Thank you for this illuminating piece. I was wondering if you might comment on aspects of the patristic tradition that deny the possibility of repentance after death due to the loss of mutability following the soul's separation from the body. I'm thinking in particular of St. John of Damascus, who in the Exact Exposition states that "what in the case of man is death is a fall in the case of angels. For after the fall there is no possibility of repentance for them, just as after death there is for men no repentance" (II.4). Repentance is for him tied to mutability and embodiment and so becomes impossible after death. The relevant texts on this topic are summarized in David Bradshaw's chapter, "Patristic Views on Why There Is No Repentance after Death." He distinguishes between a "weak" repentance, wherein sinners who died in ignorance or minor sin could be converted after death because they were still oriented in some way toward the Good; and a "strong" repentance for grave and unrepentant sinners that cannot occur because of the necessity of embodiment/mutability for metanoia. St. Gregory of Nyssa's pottery image would in that case be linked to a sort of "firing" of the disposition and its fixity in a particular state at the moment of death. I've heard that Thomists propose a similar view, though I'm not well read in Catholic theology.
How do you recommend navigating between these two positions?
(A real question, by the way, not a refutation. I would love to believe that St. John and the others Bradshaw cites are wrong on this point.)
My apologies for letting this excellent question sit for so long. The difficult is that this goes to a rather complicated feature of this discussion. For it requires a triangulation of a number of different claims. Here are some of the considerations.
We have ample testimony to Christ's descent into Hades and the liberation of all, not merely the righteous. In this tradition, we have that liberation proclaimed to all in order that all might be saved, including the Noahic rebels, for example, who died in a state of unrepentant wickedness. This understanding of Christ's descent is ubiquitous, and such a tradition require postmortem repentance, since those being preached to are dead.
We also have the Eastern patristic tradition that the sending of the body back to dust is actually a mercy, meant to help purge the soul of the infection of the passions. Such a tradition seems to make death an aid to repentance rather than a hindrance. We can see this in Origen's comments on Pharaoh's drowning, which is preserved in the Philokalia of Origen, edited by Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus, and we can also see it in Maximos the Confessor's comments on the Noahic rebels, where their drowning is meant to send them into darkness in order that they might repent at the appearance of Christ. Such traditions, again, require postmortem repentance.
In addition, we have fathers who believe there is something purgative about postmortem torments, such as Gregory of Nyssa and Isaac the Syrian, for example. And for that reason, hold hope of universal salvation, where this antidote is ultimately effective. Again, for such a view to make sense, postmortem repentance is needed.
Added to all of this are the traditions about postmortem repentance. There are several stories within the Orthodox Church about folks being liberated from damnation by the prayers of others. One such story concerns the absolution of the iconoclasts, for example. But this is not the only one. Such stories not only presume the possibility of postmortem redemption but that it has in fact happened for some. And here, we should add the practice of prayer for the dead, which makes little sense if all hope for the dead is lost.
Now, there are certainly fathers who do not believe in postmortem repentance. You noted the passage in John of Damascus, and I could add others. So now, we run into a triangulation problem. How do we reconcile the various traditions concerning the therapeutic nature of death, Christ's descent, the preaching to those in Hades (whether by Christ or his Apostles after), prayer for the dead, traditions about those liberated from Hades, etc. with claims by other fathers who say there is no repentance after death?
You've noted one way in which David Bradshaw handles the matter with a distinction between weak and strong repentance. I think there are other possibilities as well. One could, for example, reject the capacity of the soul to repent after death and yet accept that the soul can receive extrinsic aids, if it submits. This fits well with Christ descending to the souls, with the prayers for the dead, and with traditions about the dead being liberated by the fervent prayers of others. I'm inclined to think that many who deny postmortem repentance do in fact take this position: i.e., the soul cannot repent after death and liberate itself, but it may be rescued by the Saints.
