Power of Insignificance and Apparent Defeat

In my high school German III & IV classes (that I barely squeaked by) we read (in German) some of the letters and pamphlets written by Sophie and her brother Hans and others in The White Rose. The Scholls were heroes of mine before I even knew much more than the name of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I was more familiar with The White Rose than the Confessing Church until late in my college career. Young? Yes. Courageous? Of course. I do not consider them to have failed in their mission. I believe The White Rose, The Confessing Church and others who resisted the Nazis from within had more to do with the collapse of Nazi Germany than the Allied military. They undermined the attempt to control conscience and thus the ability of the Nazi political and military establishment to continue and compel people to do its bidding. They exposed its moral bankruptcy that could not bear the weight the rest of the world was putting on them. They seemed insignificant at the time, but the Nazis knew what a danger they were to the Nazi power structure. Tyrants always fear those with a conscience who are not afraid of pain or death because they cannot be controlled.

Will the Supreme Court Surprise Us All?

Thoughts on political operations (not on what my opinion would be if I were a Supreme Court Justice): The same-sex marriage issue before the Supreme Court now is likely to be a watershed decision not unlike Brown v. Board of Education Topeka, Kansas  (1954 9-0 decision that overturned Plessy v. Ferguson 1896). I know some might argue that Row v. Wade (1973 7-2 decision) was of the same magnitude. But Chief Justice Roberts’ sex discrimination question (as opposed to the right to marry issue) made me wonder if he is already thinking the way then Chief Justice Warren was thinking in 1954. Desegregation of public schools was such a volatile, divisive issue at the time, threatening to plunge the nation into violent chaos, that he wanted to find a way to avoid a divided court to signal this decision was not going to be subject to political jockeying. Warren was able to convince all of the justices to work together and work hard to find language and principles they could all agree on for the good of the country. In the present situation a 5-4 decision either way will not settle anything but prolong a pitched battle. A 9-0 unanimous decision on anything seems hopeless in our present polarized environment, though race relations in 1954 were certainly violently polarizing. Ironically, in recent months we have not seemed to progress much on that front since 1954. Chief Justice Roberts is clearly identified as an articulate conservative, and he is also known as a skilled negotiator. Can he cobble together a 6-3 decision either by finding an approach that persuades Justice Kennedy to vote with the conservatives or a legal rationale with which he and the liberal justices can agree? Either way, could he persuade one more justice to go with him to make a 7-2 decision? What difference would it make for the country if a one-vote-margin was avoided? What difference would it make to those whose cause did not prevail? In Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, the final legal underpinnings were not at the center of either side’s arguments, which often happens in Supreme Court decisions. As those nine people argue out their differences of opinion, unexpected results have emerged in the past. Is a surprise possible that would bring together or at least leave intact the concerns for individual conscience and social justice? I hope those of you who know me recognize how important Christian faith and discipleship are to me, with all that brings in the realm of theology and ethics based on Scripture. Because of that I do not want the government (Supreme Court, Congress, public schools) defining and mandating those things for me. Yet, I know that theology matters, and what we believe necessarily shapes our decisions and actions in the public arena as well as the private. This conviction (plus the U.S. Constitution’s non-establishment of religion clause in the First Amendment) means the Supreme Court must rightly try to sort this out without using religious categories, at the same time working with the sincere convictions of each of the justices. I also know I have friends and family fully convinced on both sides of this issue and have purposely tried not to tip my hand in what I have written here, which I know will not please those with strong conflicting opinions for whom the answer is completely obvious and may think I am copping out. In some other areas, I have recently had occasion to reflect on Romans 14:5, “Let all be fully convinced in their own minds.” Paul appealed to those who were fully convinced in their own minds of opposite opinions not to judge each other. I also know that for those who are fully convinced in their own minds, this principle doesn’t apply since what is at stake seems so clear to them. I know all too well how hard it is for me, when I am fully convinced of something in my mind, to understand why it is not equally as clear to someone who disagrees. Here, I am not talking about the differing perspectives that distinguish Christians from secular society but sincere disagreements between biblically informed, prayerful, serious disciples of Jesus.

