A Wretched Denial of the Harrowing

Hey guys, I know I've taken a bit of a hiatus here; I started some Summer classes, so I've had my workload pretty full with all that. In addition, I have a new job lined up for this fall, so I'm not sure how often I'll be able to post these, but I will do my best to keep some kind of schedule going. With that out of the way, I thought I could swing back to a topic we've covered many times before: the Harrowing of Hell. My friend showed me a video from the popular YouTube channel Wretched on the topic, and I thought it would be lovely to respond to the arguments put forth. Because this is a response, I will try to give a brief summary of the argument in question, but I would reccommend watching the video for yourself before actually reading my response. It's not a long video--not even 10 minutes--but as I said, I will summarize his arguments here. He segments his video by passage, so I will respond in kind.

Argument 1: What about the thief on the cross?

'And [Jesus] said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.” ' Luke 23:43

Summary: Christ promises to bring the thief on the cross

Throughout the video, this is, in my opinion, the strongest argument he brings to the table. However, there are a few ways to respond to this. First, it's to note where/what paradise is. Paradise is where God is, that is what makes it paradise. This is why we can talk about the Church as paradise. In the scriptures, it is used to refer to heaven by St. Paul, but it is also used by Christ to describe the place where we eat the Tree of Life. This is why like to talk about the Eucharist as Paradise. Related to this, remember that Christ talks about Himself as the Kingdom of God when He says to the Pharisees and the sick that the Kingdom of God has come to them (Matt. 12:28, Luke 10:9). Thus, we can see that this Paradise, the Kingdom of God, who can make the barren place burst with the fruitfulness of Eden. This is also why St. Peter describes Christ preaching to the dead so that they may "live in the Spirit" (1 Pet 4:6). In His descent, He brings Paradise with Him, just as Aslan brings spring with his step.

Another possible idea is that the descent did happen on Friday. The scriptures never technically give the day for such an event, and since Christ died on Friday, it's unlikely he just spent some time hanging around rather than rescuing all his people. It's not impossible--He did preach to his faithful and against the devils, and worship services obviously take time. However, it's equally possible that the separation of Friday and Saturday is symbolic, since Saturday is the day of rest and Sheol is the realm of the dead.

I'll freely admit, I'm not entirely confident with these explanations, though I find both compelling. In any case, I think our posture ought to be an attempt to figure out how this passage coheres with those that clearly describe the Harrowing, rather than throwing out this ancient doctrine immediately.

Argument 2: Mistake of Noahic Proportions

'For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. ' 1 Peter 3:18-20

Summary: St. Peter is saying that Christ preached through Noah, and those spirits who were preached to are now imprisoned.

This is the strangest one of the bunch because it requires a great deal of importing meaning into the text to make it coherent. The text says "Christ...went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison." The reference to Noah is one of time, not of means, so it takes a heaping helping of eisegesis to make this work. It also missed the other key prooftext from the next chapter, 1 Peter 4:6, which describes Christ preaching to the dead and bringing them to life by His Word, and it builds off 3:18's reference to Christ . I don't have much more to say about this one, it was just a poor, poor argument.

Argument 3: Captivating Confusion

'Therefore it says, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.” ( In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions of the earth? He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) ' Ephesians 4:8-10

Summary:

• "the lower regions of the earth" refers to death and the grave

• The "captives" are all men, and Christ frees them after the resurrection, in which He is the firstfruits

• If this did refer to a descent into hell, this would be unique, so we should be skeptical that it refers to such a major event

• The "captives" are sin, death, and the devil

• How could they be in hell if they had faith? How can Jesus rescue people from hell if it's eternal (Luke 16:26)?

This is his most complex argument yet, and I will handle it point-by-point. The first point is a bit difficult to maintain because it is discussed in relation to the ascension. The ascension was something that actually happened--Christ ascended "above the heavens" to the right hand of God. Christ's descent, in Wretched's view, is more metaphorical, being placed into a tomb.

If the descent is the about the grave and thus the captives he leads to heaven is all men at the resurrection, then that creates some wonky time differences. That would mean his ascension happens before he actually leads the captives, as He ascends 43 days after his death but then won't lead the captives out of the grave until the last day, which clearly isn't what St. Paul is referring to.

This next point is one of my favorites here, because it is just so dang silly. This is related to one of my favorite Lutheran Satire videos:

We'd love to see you apply this strategy in the laboratory, Patrick. "Hey Conall, I just proved there's no such thing as Barium." "And how'd you do that, Donall?" "By throwing out all the samples of Barium!" I'm surprised more defense attorneys don't try this in the courtroom. "Ladies and gentlement of the jury, I have conclusively proven to you that my client is innocent, as long as you ignore the murder weapon, his confession, and the 400 witnesses who saw him stab that guy in the face!"

This is an absolutely wild argument! He's ignored (or at least failed to refute) the passages that confess the harrowing of hell and then has the gall to say "And this is the only passage that says this, so we have to ignore it, because scripture interprets scripture or something."

The next point is about the captives being sin death and the devil. The problem is that they were not led to destruction in the passage. This ascent refers to His ascent into heaven, as 4:10 specifies, and obviously sin, death, and the devil were not brought to heaven after Christ's ascension. What's more, every place that talks about Satan's fate always mentions that he falls, as Christ describes regarding the sending out of the 72 in the Gospels. The only thing close to this would be the angel sent to release Satan from the pit, but this obviously isn't referring to an ascent. Even in Revelation 20, Satan is not brought up into heaven to be judged but is cast into the lake of fire.

Finally, I won't say much about this last point, because I have already written extensively about it in another post. Suffice it to say that this is a mistake in cosmology, as Christ did not descent into hell, the place exclusively for demons and the wicked, but He descended into Sheol, a place for the dead souls of men. This doesn't have the same kind of promises as Gehenna does, as the Lord promises to rescue us from Sheol in the Old Testament, while Gehenna is the lake of fire that will never be quenched and from which no one can return.

Argument 4: Ascension Contention

'Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”' John 20:17

Summary: Harrowers would say that this means Christ must not have gone to heaven after death, this refers to His physical ascension. Though He spiritually ascended to the Father, He will ascend bodily later. This is because clear texts interpret unclear texts.

To be honest, I have no idea what clear text he's referring to, but I would say that his interpretation here is actually correct. This passage likely refers to a specific event--Christ's ascension. Thus, when he says "I have not yet ascended to my Father," he's saying "I'm gonna do an ascension, and I haven't done it." It doesn't mean that He necessarily didn't ascend to His Father spiritually. This could be, He may have taken the souls of the faithful to heaven and then returned to His body, that's possible. This, however, is really no death knell to the Harrowing position.

Argument 5: "Is" means "Is" and "Finished" means "Finished"

'When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.' John 19:30

Summary: If Christ went down to hell to suffer for our sins, that contradicts Christ's words that "it is finished," because it obviously isn't if He still has to suffer.

This is true, and thanks be to God that we confess this same thing in the Book of Concord!