true not only for simple people but for all of us. After our fall, we need fear in order to do any profitable thing and any good to ourselves or to others. In order to understand the Holy Scriptures, say the Fathers, we must have in mind their purpose which is to save us, and to bring us little by little to an understanding of our Creator God and of our wretched condition.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]But the same Holy Scriptures in other places explain to us more accurately who is the real cause of our evils. In Jeremias 2:17, 19 we read: "Hath not thy forsaking Me brought these things upon thee? saith the Lord thy God.... Thine apostasy shall chastise thee and thy wickedness shall reprove thee; know then, and see that thy forsaking Me hath been bitter to thee, saith the Lord thy God."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The Holy Scriptures speak our language, the language which we understand in our fallen state. As Saint Gregory the Theologian says, "For according to our own comprehension, we have given names from our own attributes to those of God." [SIZE=-1]37[/SIZE] And Saint John Damascene explains further that what in the Holy Scriptures "is said of God as if He had a body, is said symbolically... [it contains] some hidden meaning, which through things corresponding to our nature, teaches us things which exceed our nature." [SIZE=-1]38[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[Der Alte]

It's called the harrowing of Hell..

Jesus has all authority over Hell and Heaven and all that is under Heaven. Obviously he is not hurt by it because he is King over it. The fires of hell and the demons curtail to his authority. Haven't you read revelation where Jesus says he hold's the Keys of Hades? Christ's passion and ressurection burst open the doors of Heaven, which were closed shut until his sacrifice. And when Christ went to Hades for 3 days he took with him all the patriarchs and faithful with him who were waiting in sheol for his harrowing.

No one if worthy of heaven unless the merits, passion, and atonement of Christ are applied to them.

Jesus did NOT go to hell! Jesus preached to the spirits in prison. Prison is never called hell and hell is never called prison in scripture. Jesus preaching to those in prison was part of his earthly ministry. You can see preaching deliverance to the prisoners, right there between, "heal the brokenhearted" and "recovering of sight to the blind."

Luk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,​

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

"ilasterion" doesn't seem to be that differnt than "hilasterion"?

Same thing, hilasterion is the transliteration, where ilasterion would be the letter for letter rendering. There is no "h" in greek but there is a pronunciation of an "h" in a breathing sound of "hh" called a rough breathing mark which in Greek would have a ' before the word.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Jesus went to hell for 3 days, so was he burned in a fire torture pit too? Of course not.

No, Jesus did not go to the place of torment, He went and translated Abraham's Bosom (tartarus I think) which is a part of the greater concept of hades but NOT the place of torment referred to as gehenna.

One must also understand the concept of why He went. He did not go to suffer . . . He did that on the Cross . . . He went to preach the completion of the cross to those awaiting its fulfillment . . . like Abraham and David who could not enter into Gods presence of favor because the Blood of Jesus had not "actually" been shed yet.

So the premise of your statement is not quite informed.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Jesus did NOT go to hell! Jesus preached to the spirits in prison. Prison is never called hell and hell is never called prison in scripture. Jesus preaching to those in prison was part of his earthly ministry. You can see preaching deliverance to the prisoners, right there between, "heal the brokenhearted" and "recovering of sight to the blind."

Luk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,​

Hell is a general term. Meaning Hades. There are different compartments in Hades. Abraham's Bosom in Sheol where the righteous and the patriarchs died, Tartarus/Gehenna the confines of temporal punishment for the non-believers, and the lake of fire, reserved for judgment day for the reprobate.

So if your meaning that Christ did not goto hell as in the place of Gehenna/Tartarus, yes that is true. He went to Abraham's Bosom, the abode of the dead of the righteous.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

I think this article does a good job of providing an Orthodox understanding of the attonment. It's a little vociferus in its attacks on "Western theology**" (and for that I apologize) but it makes some really good points so i will link to it anyway.


