Stump the Priest: Everlasting Destruction

Question: "The text of the King James Version for 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is: "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." The Revised Standard Version, on the other hand, reads: "They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might." Every other modern translation has it similarly. There's a big difference between "destruction from the presence of the Lord" and "destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord." The KJV version makes it sound like there's no lake of fire, etc, but instead Hell is a place where people suffer since they can't bear the presence of God. Growing up I always heard of Hell as "eternal separation from God." Has every modern translation added "and exclusion" to the verse? Is it there in the Greek?"

If you look at the Greek text, you will see that there is no word that means "exclusion":

"οιτινες  [who] δικην [a penalty] τισουσιν [will pay] ολεθρον [destruction] αιωνιον [eternal] απο [from] προσωπου [the face] του [of the] κυριου [Lord]  και [and] απο [from] της [the] δοξης [glory] της ισχυος [of might] αυτου [His]."

So the King James Version is, as is usually the case, a very literal translation of the Greek:

"Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power."

The use of "exclusion" in the RSV is an interpretation of what it means to be punished with everlasting destruction "from the presence of the Lord".

The English Standard Version reads: "They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from[a] the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might." But it adds a footnote with an alternative translation: "Or destruction that comes from." And so their alternative reading of the text would agree with what you suggest. The problem with the RSV's translation is it makes the passage seem clearer than it actually is, and quite likely, the interpretation of the RSV is incorrect.

St. John Chrysostom commentary on this passage suggests the interpretation that the destruction is brought about by the presence of Christ at His coming:

"There are many men, who form good hopes not by abstaining from their sins, but by thinking that hell is not so terrible as it is said to be, but milder than what is threatened, and temporary, not eternal; and about this they philosophize much. But I could show from many reasons, and conclude from the very expressions concerning hell, that it is not only not milder, but much more terrible than is threatened. But I do not now intend to discourse concerning these things. For the fear even from bare words is sufficient, though we do not fully unfold their meaning. But that it is not temporary, hear Paul now saying, concerning those who know not God, and who do not believe in the Gospel, that “they shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction.” How then is that temporary which is everlasting? “From the face of the Lord,” he says. What is this? He here wishes to say how easily it might be. For since they were then much puffed up, there is no need, he says, of much trouble; it is enough that God comes and is seen, and all are involved in punishment and vengeance. His coming only to some indeed will be Light, but to others vengeance."

Furthermore, in the next chapter, St. Paul says something similar about the effect of Christ's coming on the Antichrist:

"And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:8).

And, St. John Comments on that passage as follows:

"And such is the nature of good things; they not only correct what is akin to them, but also destroy the opposite: and in this way is their power most displayed. For so both fire, not only when it giveth light and when it purifieth gold, but even when it consumeth thorns, doth very greatly display its proper power, and so show itself to be fire: and Christ too herein also doth discover His own majesty when He “shall consume” Antichrist “with the breath of His mouth, and bring him to nought with the manifestation of His coming” [Homilies on Second Corinthians 5.2].

I would not take this text to imply that there is no lake of fire. The teachings of Scripture and Tradition when it comes to the final judgment are more complicated than that, and they have to be taken together, as a whole. If you were only going to read one book (apart from Scripture) on this subject, my recommendation would be "Life after Death," by Met. Hierotheos (Vlachos).

It should also be pointed out that the meaning of "destruction" in this passage does not suggest annihilation, but rather ruin and perdition.

Stump the Priest: Gehenna

Question: "What does the word "Gehenna" mean?"

Most English Bibles translate three different Greek words as "Hell," but these terms do not all mean the same thing.

The word "Hades" (ᾅδης) is the term that the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament normally used to translate the Hebrew term "Sheol" (שׁאול), which refers to the abode of the dead, whether righteous or unrighteous, prior to Christ's Resurrection. The Greek term itself is taken from Greek Mythology, because the concept of Hades and Sheol were roughly equivalent. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) shows us how Hades/Sheol was understood by Christ. Both righteous and unrighteous men were understood to go there, but they did not experience the same thing.