I'm Compelled to Respond Again to the Gun Debate

As I listen to conversation and TV and read on Facebook the gun debates, I am struck with the adamancy with which the arguers select statistics and quotes to support their positions.  Many of the arguments center around the pragmatics of what may or may not prevent mass shootings or individual crimes, what does or does not offer protection from violent crime. In those arguments I sense a lot of fear: fear of how our society is changing, fear of people we don’t understand, fear of losing personal rights and security, fear of the technology of firearms, fear of mental illness.

 

I have observed in many situations and am convinced in this instance that when we, individually or together, make decisions out of fear we almost always make the wrong decision. I am reminded by 1 John 4:18 that perfect love casts out fear. Courage is not the opposite of fear, love is! I would challenge those engaging in the current gun debate to be honest about the fears behind their arguments and confront them with love.

 

I recognize that this is counter-cultural, and I have no illusions that our politicians can comprehend much less implement love as the antidote to fear. I know that depending on love is regarded as naïve and thus untried.  As one who aspires to follow the teaching and example of Jesus Christ, I must consider something even more radical. That is that self-defense is incompatible with Christian discipleship. I may be called upon to risk my safety for the protection of others, especially the weak and vulnerable, but I believe that using deadly force on another person to defend myself is spiritually far more dangerous than being killed.

 

If you assume that my words are an oblique argument in the gun debate, you have completely missed my point. I am confident that neither laws nor guns offer safety, security or protection. Both are illusions spawned by fear. That is not to say that guns and laws do not serve some useful purposes, only that until we are prepared to address our fears with much greater power at much greater depth, laws and guns endanger rather than protect us.

 

If you can set aside for a moment the public rhetoric and political debates, it is clear that the gun debate is one more polarizing issue affecting our whole society. At the same time that polls (and internet posts) show a growing number of people clambering for tighter gun regulations, gun and ammunition sales (and NRA membership and firearms training) are skyrocketing. This chasm can only be crossed when people on both sides let love cast out their fear.

U.S. Constitution and the Bible

I have a deep respect and appreciation for the U.S. Constitution. Few if any countries have used the same defining document for such a long time. Except for the turmoil of the Civil War, the U.S. Constitution has guided this country through the peaceful transitions of government for two and a quarter centuries. This has held up even in times of great division, turmoil and distrust. The U.S. Constitution is remarkable for its brevity, especially when compared with the defining documents of other nations. That is clearly part of its genius. With only a couple of exceptions, the U.S. Constitution has not been used to address transitory issues but sets in place a mechanism for doing so. It has established stable, enduring institutions and processes, while at the same time remaining flexible and adaptable to changing conditions.

 

Having said that, the framers knew it was the imperfect work of imperfect people. From its original form through the years of amendments, the U.S. Constitution has been forged from difficult and sometimes distressing compromises. Perhaps the greatest of these is how it handled slavery that became fertile soil for the Civil War and perpetuated suffering on thousands and thousands of people for generations. The framers knew full well that the U.S. Constitution was not a finished product when they built in a difficult but achievable means of amending it. Its very adoption was dependent on passing the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights.

 

I believe the U.S. Constitution can and will serve the United States well for many generations to come. But I am also uncomfortable with how the U.S. Constitution is invoked in some of the most volatile political debates of our time. To suggest that it is frozen in the eighteenth century is a denial of both the insight of the framers and the realities of the twenty first century. I am even more concerned that this endues the U.S. Constitution with the qualities of inspiration, reliability and authority that, as a Christian, I can only ascribe to the Bible.

 

I can acknowledge God sovereignly working in the processes by which the framers developed the U.S. Constitution. However, that is a very long way from treating it as divine scripture. While some devout, orthodox Christians participated in framing the U.S. Constitution, Deists who overtly disavowed Christianity also had a strong influence. I am not objecting to their influence on the U.S. Constitution, but only objecting to trying to claim this document that does not mention God as somehow Christian.

 

In fact, I am convinced that we Christians and our churches are far better off and have a more vigorous faith when neither government nor social consensus supports a generic religion cloaked with Christian vocabulary. To say “I believe in God” or even “I believe in Christ” is far different than living in faith as a disciple of Jesus. To be satisfied with superficial religion, even with Christian symbols, is to dilute the demands of discipleship. What spiritual benefit is it to expect public officials to mouth religious platitudes which are at best marginal to them?

 

At the time I am writing this, this country is reeling from yet another gun massacre. At a time when we are and should be grieving, the demand to take action to prevent such tragedies in the future is pushing our national mourning to the edges with political posturing over gun laws.