The bottom line is this. We find variation amongst the fathers on this topic, but the question cannot be treated in isolation because it intersects with a host of traditions, doctrines, and metaphysical commitments. For that reason, I think this topic deserves its own letter. Perhaps I'll write that letter to you and then post it here on Theological Letters.
Thank you for this and I very much would appreciate a longer treatment of the issue as I too have wondered about it. I have heard espoused the view that somehow through the church's prayers the church repents on behalf of the departed, to square the potential efficacy of those prayers with the notion that there is no repentance after death. But that sort of imputed repentance seems out of step with Orthodox soteriology otherwise, so I would be inclined in the direction of accepting repentance after death instead. Does that make sense? Also, if we can repent after spiritual death (i.e., we were dead in our trespasses before Christ), it would seem odd to say that we can't repent after physical death, as the former seems the greater disability. Finally, to the claim that there is no possibility of action without a body after death, that seems contradicted by Christ's activities (e.g., harrowing Hades), regardless of the response to those activities. In any event, these are just a few thoughts that occur to me, and I would love to see a more extended treatment. Thanks!
I'll certainly put this topic in the queue. Although I must warn you that the queue is getting quite long! God willing, I'll get to it soon.
In answer to your question, yes, that makes sense. I, like you, am inclined to believe that postmortem repentance is possible. My reasons are several -- some of which are noted in my initial reply -- but I'll save the details for a proper treatment of the topic.
My point concerning extrinsic aid is merely to acknowledge that one could deny the possibility of postmortem repentance but still grant that all is not lost for those who die in a state of wickedness. I am not necessarily endorsing the position.
I can also see a case to be made for a middle position. To wit, postmortem remorse is possible, but repentance is more than a feeling of sorrow; it involves penance, which are no longer possible. In this case, one could argue that something synergistic is required: inner remorse from the soul that is receptive to aid with extrinsic aid from Christ and his Saints.
Should I get to a proper treatment of the topic, I'll be sure to work through the various possibilities I see amongst the fathers and what, in my assessment, best squares with their teachings.
Further to this topic of post-mortem repentance, a certain Orthodox podcast takes a very strong view against it. I was recently listening to an episode which quoted a manual for priests in Greece from 1867 that appears on its face to clearly contemplate post-mortem repentance, but then in discussion stated it was not possible. Just thought you may find this interesting.
Fr. Stephen: So in 1867, this little book called the Nomocanon was issued to all of the Orthodox priests in Greece, and it had… It’s sort of like a Small Book of Needs, kind of? It had canonical rules for how to do certain things and procedures for handling certain things canonically. And there’s a section, which Fr. Andrew is about to read, which is called, “Concerning those who burn vrykolakas.”
Fr. Andrew: Okay. So this is what it says:
Those who have burned vrykolakas and were coated in their smoke should not receive Communion for at least six years. Vrykolakas are submissive instruments of the devil who appear at night, wandering to and from, harming, destroying, and predicting the future. These are those who are many days or even many years dead, and return among the living as one who is young, with flesh and bones. Thus, when these people hurried to burn the dead, having exhumed them and having seen the vrykolakas filled with blood, having long hair and long nails, they should have known that his accursed relics would be resurrected again on the day of judgment when he would stand before the dread and impartial Judge. Then he would be sent to the outermost eternal fire, damned for eternity, unless he truly repents of his impiety.
When this kind of satanic demon is identified, the priests should have been called to perform a supplicatory canon to the Theotokos and a blessing of the waters. Then they would serve a Divine Liturgy and ask the help of the Panagia for all of the people, and also celebrate a memorial service with kolyva, chant the exorcisms of the baptismal service and the exorcism prayers of St. Basil the Great, and sprinkle the entire community with holy water, pouring the remaining holy water on the vrykolakas. By God’s grace, the demon will flee.
….
Fr. Stephen: [Laughter] So, right. How is this phrased: “Concerning those who burn vrykolakas.” So the problem from the perspective of this text—the problem is that there are people going around burning these bodies.
Fr. Andrew: Yeah, digging them up and burning them.