The word "Tartarus" (τάρταρος) is used only once in the New Testament, in 2 Peter 2:4. This word likewise comes from Greek mythology, where it refers to a place of torment for the wicked.

The term "Gehenna" (γέεννα) is found very frequently in the New Testament, but is not found in the Old Testament, though the idea of a final place of torment for the wicked certainly is (e.g. Isaiah 66:24). We also do not find the word in Josephus. Philo likewise does not use this word, but he does use the word "Tartarus."

The term comes from an association with the Valley of Hinnom -- but not the one usually repeated. The common explanation is that the Valley of Hinnom (which is on the southern edge of the old city of Jerusalem) served as the city garbage dump, and that there was a perpetual fire there to burn garbage. This explanation originated from Rabbi David Kimchi's explanation that dates to around 1200 a.d., but this explanation is not supported by either archaeological evidence, or literary evidence from before or after that time (see The Myth of the Burning Garbage Dump of Gehenna).

The reason that the Valley of Hinnom became associated with the place of eternal torment is that this was a location in which child sacrifice was practiced (2 Kings 23:10; Isaiah 30:33; Jeremiah 7:32; Jeremiah 19:6).

Joachim Jeremias, in the entry for the word "Gehenna" (γέεννα) in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament explains:

"This name [Gehenna] was given to the Wadi er-rababi, in South Jerusalem, which later acquired a bad reputation because sacrifices were offered in it to Moloch in the days of Ahaz and Manasseh (2 King 16:3; 21:6). The threats of judgment uttered over this sinister valley in Jer. 7:32; 19:6, c.f. Isaiah 31:9; 66:24, are the reason why the Valley of Hinnom came to be equated with the hell of the last judgment...."  (The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume 1, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1964-1976), p.657).

No one is currently in Gehenna. The wicked go to Hades when they die, and experience a foretaste of the judgment that awaits them. They experience this apart from their bodies. At the Resurrection, they will be raised with their bodies, and will experience what is called "the second death," in Gehenna:

"Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation" (John 5:28-29).

"And death and hell [hades] were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death" Revelation 20:14.

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death" (Revelation 21:8).

So when we think of Hell, we are generally thinking of what the term "Gehenna" is referring to, and that term is equivalent to the terms "Tartarus," and "Lake of fire."

The saints, after Christ's Resurrection are with Him in Paradise. If one dies in a state of sanctity they do not go to Hades. However, if someone dies in a state of repentance, but without having had a chance to bring forth all the fruits of repentance, we believe that they are not ready to enter immediately into the presence of God, but that at some point, through the prayers of the Church, they will be. They are given some period of time by God to grow in grace. They also experience a foretaste of what awaits them, before they actually enter into the presence of God.

For more information, see:

Stump the Priest: Prayers for the Dead in the Bible and in Tradition

Stump the Priest: Does Hades still Exist?

Review: The Unquenchable Fire: The Traditional Christian Teaching about Hell

The heresy of universalism has experienced a revival in recent years. The idea that a Holy God would hold those who reject Him accountable, and that this has everlasting consequences, does not appeal to the worldly mindset of our time. We even will soon have a new book by the "Orthodox Theologian" David Bentley Hart, in which he will no doubt repeat his expressions of disdain for the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, proclaim Origen the greatest saint and theologian of the Church, and assure us that contrary to the clear teachings of Christ, the undying worm will die, and the unquenchable fire will be quenched. But the Truth is not subject to opinion polls, and it really doesn't matter whether we like it or not -- this is what Christians have always believed, and in fact what Christ Himself taught in the most clear and striking terms possible.

Opposing this rising tide of heresy, is the book The Unquenchable Fire: The Traditional Christian Teaching about Hell, by Fr. Lawrence Farley. Fr. Lawrence provides a thorough study of the teachings of Christ, their background in the Old Testament, the intertestamental period, as well as in the light of the rest of the New Testament, and the understanding of the early Church, and the Church Fathers. He goes into some depth on the teachings of Origen, and his subsequent condemnation by the Fifth Ecumenical Council. He explores the meaning of some of the key words and phrases that are relevant to properly understanding of Christ's teachings on this subject, and he also examines what we can learn from the hymns of the Church. He then engages the common arguments made today by those who either advocate universalism or annihilationism (the view that those who are not save simply cease to exist).