 

This posturing is what has prompted my reflections on the U.S. Constitution. In my high school history and government classes and my college history and political science classes, the “right to keep and bear arms” clause of the Second Amendment was consistently taught as relating to the States keeping standing militias as protection from an armed invasion, especially by a tyrannical central government. While fear of big government is again fueling current political debates, I am not aware of anyone seriously proposing individual States waging an armed insurrection against the federal government. Public opinion and recent court decisions have interpreted the “right to keep and bear arms” clause of the U.S. Constitution as an individual right, and the incentive is the personal right to use deadly force for perceived self-defense.

 

While the interpretation of the clause seems to have evolved in my own lifetime, the “right to keep and bear arms” seems to have become fixed and inviolable by virtue of being in the U.S. Constitution. Yet the circumstances in the twenty first century are far different than they were in 1787 when the U.S. Constitution was adopted. The rationale has shifted from state militias to individual self-defense. Having recently come through the Revolutionary War with its single load rifles, the framers of the U.S. Constitution could never have imagined the powerful, repeating firearms we have today. . We have grown from a young nation along the Atlantic coast to become a major world power occupying the center of North America from coast to coast. We have gone from an agrarian society in which a gun was a survival tool for providing food as much as for protection (not necessarily from other people) to an urban society in which the density of population raises the risks and consequences of all violence dramatically. I’d like to think that if the founders could look over our shoulders and give us some advice, they’d tell us that there is sufficient flexibility in the Second Amendment to address the current issues that surround guns. They would probably also remind us that we have the power to amend the Constitution to cope with changing circumstances, though probably with a cautionary note about tampering with the Constitution to deal with a transitory issue.

 

Theologically, we Christians ought also to remind our society that neither the U.S. Constitution nor our other laws are Holy Scripture. God did not deliver them to Thomas Jefferson as the Ten Commandments were delivered to Moses as reported in Exodus. To be a nation of laws is good. We can be very thankful for the exemplary quality of our U.S. Constitution which protects our right to worship God and live as faithful disciples of Jesus. We Christians are also called to urge our society to use and modify its laws to maximize justice and peace in the circumstances of our own time.

Can we move from the fear driven debate over guns to love?

Laws are external reflections of broader, underlying social values. The debates over gun laws provoked by tragedies, such as happened this week in Connecticut are the symptom of a deep ambivalence in our society. We want assured security, which is impossible. So we are afraid, and when we respond out of fear, we almost always make the wrong decision.

 

Some folk try to assuage their insecurity by owning guns in the illusory belief that guns will protect them, ignoring the reality that those guns are more of a threat to them and those they love than to a potential criminal. We don’t take seriously Jesus’ words, “Those who live by the sword (gun) will die by the sword (gun).” (Matthew 26:52) Others seek an equally illusory security in laws that are not respected by those with violent intent. Laws may control the behavior of most people, but they cannot determine the character of those who do not share the underlying principle of the law.

 

Only as we acknowledge and address our fear will we be able to have a dialog that can produce a viable consensus. St. John wrote, “Perfect love casts our fear.” (1 John 4:18) The dialog needs to be about how to make love a practical replacement for fear.

 

One part of that has to do with how we handle mental illness. This is more than providing better services. It has to do with truly loving those who suffer from mental illness, so we are not afraid of “them,” and they are not afraid of “us.”

 

But even deeper, we have to surrender our insatiable, impossible insistence on total security. That is not to say we accept threats and dangers, but that we recognize nothing we do will be 100% airtight and not look to lay blame on scapegoats when the reality of human insecurity happens.

 

That gets at a core issue that is even more difficult to address: individualistic self-focus that makes self-defense a paramount value. Whether we think guns or laws will defend us from violent threats, the effect is to elevate ourselves over others, which is to stifle love with fear.

 

Fully recognizing that only a tiny portion of the population consider themselves first and foremost to be disciples of Jesus, as one who aspires to that and to follow his lead, I must surrender my demand for self-defense. That determination took Jesus to the cross and is the life path laid out by St. Paul. (Philippians 3:10-11) To become like Jesus in his death, and attain the resurrection from the dead.