** He seems to lump all of the diverse theologies of the West into one single "Western Theology" and then attack it for example. I also don't like the fact that he implies that St Augustine should have been labeled a heretic ! He may not have been right on everything but he was still a great Christian.

THE RIVER OF FIRE

Here is a brief excerpt:


The "God" of the West is an offended and angry God, full of wrath for the disobedience of men, who desires in His destructive passion to torment all humanity unto eternity for their sins, unless He receives an infinite satisfaction for His offended pride.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]What is the Western dogma of salvation? Did not God kill God in order to satisfy His pride, which the Westerners euphemistically call justice? And is it not by this infinite satisfaction that He deigns to accept the salvation of some of us?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]What is salvation for Western theology? Is it not salvation from the wrath of God? [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Do you see, then, that Western theology teaches that our real danger and our real enemy is our Creator and God? Salvation, for Westerners, is to be saved from the hands of God![/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]How can one love such a God? How can we have faith in someone we detest? Faith in its deeper essence is a product of love, therefore, it would be our desire that one who threatens us not even exist, especially when this threat is eternal.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Even if there exists a means of escaping the eternal wrath of this omnipotent but wicked Being (the death of His Son in our stead), it would be much better if this Being did not exist. This was the most logical conclusion of the mind and of the heart of the Western peoples, because even eternal Paradise would be abhorrent with such a cruel God. Thus was atheisrn born, and this is why the West was its birthplace. Atheism was unknown in Eastern Christianity until Western theology was introduced there, too. Atheism is the consequence of Western theology. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Atheism is the denial, the negation of an evil God. Men became atheists in order to be saved from God, hiding their head and closing their eyes like an ostrich. Atheism, my brothers, is the negation of the Roman Catholic and Protestant God. Atheism is not our real enemy. The real enemy is that falsified and distorted "Christianity".[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]III[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Westerners speak frequently of the "Good God" (E.g., in France le bon dieu is almost always used when speaking of God.). Western Europe and America, however, were never convinced that such a Good God existed. On the contrary, they were calling God good in the way Greeks called the curse and malediction of smallpox,[/FONT]EULOGIA[FONT=Arial,Helvetica], that is, a blessing, a benediction, in order to exorcise it and charm it away. For the same reason, the Black Sea was called[/FONT]Eu xeinoV PontoV [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]— the hospitable sea — although it was, in fact, a dreadful and treacherous sea. Deep inside the Western soul, God was felt to be the wicked Judge, Who never forgot even the smallest offense done to Him in our transgressions of His laws.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]This juridical conception of God, this completely distorted interpretation of God's justice, was nothing else than the projection of human passions on theology. It was a return to the pagan process of humanizing God and deifying man. Men are vexed and angered when not taken seriously and consider it a humiliation which only vengeance can remove, whether it is by crime or by duel. This was the worldly, passionate conception of justice prevailing in the minds of a so-called "Christian" society.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Western Christians thought about God's justice in the same way also; God, the infinite Being, was infinitely insulted by Adam's disobedience. He decided that the guilt of Adam's disobedience descended equally to all His children, and that all were to be sentenced to death for Adam's sin, which they did not commit. God's justice for Westerners operated like a vendetta. Not only the man who insulted you, but also all his family must die. And what was tragic for men, to the point of hopelessness, was that no man, nor even all humanity, could appease God's insulted dignity, even if all men in history were to be sacrificed. God's dignity could be saved only if He could punish someone of the same dignity as He. So in order to save both God's dignity and mankind, there was no other solution than the incarnation of His Son, so that a man of godly dignity could be sacrificed to save God's honor.[/FONT]

Wow . . . I just read this whole thing.

1. The assumptions that the author has are TOTALLY unfounded
2. He makes a SERIOUS strawman, in that he doesnt even represent "western" theology correctly, so he establishes a false caricature and attacks that
3. NOT ONE SCRIPTURE IS EVEN REFERRED TO . . . just a rant against a structure that doesnt even exist

I dont see anything in this that highlights a belief in atonement at all . . . just an attack.

