What do the Eastern Orthodox churches teach about Hell?

[LivingWordUnity]

Please explain what the Eastern Orthodox churches teach on Hell.

Edit:
By the way, I have no intention of debating against the EOs on this. I just want to know this so I can find out how Eastern thought differs from the West on this. Also, do any of you happen to know if ECs have the same belief as you on this?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Shall I settle in and pop popcorn for everyone?

 

[Wryetui]

Please explain what the Eastern Orthodox churches teach on Hell.

Hi!

The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that heaven and hell are relations to or experiences of God's just and loving presence. There is no created place of divine absence, nor is hell an ontological separation from God. One expression of the Eastern teaching is that hell and heaven are dimensions of God's intensifying presence, as this presence is experienced either as torment or as paradise depending on the spiritual state of a person dwelling with God. For one who hates God and by extension hates himself as God's image-bearer, to be encompassed by the divine presence could only result in unspeakable anguish. Aristotle Papanikolaou and Elizabeth H. Prodromou wrote in their book Thinking Through Faith: New Perspectives from Orthodox Christian Scholars that for the Orthodox: "Those theological symbols, heaven and hell, are not crudely understood as spatial destinations but rather refer to the experience of God's presence according to two different modes. " Several Orthodox theologians do describe hell as separation from God, in the sense of being out of fellowship or loving communion. Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov) spoke of "the hell of separation from God". Paul Evdokimov stated: "Hell is nothing else but separation of man from God, his autonomy excluding him from the place where God is present." According to Theodore Stylianopoulos, "Hell is a spiritual state of separation from God and inability to experience the love of God, while being conscious of the ultimate deprivation of it as punishment." Michel Quenot stated: "Hell is none other than the state of separation from God, a condition into which humanity was plunged for having preferred the creature to the Creator. It is the human creature, therefore, and not God, who engenders hell. Created free for the sake of love, man possesses the incredible power to reject this love, to say 'no' to God. By refusing communion with God, he becomes a predator, condemning himself to a spiritual death (hell) more dreadful than the physical death that derives from it." Another writer declared: "The circumstances that rise before us, the problems we encounter, the relationships we form, the choices we make, all ultimately concern our eternal union with or separation from God."

The Eastern Orthodox Church rejects what is presented as the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory as a place where believers suffer as their "venial sins" are purged before gaining admittance to heaven.

Contrary to Western Christianity, both Roman and Protestant varieties, the Christians of the East emphasize the mystery of God in His pre-eternal transcendence and maintain a tradition of apophatic theology, while the technical, cataphatic theology of scholasticism tends to be downplayed or viewed as subordinate. Thus, there is no single "official" teaching of the Church apart from apostolic doctrine received and, when necessary, defined by Ecumenical Councils. The Orthodox positions on hell are derived from the sayings of the saints and the consensus views of the Church Fathers. They are not in agreement on all points, and no council universally recognized by the Eastern Orthodox Churches has formulated doctrine on hell, so there is no official doctrine to which all the faithful are bound. Beliefs concerning the nature and duration of hell are considered theologoumena, or theological opinions, rather than dogmas of the Church.

 

[Anhelyna]

Shall I settle in and pop popcorn for everyone?

An excellent idea Kylissa - I suspect it's going to be needed pretty soon

 

[Isaac32]

Great answer, Wyretui.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Here's a thought I'm having at the moment: Couldn't both positions be true? Couldn't a deceased person who hates God be in His presence while the same person is absent from God spiritually—not that God is absent from him but that he is absent from God, I mean in terms of his relationship with God?

 

[buzuxi02]

That is one of the explanations. That one feels the love of God as a blissful light where the other feels as a burning flame. As Christ said to the repentant thief: TODAY, you will be with me in paradise yet Christ descended into Hades. if you are close to Christ in his bosom there is paradise.

Hamartia (sin) means missing the mark. When the archer misses the bullseye. Our actions dictate the amount of seperation from that perfect mark.

 

[ArmyMatt]

St Maximos the Confessor says that the same sun will both harden clay and soften wax. it is the nature of what is in the sun's presence that determines what happens. so an unrepentant sinner takes a sinful nature into God's presence, God's love torments and exposes the sin. someone who had a heart after God will see God as the object of their heart's desire and the love will be bliss and illumination.

 

[~Anastasia~]

An excellent idea Kylissa - I suspect it's going to be needed pretty soon

Perhaps. And I'm sorry if I sounded flippant. I was on my tablet and for a couple/few days now it crashes every time I try to reply to a post with more than a few words. I've given up typing long responses, one finger at a time, only to have them wink out of existence every time I try to post. My apologies that I have not replied to some of you here and there (and not only that, but my notifications are not working either and I am seeing there are responses to me that I never saw, so I'm having to manually check threads).

The real reason for my answer is that there is some space for some variation in the way this is explained, and possibly some space for variation in belief. Among some folks, a good bit of controversy can be raised, though I don't usually see that here as I do on Facebook (thank the Lord). I won't even mention all the different things I've heard, which I suppose have varying levels of acceptance within the Church. I have been told by a number of priests that this is not a highly dogmatic area because the Lord has seen fit to give us only a limited amount of information about this, and we should not speculate and then require it as dogma. Usually they follow up by discouraging one from spending much time worrying about the specifics. Which it's not a major area of inquiry for me anyway. I was very intrigued by the basic idea that it is our disposition toward God that affects our experience, and it makes perfect sense to me. I am content to leave it mostly at that.