 

Out of love I may do any number of difficult and risky things to protect my family, my friends, my neighbors, even those I don’t know who might think of me as their enemy. But I would like to think that if faced with only these options, I would choose to let an attacker send me into the arms of Jesus than for me to send them to eternal judgment beyond repentance. Can anything less express the love of Jesus?

Merry Christmas?

My earliest recollections of Christmas go back to ‘51 or ‘52 when I was 5 or 6 years old. I definitely remember Christmas cards, downtown stores with elaborate window displays, and front lawn home displays that said “Season’s Greetings” and “Happy Holidays” as well as “Merry Christmas.” A survey of old movies and antique Christmas cards show that this mix of greetings had already been going on for a long time, and no one was concerned that it was or was not politically correct.

Yes, businesses and our Jewish neighbors (which was a substantial part of the neighborhood where I grew up) tended toward “Season’s Greetings” and “Happy Holidays,” but no one accused them of making war on Christmas. Yes, there were calls to “keep Christ in Christmas,” but that tended to be encouragement for Christians' families to focus their celebrations on the birth of Jesus. If someone said to you, “Season’s Greetings” or “Happy Holidays” or “Happy Hanukkah” or “Merry Christmas,” you just accepted it as a gesture of good will, not as a call to arms in the culture wars.

I find it ironically amusing that so much of what we nostalgically associate with Christmas comes from the Victorian era by way of Charles Dickens’ 1843 novella A Christmas Carol. The turning point in the story comes as Ebenezer Scrooge awakens from his dreams on Christmas morning, flings open his window and shouts “Merry Christmas!” to the people in the street. Yes, he used “Merry Christmas,” but Jesus is not mentioned in the story. Charles Dickens’ interests were strictly secular and humanitarian. He was actually rather hostile to religion, church and Christianity. So Scrooge’s “Merry Christmas” was not at all about keeping Christ in Christmas.

Clement Clarke Moore’s 1822 poem ‘Twas the night before Christmas ends with St. Nicholas flying off with the greeting, “Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night!” but the poem makes nary a reference to Jesus. I do not object to Dickens or Moore or even to Santa Claus as a fun imaginary figure (albeit with an historic, Christian foundation). I am only suggesting that Christmas observances without overtly mentioning Jesus have a long and cherished history. So when someone greets me today with “Season’s Greetings,” “Happy Holidays” or “Merry Christmas,” I accept it as their genuine expression of good will and usually return my own “Merry Christmas,” not to make some kind of statement but simply as a greeting in my own most comfortable way.

As a pastor and one who intends to be a faithful disciple of Jesus, I do take seriously the connections between our language and life of faith. When the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:7) say, “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain” (RSV), “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God” (NIV), “You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God” (NRSV), I’m rather more concerned that invoking the name of Christ for commercial purposes violates this commandment more than if a secular entity or non-Christian person says “Season’s Greetings” or “Happy Holidays.”

Without intending to be judgmental, I suggest for our contemplation whether it might be a misuse of the name of Christ to promote the sales of inflatable or illuminated lawn ornaments such snowmen and toy soldiers, or the sale of violent video games, or luxurious jewelry and cars. I am not at all opposed to seasonal festivities, symbols and gifts. I am only questioning whether insisting that they be associated with the birth of Jesus detracts from rather than enhances our Christmas celebrations.

For several years I have observed the increasingly strident insistence on “Merry Christmas,” that strikes me as conveying a tone rather contrary to the approach Jesus took with people. This year I am noticing more push-back (of which this piece might be an example). My own assessment is that this push and pull contaminates the joy that we hope to feel as Christmas approaches. I suppose I have engaged in this analysis because that is what wells up in my mind when I am repeatedly prodded by something that troubles me. Actually, my hope would be that I could give and receive well intentioned greetings without having to think about whether some socio-political message is hiding there.

The Harrowing of Hell and Related Inscrutables

Questions about a Puzzling Passage:
1 Peter 4:6 says that Christ preached (preaches?) to the dead. Somewhere else it says that Christ went down to the dead after his crucifixion (doesn't it?) Does this mean that there is a second chance for redemption after death? Would that be for those who never were exposed to the teachings of Christ on earth? Or is it also a second chance for all of us? Or does it mean none of the above?

An Answer:
The “somewhere else’ is the Apostles Creed.