 

[Der Alte]

Hell is a general term. Meaning Hades. There are different compartments in Hades. Abraham's Bosom in Sheol where the righteous and the patriarchs died, Tartarus/Gehenna the confines of temporal punishment for the non-believers, and the lake of fire, reserved for judgment day for the reprobate.

So if your meaning that Christ did not goto hell as in the place of Gehenna/Tartarus, yes that is true. He went to Abraham's Bosom, the abode of the dead of the righteous.

Abraham's bosom was not a place it was a position. It is the position of honor at a feast, immediately in front of host. The diners reclined on their left elbow, at a low table, with their feet extended away from the table. This is why John lay his head on Jesus' bosom. The only way John could look directly at Jesus at the supper was to lean back placing his head on Jesus' bosom. I know of no scripture which lists several compartments in hell, or whatever name you choose to use.

 

[Christos Anesti]

2. He makes a SERIOUS strawman, in that he doesn't even represent "western" theology correctly, so he establishes a false caricature and attacks that

To an extent I think you are right about his classification of THE Western theology. That certainly isn't the theology of John Wesley for example. I noted that I didn't fully agree with that aspect and apologized for it before I pasted the article. I linked to it more for the soteriology that he was teaching and for some of the misconceptions that many people have that he was correcting rather than for the fact that I thought he was an impartial judge of "western theology". It also had some great patristic quotes including my all time favorite St Isaac of Syria

NOT ONE SCRIPTURE IS EVEN REFERRED TO . . . just a rant against a structure that doesn't even exist

It does exist. I've heard people right here on CF teach variations on the theme of God the Father who suffers from the passion of anger and who needs to take it out on someone... thankfully he took it out on Jesus instead of us...etc..

The article itself , which is a long article, does quote Scripture fairly often just not the part I pasted.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

To an extent I think you are right about his classification of THE Western theology. That certainly isn't the theology of John Wesley for example. I noted that I didn't fully agree with that aspect and apologized for it before I pasted the article. I linked to it more for the soteriology that he was teaching and for some of the misconceptions that many people have that he was correcting rather than for the fact that I thought he was an impartial judge of "western theology". It also had some great patristic quotes including my all time favorite St Isaac of Syria



It does exist. I've heard people right here on CF teach variations on the theme of God the Father who suffers from the passion of anger and who needs to take it out on someone... thankfully he took it out on Jesus instead of us...etc..

The article itself , which is a long article, does quote Scripture fairly often just not the part I pasted.

I noted that I didn't fully agree with that aspect and apologized for it before I pasted the article

Yes indeed you did

It does exist. I've heard people right here on CF teach variations on the theme of God the Father who suffers from the passion of anger and who needs to take it out on someone... thankfully he took it out on Jesus instead of us...etc..

Your statement tho makes some wrong assumptions. Like suffering from anger. There is such a thing as righteous indignation . . . how do you think God feels about abortion? The OT is rife with His anger and wrath for sin AND EVEN HATRED OF THOSE WHO SIN.

AND, even more heavier, is that THIS IS WHAT ILASTERION MEANS. Historically, contextually (think about the cup in Gethsemane and then all the references to wrath and cup in the OT) and linguistically. So, the wrath of a holy and righteous God for sin and sinner alike is a concept EXPLICITLY taught, apart from angle of interpretation, in Scripture. It is what it is . .. the Noahic flood was not merely from mans perspective . . . DUDE God wiped out ALL life . . . not just man . . . and we know that the Ark is one of the foreshadws of the OT sacrificial system and the NT concepts of atonement.

