Purgatory & the Harrowing of Hell
If Jesus told the criminal on the cross that he would see him in paradise that day, what was Jesus doing in Hell? (Lk 23:43, I Pt 3:19-20) Who were these spirits in prison? (I Pt 3:19, 4:6) Did they go to heaven as a result of Jesus’ preaching?
"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." (I Pt 3:18-20)
A very tricky passage, one that I don't profess to fully understand, but I certainly don't agree with the accepted teaching on this according to the Catechism. The Catechism (and it seems to me, the traditional, conventional understanding of this in the Catholic and Orthodox churches) is that Jesus went to the underworld to liberate the righteous before his time, people like Adam, Eve, the patriarchs and many no-names for sure. But that's not what the passage implies, since it says, "because they formerly did not obey", meaning that these spirits in prison were not obedient, and therefore, not righteous. Furthermore, it says, "when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared". We know that the only people God saved through the Flood was Noah, his wife, their 3 sons and their 3 wives. 8 people. Everyone else was deemed corrupt and had to go. So God was patient in 2 ways. One, he patiently waited until he could send the Flood, delaying the world's punishment until Noah could prepare the ark for his family and the animals. Second, God was patient in giving these spirits a second chance. Having formerly not obeyed, they hear the good news preached to them and now come to obedience. This is implied by the word "formerly", since this means that they at one time were disobedient, but now no longer, meaning that they have become obedient. (Unless the translation of this word "formerly" is just plain incorrect. I do not know biblical Greek.) Even if this word "formerly" in incorrectly used here, you still have to wonder why Jesus would preach to people for whom eternal damnation was already a guarantee. What would be the point of that? So this to me is the most obvious interpretation of the passage. Why is this controversial? Because it doesn't jive with the rest of Christian theology. We know that there's a heaven, and a hell, and you don't get second chances after you die. But that's exactly what this passage is saying, at least, for those who lived during the time of Noah and were swept away by the Flood. So then we have to ask, was it only these people who were given a second chance, or everyone before the time of Jesus? The passage only mentions "those who formerly did not obey", which could count as everyone before Jesus, but then specifies the people during the Flood, which narrows it down dramatically. Does this mean there was something special about human history before the Flood that warranted this special treatment? Possibly, but like I said, I'm not stating anything on this question with positive certainty, because while the passage to me seems to lend itself to a particular interpretation, it doesn't fit the rest of Christian theology, at least in no obvious way, and this is a problem.
Another curious verse: "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live." (Jn 5:25) But does this refer to the harrowing of hell? It could be interpreted merely metaphorically, which would cover the "and is now here" part, since Jesus wouldn't harrow hell until after he died. But it could also just refer to the resurrection and judgment, which is supported by vv 28-29: "Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment." We know that when Jesus died, many came out of their tombs and showed themselves to those in Jerusalem. (Mt 27:52-53) Doubtless this was due to the harrowing of hell. But Matthew says that these were only the saints. Another verse, I Pt 4:6: "For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does." However, this verse doesn't directly say one way or the other if these dead were the righteous or unrighteous.
So we know from these passages, putting them all together, that Jesus did indeed preach to the dead, that he preached both to the righteous and unrighteous, that this preaching to the righteous was efficacious for their salvation, but what's less certain is whether this same preaching was efficacious for the salvation of the unrighteous, given that while this to me seems to be the best interpretation, I must admit that it doesn't fit in with Christian teaching on the afterlife.
To streamline this a bit, I think it'd be helpful to take a look at the Wikipedia article on "Spirits in Prison". Scroll down a bit where you'll see 5 of the most common interpretations on this passage, of which I take the 2nd, but the 3rd and 4th also look good. On the other hand, I don't see any reason why all 3 of them can't be true, since they don't mutually conflict with each other. The 2nd interpretation focuses on the unrighteous, saying that they were given a 2nd chance. The 3rd also focuses on the unrighteous, but says that they were condemned. I don't see why he couldn't have preached to the unrighteous, with some of them accepting his message and others rejecting it. So both views can be correct without contradicting each other. View 4 focuses on the unrighteous who repented (so they are technically counted as righteous ) and are released from Purgatory by Christ. Again, this doesn't conflict with either view 2 or 3. And then of course there's the official view of the Church, which says that Christ preached to and saved the righteous. And that also doesn't conflict with any of the above. What I'm saying is that Jesus could have preached to the righteous, and they would already have been judged righteous, and he could have preached to the unrighteous, and some of them could have been saved and some could have rejected salvation. This is all internally consistent. The problem lies in the fact that the 2nd view (my view), doesn't fit in with the (external) system of Christian teaching on the afterlife, wherein you don't get 2nd chances after you're dead.