Book of Common Prayer – 1662

I believe in God the Father Almighty,Maker of heaven and earth:And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord,Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,Born of the Virgin Mary,Suffered under Pontius Pilate,Was crucified, dead, and buried:He descended into hell;The third day he rose again from the dead;He ascended into heaven,And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.I believe in the Holy Ghost;The holy Catholick Church;The Communion of Saints;The Forgiveness of sins;The Resurrection of the body,And the Life everlasting.Amen.

Common Worship – 2000

I believe in God, the Father almighty,creator of heaven and earth.I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,born of the Virgin Mary,suffered under Pontius Pilate,was crucified, died, and was buried;he descended to the dead.On the third day he rose again;he ascended into heaven,he is seated at the right hand of the Father,and he will come to judge the living and the dead.I believe in the Holy Spirit,the holy catholic Church,the communion of saints,the forgiveness of sins,the resurrection of the body,and the life everlasting.Amen.

1 Peter actually introduces the concept in chapter 3. The commentaries agree about only one thing about this whole section of 1 Peter and the theology associated with it. It presents the darkest, most controversial and difficult exegetical problems of any passage in the Bible.

1 Peter 3:18-20

For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, 19in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison, 20who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.

1 Peter 4:6For this is the reason the gospel was proclaimed even to the dead, so that, though they had been judged in the flesh as everyone is judged, they might live in the spirit as God does.

Other related scriptures:

Job 38:17Have the gates of death been revealed to you, or have you seen the gates of deep darkness?

Psalm 68:18-22You ascended the high mount, leading captives in your train and receiving gifts from people, even from those who rebel against the LORD God’s abiding there. 19Blessed be the Lord, who daily bears us up; God is our salvation. 20Our God is a God of salvation, and to GOD, the Lord, belongs escape from death. 21But God will shatter the heads of his enemies, the hairy crown of those who walk in their guilty ways. 22The Lord said, “I will bring them back from Bashan, I will bring them back from the depths of the sea,

Matthew 12:38-41Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to him, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” 39But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth. 41The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here!

Acts 2:22-32“You that are Israelites, listen to what I have to say: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know— 23this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law. 24But God raised him up, having freed him from death, because it was impossible for him to be held in its power. 25For David says concerning him, ‘I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand so that I will not be shaken; 26therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; moreover my flesh will live in hope. 27For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One experience corruption. 28You have made known to me the ways of life; you will make me full of gladness with your presence.’ 29“Fellow Israelites, I may say to you confidently of our ancestor David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30Since he was a prophet, he knew that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would put one of his descendants on his throne. 31Foreseeing this, David spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, saying, ‘He was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh experience corruption.’ 32This Jesus God raised up, and of that all of us are witnesses.

Romans 10:7“or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

Ephesians 4:7-10But each of us was given grace according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8Therefore it is said, “When he ascended on high he made captivity itself a captive; he gave gifts to his people.” 9(When it says, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10He who descended is the same one who ascended far above all the heavens, so that he might fill all things.)

Matthew 16.18And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.A few important language issues:

• “Hell” is not the best translation of the Creed. Hell implies the place of punishment for the condemned, but “Hades” (Greek) or “Sheol” (Hebrew) give the understanding of the place for all the dead – righteous and unrighteous. Much of the Old Testament gives little if any clue as to a life beyond these “shades” or “shadows.” Hades and Sheol could just mean the dark hole in the ground that was a grave. So could just mean the darkness in which dead people were gathered. Thus, modern translations of the Creed do not say Jesus descended into hell but to the dead or the place of the dead.

• Gradually, by Jesus’ time, a distinction was made between Paradise or Abraham's Bosom – the state of God-fearing souls and “Gehenna” – the state of ungodly souls. “Gehenna” comes from ge hinnom (“Valley of Hinnom” in Hebrew; 2 Kings 23:10) where the sinful Israelites offered human sacrifices to the Canaanite god Molech. To prevent future idolatry, this was turned into the Jerusalem garbage dump after the Jews returned from exile and was kept continually burning to dispose of garbage and prevent spread of disease. Dead criminals were burned with the garbage as an insult if not punishment. It became a symbol for the fires of the judgment of God associated with Hell.

• The word in 1 Peter 3:19 for Jesus preaching to the dead is kyrusso which means to made a proclamation or an announcement. Elsewhere in the New Testament (including 1 Peter 2:9 and 4:6) euaggelizo is used for preaching the Good News (Gospel). The NRSV properly makes this distinction.