What I was speaking of is his gross mischaracterization. He oversimplified the concepts and linked a bunch of things together, that when stated how he stated it, of course it seems bad and non biblical. BUT THAT IS BECAUSE HE MISREPRESENTED IT. If ur gonna present an arguement, even if it is not yours, at least GET IT RIGHT and present all the data for WHY someone believes it, even if u dont. THAT is proper form and CORRECT apologetics. Otherwise it is just strawmen.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Abraham's bosom was not a place it was a position. It is the position of honor at a feast, immediately in front of host. The diners reclined on their left elbow, at a low table, with their feet extended away from the table. This is why John lay his head on Jesus' bosom. The only way John could look directly at Jesus at the supper was to lean back placing his head on Jesus' bosom. I know of no scripture which lists several compartments in hell, or whatever name you choose to use.

Hmm, so

Luke 16:22
22 "Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried.
NASU

is referring to a dinner table? I dont see a feast anywhere in this context . . . . but I do see a concept of the afterlife for the guy doesnt go there till he dies? Am I missing something?

AFAIK, Abrahams Bosom was the abode of the Old Covenant righteous who awaited the rending of the veil upon the cross for access into "heaven."

AHH

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosom_of_Abraham

you are referring to the etymology of the word . . . but origin is not what determines meaning . . . it aids in understanding meaning . . . but in this case it only points to the fact that the concept of the afterlife that AROSE from the origin was connected to favor and rest as opposed to the place of torment where there was no favor nor rest.

But ongoing usage that was understood at the time of Jesus' statement was a place in the afterlife that follows the "feast/place of favor" meaning by about 3-400 years (being that the concept arose in the 2nd temple period).

So it seems that the concept here is true, Abrahams Bosom was a place that the religious views of the day held was where the righteous dead were kept.

BTW the only way that Jesus going INTO this place would really be a problem theologically would be if He went to the place of torment, not the holding tank of the righteous.

 

[Der Alte]

Hmm, so

Luke 16:22
22 "Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried.
NASU

is referring to a dinner table? I dont see a feast anywhere in this context . . . . but I do see a concept of the afterlife for the guy doesnt go there till he dies? Am I missing something?

AFAIK, Abrahams Bosom was the abode of the Old Covenant righteous who awaited the rending of the veil upon the cross for access into "heaven."

AHH

Bosom of Abraham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you are referring to the etymology of the word . . . but origin is not what determines meaning . . . it aids in understanding meaning . . . but in this case it only points to the fact that the concept of the afterlife that AROSE from the origin was connected to favor and rest as opposed to the place of torment where there was no favor nor rest.

But ongoing usage that was understood at the time of Jesus' statement was a place in the afterlife that follows the "feast/place of favor" meaning by about 3-400 years (being that the concept arose in the 2nd temple period).

So it seems that the concept here is true, Abrahams Bosom was a place that the religious views of the day held was where the righteous dead were kept.

BTW the only way that Jesus going INTO this place would really be a problem theologically would be if He went to the place of torment, not the holding tank of the righteous.

You have expressed a widely held view but, other than the highly unreliable Wiki, which OBTW supports my position, I do not see any evidence supporting your position.

John Gill commentary on the Whole Bible - Luke 16:22 and sometimes, as here, by being in his bosom. So it is said (q), that Eliezer his servant (Abraham's, the same name with Lazarus) מונה בחיקו, "is laid in his bosom": and which may refer to the account in the Talmud (r), that when R. Benaah, the painter of caves, came to the cave of Abraham, he found Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, דקאיקמיה, "standing before him". And it is also said (s) of Rabbi, when he died, היום יושב בחיקו של אברהם, "this day he sits in the bosom of Abraham"; for as it was usual with them to represent the joys of heaven by a feast, so the partaking of them, by sitting down at a table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; see Mat_8:11 and as their manner at meals was by lying along on couches at eating; he that lay next another might be said to lie, or lean, in his bosom: hence Abraham's bosom came to signify the near and intimate enjoyment of happiness with him in the other world.