Fr. Stephen: That’s the problem that this is set out to address. So, taken for granted is the idea that there are these people who, through living an evil way of life, have ended up becoming these monstrous things, these monstrous dead things. You didn’t end up this way accidentally. They’ve become these monstrous things, and these monsters are menacing the community. And the problem, from the perspective of this text, then, is that in many of these communities, the response to it is for these people to go and identify the person who has become this monster and destroy them.
That’s the problem, because what should happen, according to this text, is what? That the community—the community that’s being menaced by this monster, by this formerly human monster—needs to gather together, and they need to pray to God for the soul of this person, to try to drive out the demon and redeem this person, which they can’t do if someone has burned them.
And so burning one of these gets you six years’ excommunication. That’s like murder. This is seen as like murdering that person’s soul by this text. And so that, to me, is the key thing here: is that you don’t go and try to destroy the monster that’s menacing your community; your community gathers together to repent on behalf of that person, because they’re dead and they can’t repent any more. And to seek that formerly human monster’s salvation somehow.
Hello, Dr. Jacobs- I really enjoyed this piece, it helped clarify a few questions that have been on my mind. The unmaking and remaking of the pot was very helpful.
You said in the article, "they are perpetually beckoned to walk out of the prison and enter life — evident in the Eastern patristic tradition that the Apostles continued their Apostolic mission post-mortem to those “under the earth”".
I have not heard this before although I remember reading somewhere that the Forerunner preached in Hades before the Lord's arrival. Where can I find mention of the Apostles' post-mortem preaching in Hades?
My apologies for letting this comment slip through the cracks. Did I not offer a citation on that? I had in mind here Clement of Alexandria, who is not a Church father, of course, but who nonetheless extends the rather common patristic tradition about the prophets, including John the Baptist, preaching in Hades before Christ to the Apostles preaching after him. See Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 6.6 (PG 9.268a).
Dr. Jacobs,
Thank you for this illuminating piece. I was wondering if you might comment on aspects of the patristic tradition that deny the possibility of repentance after death due to the loss of mutability following the soul's separation from the body. I'm thinking in particular of St. John of Damascus, who in the Exact Exposition states that "what in the case of man is death is a fall in the case of angels. For after the fall there is no possibility of repentance for them, just as after death there is for men no repentance" (II.4). Repentance is for him tied to mutability and embodiment and so becomes impossible after death. The relevant texts on this topic are summarized in David Bradshaw's chapter, "Patristic Views on Why There Is No Repentance after Death." He distinguishes between a "weak" repentance, wherein sinners who died in ignorance or minor sin could be converted after death because they were still oriented in some way toward the Good; and a "strong" repentance for grave and unrepentant sinners that cannot occur because of the necessity of embodiment/mutability for metanoia. St. Gregory of Nyssa's pottery image would in that case be linked to a sort of "firing" of the disposition and its fixity in a particular state at the moment of death. I've heard that Thomists propose a similar view, though I'm not well read in Catholic theology.
How do you recommend navigating between these two positions?
(A real question, by the way, not a refutation. I would love to believe that St. John and the others Bradshaw cites are wrong on this point.)
Hi Alex,
My apologies for letting this excellent question sit for so long. The difficult is that this goes to a rather complicated feature of this discussion. For it requires a triangulation of a number of different claims. Here are some of the considerations.
We have ample testimony to Christ's descent into Hades and the liberation of all, not merely the righteous. In this tradition, we have that liberation proclaimed to all in order that all might be saved, including the Noahic rebels, for example, who died in a state of unrepentant wickedness. This understanding of Christ's descent is ubiquitous, and such a tradition require postmortem repentance, since those being preached to are dead.
We also have the Eastern patristic tradition that the sending of the body back to dust is actually a mercy, meant to help purge the soul of the infection of the passions. Such a tradition seems to make death an aid to repentance rather than a hindrance. We can see this in Origen's comments on Pharaoh's drowning, which is preserved in the Philokalia of Origen, edited by Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus, and we can also see it in Maximos the Confessor's comments on the Noahic rebels, where their drowning is meant to send them into darkness in order that they might repent at the appearance of Christ. Such traditions, again, require postmortem repentance.