"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." (I Pt 3:18-20)
A very tricky passage, one that I don't profess to fully understand, but I certainly don't agree with the accepted teaching on this according to the Catechism. The Catechism (and it seems to me, the traditional, conventional understanding of this in the Catholic and Orthodox churches) is that Jesus went to the underworld to liberate the righteous before his time, people like Adam, Eve, the patriarchs and many no-names for sure. But that's not what the passage implies, since it says, "because they formerly did not obey", meaning that these spirits in prison were not obedient, and therefore, not righteous. Furthermore, it says, "when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared". We know that the only people God saved through the Flood was Noah, his wife, their 3 sons and their 3 wives. 8 people. Everyone else was deemed corrupt and had to go. So God was patient in 2 ways. One, he patiently waited until he could send the Flood, delaying the world's punishment until Noah could prepare the ark for his family and the animals. Second, God was patient in giving these spirits a second chance. Having formerly not obeyed, they hear the good news preached to them and now come to obedience. This is implied by the word "formerly", since this means that they at one time were disobedient, but now no longer, meaning that they have become obedient. (Unless the translation of this word "formerly" is just plain incorrect. I do not know biblical Greek.) Even if this word "formerly" in incorrectly used here, you still have to wonder why Jesus would preach to people for whom eternal damnation was already a guarantee. What would be the point of that? So this to me is the most obvious interpretation of the passage. Why is this controversial? Because it doesn't jive with the rest of Christian theology. We know that there's a heaven, and a hell, and you don't get second chances after you die. But that's exactly what this passage is saying, at least, for those who lived during the time of Noah and were swept away by the Flood. So then we have to ask, was it only these people who were given a second chance, or everyone before the time of Jesus? The passage only mentions "those who formerly did not obey", which could count as everyone before Jesus, but then specifies the people during the Flood, which narrows it down dramatically. Does this mean there was something special about human history before the Flood that warranted this special treatment? Possibly, but like I said, I'm not stating anything on this question with positive certainty, because while the passage to me seems to lend itself to a particular interpretation, it doesn't fit the rest of Christian theology, at least in no obvious way, and this is a problem.
Another curious verse: "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live." (Jn 5:25) But does this refer to the harrowing of hell? It could be interpreted merely metaphorically, which would cover the "and is now here" part, since Jesus wouldn't harrow hell until after he died. But it could also just refer to the resurrection and judgment, which is supported by vv 28-29: "Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment." We know that when Jesus died, many came out of their tombs and showed themselves to those in Jerusalem. (Mt 27:52-53) Doubtless this was due to the harrowing of hell. But Matthew says that these were only the saints. Another verse, I Pt 4:6: "For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does." However, this verse doesn't directly say one way or the other if these dead were the righteous or unrighteous.
So we know from these passages, putting them all together, that Jesus did indeed preach to the dead, that he preached both to the righteous and unrighteous, that this preaching to the righteous was efficacious for their salvation, but what's less certain is whether this same preaching was efficacious for the salvation of the unrighteous, given that while this to me seems to be the best interpretation, I must admit that it doesn't fit in with Christian teaching on the afterlife.
To streamline this a bit, I think it'd be helpful to take a look at the Wikipedia article on "Spirits in Prison". Scroll down a bit where you'll see 5 of the most common interpretations on this passage, of which I take the 2nd, but the 3rd and 4th also look good. On the other hand, I don't see any reason why all 3 of them can't be true, since they don't mutually conflict with each other. The 2nd interpretation focuses on the unrighteous, saying that they were given a 2nd chance. The 3rd also focuses on the unrighteous, but says that they were condemned. I don't see why he couldn't have preached to the unrighteous, with some of them accepting his message and others rejecting it. So both views can be correct without contradicting each other. View 4 focuses on the unrighteous who repented (so they are technically counted as righteous ) and are released from Purgatory by Christ. Again, this doesn't conflict with either view 2 or 3. And then of course there's the official view of the Church, which says that Christ preached to and saved the righteous. And that also doesn't conflict with any of the above. What I'm saying is that Jesus could have preached to the righteous, and they would already have been judged righteous, and he could have preached to the unrighteous, and some of them could have been saved and some could have rejected salvation. This is all internally consistent. The problem lies in the fact that the 2nd view (my view), doesn't fit in with the (external) system of Christian teaching on the afterlife, wherein you don't get 2nd chances after you're dead.