Matthew Henry - (4.) It was carried into Abraham's bosom. The Jews expressed the happiness of the righteous at death three ways: - they to go to the garden of Eden: they go to be under the throne of glory; and they go to the bosom of Abraham, and it is this which our Saviour here makes use of. Abraham was the father of the faithful; and whither should the souls of the faithful be gathered but to him, who, as a tender father, lays them in his bosom, especially at their first coming, to bid them welcome, and to refresh them when newly come from the sorrows and fatigues of this world? He was carried to his bosom, that is, to feast with him, for at feasts the guests are said to lean on one another's breasts; and the saints in heaven sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob. Abraham was a great and rich man, yet in heaven he does not disdain to lay poor Lazarus in his bosom. Rich saints and poor meet in heaven. This poor Lazarus, who might not be admitted within the rich man's gate, is conducted into the dining-room, into the bed-chamber, of the heavenly palace; and he is laid in the bosom of Abraham, whom the rich glutton scorned to set with the dogs of his flock.

Jamieson, Faussett, Brown Luk 16:22 -
died — His burial was too unimportant to mention; while “the rich man died and was buried” - his carcass carried in pomp to its earthly resting-place.
in to Abraham’s bosom — as if seen reclining next to Him at the heavenly feast (Mat_8:11).

Mat 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.​

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

You have expressed a widely held view but, other than the highly unreliable Wiki, which OBTW supports my position, I do not see any evidence supporting your position.

John Gill commentary on the Whole Bible - Luke 16:22 and sometimes, as here, by being in his bosom. So it is said (q), that Eliezer his servant (Abraham's, the same name with Lazarus) מונה בחיקו, "is laid in his bosom": and which may refer to the account in the Talmud (r), that when R. Benaah, the painter of caves, came to the cave of Abraham, he found Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, דקאיקמיה, "standing before him". And it is also said (s) of Rabbi, when he died, היום יושב בחיקו של אברהם, "this day he sits in the bosom of Abraham"; for as it was usual with them to represent the joys of heaven by a feast, so the partaking of them, by sitting down at a table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; see Mat_8:11 and as their manner at meals was by lying along on couches at eating; he that lay next another might be said to lie, or lean, in his bosom: hence Abraham's bosom came to signify the near and intimate enjoyment of happiness with him in the other world.

Matthew Henry - (4.) It was carried into Abraham's bosom. The Jews expressed the happiness of the righteous at death three ways: - they to go to the garden of Eden: they go to be under the throne of glory; and they go to the bosom of Abraham, and it is this which our Saviour here makes use of. Abraham was the father of the faithful; and whither should the souls of the faithful be gathered but to him, who, as a tender father, lays them in his bosom, especially at their first coming, to bid them welcome, and to refresh them when newly come from the sorrows and fatigues of this world? He was carried to his bosom, that is, to feast with him, for at feasts the guests are said to lean on one another's breasts; and the saints in heaven sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob. Abraham was a great and rich man, yet in heaven he does not disdain to lay poor Lazarus in his bosom. Rich saints and poor meet in heaven. This poor Lazarus, who might not be admitted within the rich man's gate, is conducted into the dining-room, into the bed-chamber, of the heavenly palace; and he is laid in the bosom of Abraham, whom the rich glutton scorned to set with the dogs of his flock.

Jamieson, Faussett, Brown Luk 16:22 -
died — His burial was too unimportant to mention; while “the rich man died and was buried” - his carcass carried in pomp to its earthly resting-place.
in to Abraham’s bosom — as if seen reclining next to Him at the heavenly feast (Mat_8:11).

Mat 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
​

I agree that Wikis are highly unreliable.

BUT, the wiki only supports your postion insofar as it establishes the ROOT of the concept of being your posit . . . NOT the historical concept at the time being referred to.

And, BTW, each citation that you give refers to the afterlife . . . so I am still not sure how this contradicts a concept of Jesus translating the righteous dead from a intermediate holding tank into the Holy of holies . . .