In addition, we have fathers who believe there is something purgative about postmortem torments, such as Gregory of Nyssa and Isaac the Syrian, for example. And for that reason, hold hope of universal salvation, where this antidote is ultimately effective. Again, for such a view to make sense, postmortem repentance is needed.
Added to all of this are the traditions about postmortem repentance. There are several stories within the Orthodox Church about folks being liberated from damnation by the prayers of others. One such story concerns the absolution of the iconoclasts, for example. But this is not the only one. Such stories not only presume the possibility of postmortem redemption but that it has in fact happened for some. And here, we should add the practice of prayer for the dead, which makes little sense if all hope for the dead is lost.
Now, there are certainly fathers who do not believe in postmortem repentance. You noted the passage in John of Damascus, and I could add others. So now, we run into a triangulation problem. How do we reconcile the various traditions concerning the therapeutic nature of death, Christ's descent, the preaching to those in Hades (whether by Christ or his Apostles after), prayer for the dead, traditions about those liberated from Hades, etc. with claims by other fathers who say there is no repentance after death?
You've noted one way in which David Bradshaw handles the matter with a distinction between weak and strong repentance. I think there are other possibilities as well. One could, for example, reject the capacity of the soul to repent after death and yet accept that the soul can receive extrinsic aids, if it submits. This fits well with Christ descending to the souls, with the prayers for the dead, and with traditions about the dead being liberated by the fervent prayers of others. I'm inclined to think that many who deny postmortem repentance do in fact take this position: i.e., the soul cannot repent after death and liberate itself, but it may be rescued by the Saints.
The bottom line is this. We find variation amongst the fathers on this topic, but the question cannot be treated in isolation because it intersects with a host of traditions, doctrines, and metaphysical commitments. For that reason, I think this topic deserves its own letter. Perhaps I'll write that letter to you and then post it here on Theological Letters.
Thank you for this and I very much would appreciate a longer treatment of the issue as I too have wondered about it. I have heard espoused the view that somehow through the church's prayers the church repents on behalf of the departed, to square the potential efficacy of those prayers with the notion that there is no repentance after death. But that sort of imputed repentance seems out of step with Orthodox soteriology otherwise, so I would be inclined in the direction of accepting repentance after death instead. Does that make sense? Also, if we can repent after spiritual death (i.e., we were dead in our trespasses before Christ), it would seem odd to say that we can't repent after physical death, as the former seems the greater disability. Finally, to the claim that there is no possibility of action without a body after death, that seems contradicted by Christ's activities (e.g., harrowing Hades), regardless of the response to those activities. In any event, these are just a few thoughts that occur to me, and I would love to see a more extended treatment. Thanks!
I'll certainly put this topic in the queue. Although I must warn you that the queue is getting quite long! God willing, I'll get to it soon.
In answer to your question, yes, that makes sense. I, like you, am inclined to believe that postmortem repentance is possible. My reasons are several -- some of which are noted in my initial reply -- but I'll save the details for a proper treatment of the topic.
My point concerning extrinsic aid is merely to acknowledge that one could deny the possibility of postmortem repentance but still grant that all is not lost for those who die in a state of wickedness. I am not necessarily endorsing the position.
I can also see a case to be made for a middle position. To wit, postmortem remorse is possible, but repentance is more than a feeling of sorrow; it involves penance, which are no longer possible. In this case, one could argue that something synergistic is required: inner remorse from the soul that is receptive to aid with extrinsic aid from Christ and his Saints.
Should I get to a proper treatment of the topic, I'll be sure to work through the various possibilities I see amongst the fathers and what, in my assessment, best squares with their teachings.
Thanks for the response, and I will look forward to a longer treatment if and when you are able.