• 1 Peter 3:19 says that Christ “made a proclamation to the spirits in prison,” and 4:6 says “the gospel was proclaimed even to the dead.”

• Some have suggested that Luke 23.43 precludes Jesus’ descent to the dead because he told the thief on the cross, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” However, the placement of the comma is not in the original but added by translators, so could just as well read, “Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise.”

Here are the basic alternate views:

• In the time of Noah, pre-incarnate Christ preached to those facing the impending judgment of the flood so that they were without excuse.

• Probably at the time between crucifixion and resurrection (though there are variations here), Jesus preached to the dead in Hades/Sheol. These may be Old Testament saints who are liberated from the darkness and brought into the light of God’s presence to await the resurrection

o Pagans who had not heard the “Gospel” of Abraham (the righteous live by faith) and are given the opportunity to accompany Jesus into the light of God’s presence to await the resurrection.

o All who have rejected God’s grace (Hebrew and Gentile alike) who have their doom announced that they are justly excluded from God’s presence.

• Since 1 Peter speaks of Jesus “preaching” to “spirits,” between Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus goes to the fallen angels and condemned evil spirits to announce his victory over sin and death, and thus their defeat.

• Thomas Aquinas said Christ descended to two places—hell and purgatory—and that his purpose in each was different. In hell, he put unbelievers to shame, while in purgatory, he gave sinners hope for glory and the righteous deliverance.

• Though rejected by a wide range of theologians, some preachers suggest that Jesus’ death on the cross was just the beginning of his redemptive work, but that it continued by really going to hell and experiencing eternal death and separation from the Father between his crucifixion and resurrection. Thus, his preaching to the dead was in the sense of taking the punishment for human sin in hell.

• William Barclay articulates the meaning of Jesus’ descent to the dead as an affirmation and expression of the power of the Gospel. His death was no sham. He really did die (not just swoon or appear to die, per the Gnostics). His victory over sin and death is universal, even in the abode of the dead. That he preached there means there is no place in the universe or spiritual reality that the message of the Gospel has not come. Thus, no one who has ever lived is left without sight of Christ and without the offer of the salvation of God.

• Some suggest that it was not Jesus personally doing the preaching but all who preached in his name (Hebrew prophets, New Testament apostles, etc.) so the gospel "was preached" in the past to people who are now dead, not that it was preached now by Christ to those who are in the realm of the dead. In other words, preaching (euaggelizo) to those who are now dead was made in the past to call them to repentance and eternal life, while the death of Jesus is a proclamation (kyrusso) of condemnation to those who are now dead who had earlier refused to respond to that preaching.

The Eastern Orthodox Church, much less influenced by rationalistic philosophy, is less inclined to try to explain in detail but to accept paradox and ambiguity, which they portray symbolically in worship and icons. They speak of these passages as the “Harrowing of Hell,” which puts a major emphasis on Jesus victory over death and evil and liberating those who are dead (spiritually as well as physically) from the prison of Hell. Icons are not pictures of events but are windows into spiritual realities. Here are a few things to look for in icons of Jesus’ resurrection.

• Jesus is not lying inactive in the tomb between crucifixion and resurrection but to invade hell not to suffer but to fight and free those who are trapped there.

• He brings light into the darkness and the darkness disappears.

• He brings life to death and mortal life becomes eternal life.

• The risen Christ stands victorious at the center of the icon, dressed in heavenly white surrounded by the star studded light of the glory of God.

• Jesus pulls Adam and Eve out of their graves. As our first parents and the ones who brought sin into the world, releasing them to eternal life represents the redemption of the whole human race and the reversal of the fall. They reach out to Jesus, waiting for him to rescue them. He pulls them by the wrist, as it is his grace, not their works, by which they receive eternal life.

• John the Baptist and Old Testament saints gather around Jesus, rejoicing that the redemption to which they looked forward has been accomplished.

• The devil and demons are trampled under the feet of Jesus.

• The broken locks and chains of those who have been released are scattered on the floor of hell.

• Jesus stands on the broken down doors of hell. They could not keep him out or prevent him from liberating people from death. They are often shown as having fallen in the form of a cross, the instrument of their defeat.