AND, BTW, the citation of sources is the issue with the wiki's, the sources state what they state, Jewish thought had progressed at that point to hold Abrahams Bosom as a concept for the abode of the righteous in the afterlife. Your own quote

hence Abraham's bosom came to signify the near and intimate enjoyment of happiness with him in the other world.

shows it.

So, the BAD thing about wiki's is the ability to spin, but the correct citation of sources has nothing to do with this, it is interpretation of facts, not the facts themselves, that is the problem. As is, the citations are straight forward enough, with no spin, to show the 1st Cent Palestinian Jewish theology had within it a concept of the afterlife that included a place called ABRAHAM'S BOSOM.

 

[Der Alte]

I agree that Wikis are highly unreliable.

BUT, the wiki only supports your postion insofar as it establishes the ROOT of the concept of being your posit . . . NOT the historical concept at the time being referred to.

And, BTW, each citation that you give refers to the afterlife . . . so I am still not sure how this contradicts a concept of Jesus translating the righteous dead from a intermediate holding tank into the Holy of holies . . .

All of the sources I cited speak of Abraham's Bosom as being a position not a place. And of course they refer to the after life. I have not mentioned or addressed, "Jesus translating the righteous dead from a intermediate holding tank into the Holy of holies."

AND, BTW, the citation of sources is the issue with the wiki's, the sources state what they state, Jewish thought had progressed at that point to hold Abrahams Bosom as a concept for the abode of the righteous in the afterlife. Your own quote

hence Abraham's bosom came to signify the near and intimate enjoyment of happiness with him in the other world.

shows it.

The problem with Wiki is anybody can post or change anything at any time. Every page has links, "Edit this page." I once explained the meaning of my SN in a Wiki article just to prove to someone that it can be done. Note the quote you posted says nothing about a place called "Abraham's bosom" but "near and intimate enjoyment of happiness with him [Abraham] in the other world."

So, the BAD thing about wiki's is the ability to spin, but the correct citation of sources has nothing to do with this, it is interpretation of facts, not the facts themselves, that is the problem. As is, the citations are straight forward enough, with no spin, to show the 1st Cent Palestinian Jewish theology had within it a concept of the afterlife that included a place called ABRAHAM'S BOSOM.

This is from Wiki.

The concept of paradise is not mentioned in Luke 16, nor are any of the distinguishing Jewish associations of paradise such as Third Heaven (found with "paradise" in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 and Apocalypse of Moses), or the tree of life (found with "paradise" in Genesis 2:8 Septuagint and Book of Revelation 2:7).[12] Consequently identification of Bosom of Abraham with Paradise is contested.[13]​

I have seen no evidence which shows, "1st Cent Palestinian Jewish theology had within it a concept of the afterlife that included a place called ABRAHAM'S BOSOM."

 

[Christos Anesti]

AND EVEN HATRED OF THOSE WHO SIN.

To paraphrase st Isaac:

"We cannot even believe such a thing can be found in those human beings who live a virtuous and upright life and whose thoughts are entirely in accord with the divine will- let alone believe this of God"

God told us to love our enemies and sacrifice ourselves for sinners just as His Son did. He told us this because it's in His nature to love His enemies (sinners). Why would the son sacrafice Himself for people he hated?

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

To paraphrase st Isaac:

"We cannot even believe such a thing can be found in those human beings who live a virtuous and upright life and whose thoughts are entirely in accord with the divine will- let alone believe this of God"

God told us to love our enemies and sacrifice ourselves for sinners just as His Son did. He told us this because it's in His nature to love His enemies (sinners). Why would the son sacrafice Himself for people he hated?

Well our conversation was about wrath, so here it is explicitly:

Rom 5:9
9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.
NASU


Where this has nothing to do with our perspective but the objective reality of what we are saved from.

As for the hatred of God . . . our human concepts of hate and love cannot be imported into the perfect expressions of such emotions by the God who has them WITHOUT FAULT. So to foist the commands that He gives US upon Him, assuming that the errors that plagues us must also be concerns for Him is folly (not saying that you said this, I am just saying it).