Further to this topic of post-mortem repentance, a certain Orthodox podcast takes a very strong view against it. I was recently listening to an episode which quoted a manual for priests in Greece from 1867 that appears on its face to clearly contemplate post-mortem repentance, but then in discussion stated it was not possible. Just thought you may find this interesting.
Fr. Stephen: So in 1867, this little book called the Nomocanon was issued to all of the Orthodox priests in Greece, and it had… It’s sort of like a Small Book of Needs, kind of? It had canonical rules for how to do certain things and procedures for handling certain things canonically. And there’s a section, which Fr. Andrew is about to read, which is called, “Concerning those who burn vrykolakas.”
Fr. Andrew: Okay. So this is what it says:
Those who have burned vrykolakas and were coated in their smoke should not receive Communion for at least six years. Vrykolakas are submissive instruments of the devil who appear at night, wandering to and from, harming, destroying, and predicting the future. These are those who are many days or even many years dead, and return among the living as one who is young, with flesh and bones. Thus, when these people hurried to burn the dead, having exhumed them and having seen the vrykolakas filled with blood, having long hair and long nails, they should have known that his accursed relics would be resurrected again on the day of judgment when he would stand before the dread and impartial Judge. Then he would be sent to the outermost eternal fire, damned for eternity, unless he truly repents of his impiety.
When this kind of satanic demon is identified, the priests should have been called to perform a supplicatory canon to the Theotokos and a blessing of the waters. Then they would serve a Divine Liturgy and ask the help of the Panagia for all of the people, and also celebrate a memorial service with kolyva, chant the exorcisms of the baptismal service and the exorcism prayers of St. Basil the Great, and sprinkle the entire community with holy water, pouring the remaining holy water on the vrykolakas. By God’s grace, the demon will flee.
….
Fr. Stephen: [Laughter] So, right. How is this phrased: “Concerning those who burn vrykolakas.” So the problem from the perspective of this text—the problem is that there are people going around burning these bodies.
Fr. Andrew: Yeah, digging them up and burning them.
Fr. Stephen: That’s the problem that this is set out to address. So, taken for granted is the idea that there are these people who, through living an evil way of life, have ended up becoming these monstrous things, these monstrous dead things. You didn’t end up this way accidentally. They’ve become these monstrous things, and these monsters are menacing the community. And the problem, from the perspective of this text, then, is that in many of these communities, the response to it is for these people to go and identify the person who has become this monster and destroy them.
That’s the problem, because what should happen, according to this text, is what? That the community—the community that’s being menaced by this monster, by this formerly human monster—needs to gather together, and they need to pray to God for the soul of this person, to try to drive out the demon and redeem this person, which they can’t do if someone has burned them.
And so burning one of these gets you six years’ excommunication. That’s like murder. This is seen as like murdering that person’s soul by this text. And so that, to me, is the key thing here: is that you don’t go and try to destroy the monster that’s menacing your community; your community gathers together to repent on behalf of that person, because they’re dead and they can’t repent any more. And to seek that formerly human monster’s salvation somehow.
Hello, Dr. Jacobs- I really enjoyed this piece, it helped clarify a few questions that have been on my mind. The unmaking and remaking of the pot was very helpful.
You said in the article, "they are perpetually beckoned to walk out of the prison and enter life — evident in the Eastern patristic tradition that the Apostles continued their Apostolic mission post-mortem to those “under the earth”".
I have not heard this before although I remember reading somewhere that the Forerunner preached in Hades before the Lord's arrival. Where can I find mention of the Apostles' post-mortem preaching in Hades?
Hi, David,
My apologies for letting this comment slip through the cracks. Did I not offer a citation on that? I had in mind here Clement of Alexandria, who is not a Church father, of course, but who nonetheless extends the rather common patristic tradition about the prophets, including John the Baptist, preaching in Hades before Christ to the Apostles preaching after him. See Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 6.6 (PG 9.268a).
Thank you, I appreciate the reply!