 

[Wryetui]

Here's a thought I'm having at the moment: Couldn't both positions be true? Couldn't a deceased person who hates God be in His presence while the same person is absent from God spiritually—not that God is absent from him but that he is absent from God, I mean in terms of his relationship with God?

I think that it's just a try to compaginate both views and I don't think they fix The western position says that hell is actually where you are without God, where God's presence is not and where you suffer because of the abscence of that presence. It is impossible for a "place" or state to be without God because that means it is something that is superior to God for God cannot be in there, and that would be profane. Look what we Orthodox say in the prayer "O Heavenly King" one of the most beautiful and the oldest prayers of the Church: "O Heavenly King, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, Who art everywhere and fillest all things; Treasury of Blessings, and Giver of Life - come and abide in us, and cleanse us from every impurity, and save our souls, O Good One.", or what the Psalm 139 says: Where can I go to get away from your Spirit?

Where can I run from you?
8 If I go up to the skies, you are there.
If I lie down where the dead are, you are there.
9 If I rise with the sun in the east,
and settle in the west beyond the sea,
10 even there you would guide me.
With your right hand you would hold me.

So even scripturistically and historically we see that hell is not a place without God, but God Himself seen by the sinners as Hell.

 

[ArmyMatt]

So even scripturistically and historically we see that hell is not a place without God, but God Himself seen by the sinners as Hell.

indeed. fire in Scripture is always the sign of God's presence (Burning Bush, eyes of fire, pillar of fire, tongues of fire, etc), so the lake of fire and the flame that torments the rich man are the same: the presence of God.

 

[Wryetui]

indeed. fire in Scripture is always the sign of God's presence (Burning Bush, eyes of fire, pillar of fire, tongues of fire, etc), so the lake of fire and the flame that torments the rich man are the same: the presence of God.

I didn't realize that the lake of fire in which the devil and his fallen angels will be thrown is actually the fire of God's presence, thank you for saying that!

 

[buzuxi02]

I believe that is from Daniel 7.10 where a fiery stream issues forth from the divine Throne.
This may be the same as the river of water flowing from the Throne of God in Rev 22.1-2.
Thus the holy Spirit can be felt as a fire in judgement or as water in salvation(john 7.38-39) .

In Lk 16 the parable of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus, the rich man is in torment in hades and asks Abraham to send over Lazarus and dip his finger in water to refresh his lips. The gulf is simply the seperation created by Sin.

In other words Lazarus is much closer to Abrahams bosom than is the rich man.

 

[St Herman's Ghost]

From my understanding it describes the agony of the opposite of Theosis (divine union with the Godhead) or the disunion with the Godhead but is not some spatial, other dimension or what have you.

 

[Tallguy88]

How does the parable of the rich man and Lazarus factor into the Eastern view of Hell? It seems to be closer to the Western view of a separate place.

 

[ArmyMatt]

How, does the parable of the rich man and Lazarus factor into the Eastern view of Hell? It seems to be closer to the Western view of a separate place.

we don't deny a spacial separation, the sheep and the goats will be separated at the end, and it's not like you will have sinners writhing in agony next to the saints in bliss. the gulf of separation is the gulf of the man's sin. heaven and hell should be thought of more as spiritual conditions rather than places, because place as we know it will change.

 

[buzuxi02]

Hades/hell as a place is also found abundantly in Orthodox writings as well. This includes description as departing into a dark prison cell, being shut out of the bridal chamber etc.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

indeed. fire in Scripture is always the sign of God's presence (Burning Bush, eyes of fire, pillar of fire, tongues of fire, etc), so the lake of fire and the flame that torments the rich man are the same: the presence of God.

The eastern view on Hell seems possible and is fascinating. But what about the "great chasm" mentioned in that parable in Luke 16:26? How is that explained by the eastern tradition? Actually, I think an explanation just came to me. It could just mean that the good ones and bad ones are separated from each other. If that's the case, the "great chasm" would not be a problem for the eastern school of thought on this. Is that how the eastern tradition explains it?

Edit: I see that TallGuy88 already asked this question, and it was answered the same as what came to my thinking.

 

[buzuxi02]

The eastern view on Hell seems possible and is fascinating. But what about the "great chasm" mentioned in that parable in Luke 16:26? How is that explained by the eastern tradition? Actually, I think an explanation just came to me. It could just mean that the good ones and bad ones are separated from each other. If that's the case, the "great chasm" would not be a problem for the eastern school of thought on this. Is that how the eastern tradition explains it?

Edit: I see that TallGuy88 already asked this question, and it was answered the same as what came to my thinking.

If Hamartia means missing the mark in regards to the archer. The archer would be called a bolos ( greek to throw or to shoot of) its also where the words for arrow, bullet and missile is derived from in greek; βελος.
Hence missing the mark is also a diabolos. Dia-bolos meaning shooting off in differing and opposing directions.
In terms of Christ going to Hades, yet the repentant thief was always with Him, we can say both the beggar Lazarus and the rich man were in the bosom but not in the same degree, Lazarus being closest, cleaving unto Him like a child in a mothers embrace whereas a gulf kept the rich man from embracing God.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

If it's okay I would like to add one more thought that I just had. The Catholic Church says that God is everywhere. So when it says in the Catechism that someone in Hell experiences "eternal separation from God" I think it means separation from the fullness of God's presence rather than a complete absence from it. We can look at how God is present everywhere in this world, but His presence is veiled. And the Eucharist is the prime example of God's ability to veil His presence. I still want to know if the EC position is identical to the EO on this, but perhaps this is not the place to ask. Thanks for giving me the info on your tradition.