The question is not, does God hating anything contradict what conclusions I draw from certain scriptures, the question IS does the Scripture teach that God hates sinners, does He hate the sin or does He hate both . . . and if it does teach this, THEN how do we reconcile the CLEAR teaching that He does with our ASSUMPTIONS about what other texts teach that SEEM to contradict this?

SO to the texts:

Ps 5:4-6
4 For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness;
No evil dwells with You.
5 The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes;
Youhate all who do iniquity.
6 You destroy those who speak falsehood;
The LORD abhors the man of bloodshed and deceit.
NASU

Here the text says quite clearly that it is THE PERSON who does iniquity that the Lord hates


Prov 8:12-13
12 "I, wisdom, dwell with prudence,
And I find knowledge and discretion.
13 "The fear of the LORD is to hate evil;
Pride and arrogance and the evil way
And the perverted mouth, I hate.
NASU

Here again it is the person AND the deed that God hates

Isa 1:14
14 "I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts,
They have become a burden to Me;
I am weary of bearing them.
NASU

Here it is simply the deed


Jer 12:8
8 "My inheritance has become to Me
Like a lion in the forest;
She has roared against Me;
Therefore I have come tohate her.
NASU

Here it is the people again

Hos 9:15
15 All their evil is at Gilgal;
Indeed, I came to hate them there!
Because of the wickedness of their deeds
I will drive them out of My house!
I will love them no more;
All their princes are rebels.
NASU

Again the people

Prov 6:16-19
6 There are six things which the LORD hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood,
18 A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,
19 A false witness who utters lies,
And one who spreads strife among brothers.
NASU

Here it is both act and the person


Ps 11:5
The LORD tests the righteous and the wicked,
And the one who loves violence His soul hates.
NASU

Here is the person again


So the texts show that God BOTH hates the sin AND the sinner. Why? Though He does indeed love them in the sense of being able and willing to forgive the person should they come to Christ, He is also just and Holy and stands in opposition and hatred to sin.

Light births light and darkness births darkness . . . if the person pays attention to light then more light is birthed, consequently the one who gives sway to darkness, more darkness is birthed. The person does not just HAVE darkness . . . THEY BECOME DARKNESS. Even as Jesus BECAME SIN, WE BECOME SIN . . . we take on the properties of what God hates and thereby we become hated by God also.

Henry Scougal put it along these lines:

The worth and excellency of a soul is to be measured by the object of its love (not merely love, BUT DELIGHTING LOVE, ADORATION), iow, by what one delights in. He who loves mean and sordid things becomes base an vile; but a noble and well placed affection advances and improves the spirit in conformity with the affections w/ which it loves.

If you love sin you BECOME base and vile . . . you become what you behold.

This is essentially your doctrine of theosis . . . as you behold Christ, you become, not God (Christ), but holy as He is holy . . .

What I am presenting is the inverse of theosis. The principle remains the same, only in theosis you become more like Jesus, and in beholding and loving sin you become more like sin . . . thusly, your soul is an afront to God.

THIS IS THE REASON FOR WRATH.

"We cannot even believe such a thing can be found in those human beings who live a virtuous and upright life and whose thoughts are entirely in accord with the divine will- let alone believe this of God"

Here is the issue tho, the commands that God gives to fallen creatures cannot be assumed to be requisites of Him also, as He is not a fallen creature prone to experience the sinful side of these same emotions.

Take love . . . 1 cor 13 . . . love seeks not its own . . . right? Yet God commands us to worship Him, to glorify Him, to exalt Him and raise His name and sing His praise! God seeks His own ALL OVER SCRIPTURE!

Why then does He command us so, yet it does not apply to Him?

1. We are fallen and if we ever sought our "own" apart from Him it would be shot through with sin
2. God, by seeking His own, is not selfish and arrogant nor prideful. In commmanding us to seek His gllory, praise, exaltation . . . HE PROVIDES US WITH THE BEST THING THAT THERE IS . . . HIMSELF. He would be WICKED to NOT command us to seek His glory, because He would be keeping us from our greatest good . . . HIMSELF. Ergo, God is the ONE being in the universe to whom seeking His own glory is for the good of others and therefor is the one being to whom the concept of "love seeks not its own" does not apply . . . it is BY SEEKING His own that HIS GREATEST LOVE IS DEMONSTRATED. God does EVERYTHING for His glory, and that is our greatest good.

Likewise, when it comes to hate, the command of Jesus to "love your enemies" in the context of fallen human to human relationships, does not apply to God . . . there is no temptaion to sin in God's hatred . . . and He does not need to conform to the standards of fallen human relations BECAUSE HE IS NOT EVEN HUMAN.

 

[Christos Anesti]

"9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him."

Where this has nothing to do with our perspective but the objective reality of what we are saved from

I believe the term wrath is referencing what we experience and how we can be saved from experiencing God as wrath. Seperation from God is the "wrath of God". God like the sun shines on both the just and the unjust with the same immutable Love. The "wrath" mentioned is not a positive thing in God it's merely the absence of loving union with Him. I do not believe it references an actual change in emotional status of God from wrathful to happy or anything of that nature. God doesn't change. He is immutable and ever the same. He doesn't have changing emotions. The change takes place in us and how we experience God and creation.


This part is relevant to what I'm saying too I think.

In his discourse entitled That God is not the Cause of Evil, Saint Basil the Great writes the following: "But one may say, if God is not responsible for evil things, why is it said in the book of Esaias, 'I am He that prepared light and Who formed darkness, Who makes peace and Who creates evils' (45:7)." And again, "There came down evils from the Lord upon the gates of Jerusalem" (Mich. 1:12). And, "Shall there be evil in the city which the Lord hath not wrought?" (Amos 3:6). And in the great Ode of Moses, "Behold, I am and there is no god beside Me. I will slay, and I will make to live; I will smite, and I will heal" (Deut. 32:39). But none of these citations, to him who understands the deeper meaning of the Holy Scriptures, casts any blame on God, as if He were the cause of evils and their creator, for He Who said, "I am the One Who makes light and darkness," shows Himself as the Creator of the universe, not that He is the creator of any evil.... "He creates evils," that means, "He fashions them again and brings them to a betterment, so that they leave their evilness, to take on the nature of good." [SIZE=-1]35[/SIZE]


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]As Saint Isaac the Syrian writes, "Very often many things are said by the Holy Scriptures and in it many names are used not in a literal sense... those who have a mind understand this" (Homily 83, p. 317).

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Saint Basil in the same discourse [SIZE=-1]36[/SIZE] gives the explanation of these expressions of the Holy Scriptures: "It is because fear," says he, "edifies simpler people," and this is true not only for simple people but for all of us. After our fall, we need fear in order to do any profitable thing and any good to ourselves or to others. In order to understand the Holy Scriptures, say the Fathers, we must have in mind their purpose which is to save us, and to bring us little by little to an understanding of our Creator God and of our wretched condition.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]But the same Holy Scriptures in other places explain to us more accurately who is the real cause of our evils. In Jeremias 2:17, 19 we read: "Hath not thy forsaking Me brought these things upon thee? saith the Lord thy God.... Thine apostasy shall chastise thee and thy wickedness shall reprove thee; know then, and see that thy forsaking Me hath been bitter to thee, saith the Lord thy God."[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The Holy Scriptures speak our language, the language which we understand in our fallen state. As Saint Gregory the Theologian says, "For according to our own comprehension, we have given names from our own attributes to those of God." [SIZE=-1]37[/SIZE] And Saint John Damascene explains further that what in the Holy Scriptures "is said of God as if He had a body, is said symbolically... [it contains] some hidden meaning, which through things corresponding to our nature, teaches us things which exceed our nature." [SIZE=-1]38[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/FONT]