If you have struggled with these questions yourself, or want to be better equipped to answer those who either are sowing confusion in the Church, or who sincerely struggle with the questions these people have raised, this book is an excellent resource.

One might hope David Bentley Hart's bishop will read it.

More on the Question of the Toll Houses

When it comes to those who wish to either dismiss the idea of the toll houses, or to label them as heretical, I have often been amazed, both at the evidence that they are willing to ignore, and what they seem to think proves their case.

Let me say up front that no one I have ever come across takes the toll house imagery in a literalistic fashion. The toll houses are a particular way of speaking about a reality that is spoken about by the fathers and the services in various ways. However, the various ways that they speak about it, all point to the same reality.

One of the articles from the modernist website "Public Orthodoxy" that has been referenced by several such people in recent weeks, is "Aerial Toll Houses, Provisional Judgment, and the Orthodox Faith: A Review of The Departure of the Soul According to the Teachings of the Orthodox Church," by Stephen J. Shoemaker. And this article has been cited as proof that the toll houses are not a mainstream part of the Tradition of the Church. This article was published in 2017, and it is by a bonafide patristic scholar. In fact, I just got a copy of one his books a few weeks ago, so I don't doubt that he has a high level of  familiarity with the writings of the Fathers. However, after making the case that the toll houses are not, in his opinion, found in very many of the documents of the first millennium of Church History, he wraps up his review of an 1,111 page book, with this comment:

"In the contest of angels and demons over the newly departed soul, then, the monks have admittedly identified a vibrant tradition that reaches back into the ancient church and has been witnessed by many authorities – in contrast with the aerial toll houses."

The problem with this statement is that the aerial toll houses are precisely an image of "the contest of angels and demons over the newly departed soul." So far from Dr. Shoemaker refuting the toll houses, he actually confirms them.

He goes on to assert that:

"The problem, however, is that this is not the only such tradition about the fate of the soul, and herein lies the fundamentalism that steers this volume and generates its misrepresentation of the Orthodox faith. It is a fundamentalism that insists on reading a part of the tradition, isolated from the complexity of the whole, in the most literal fashion, when perhaps more nuanced, figurative interpretations are warranted instead. For instance, how should one understand such a tradition, when read literally, in light of the well-established practice of prayer for the dead that does not mention the toll houses? The Orthodox tradition is much broader and diverse than its presention [sic] in this book. In seizing on a single strand of this tradition and investing it with absolute authority at the expense of legitimate, alternative perspectives, the book is fundamentally grounded in error, obscuring and distorting, rather than clarifying and disclosing, the full teaching of the Orthodox Church."

The problem with what he says here is that he does not demonstrate at all how the idea that there is a conflict of angels and demons over the soul of the departed contradicts anything else in the Tradition of the Church. Now if there were many Fathers that could be cited that objected to this idea, then he would have a case, but he doesn't.

We are speaking about a reality that is beyond our normal experience in this life, and so, as is the case with many spiritual and theological issues, we have to speak about them in verbal images. Verbal images point us to a reality, but they are not the reality itself. Often we have a variety of images. For example, when it comes to how Christ has saved us, we have the image of "ransom" which comes from the lips of Christ Himself (Matthew 20:28). This is an image that conveys part of the reality. It is not the only Biblical image, but it is also not an image that we are free to toss out. It is also an image, like most images, that can be pressed too far. And so, one could take it to mean that Christ is given as a ransom paid to the devil, but as we know, St. Gregory the Theologian responded to that idea with "fie upon the outrage!" (Second Oration on Easter, 22). Each image we find in Scripture tells us part of the whole, and we have to take them all together, and not press them beyond their intended purpose.

This contest between angels and demons over the soul of the departed is a reality, and it is part of what we call the particular judgment. In a recent interview, George Demacopoulos, one of the editors of "Public Orthodoxy," suggested that the toll houses denied that we would be judged by Christ (A new leader for the Greek Orthodox Church in America (The Greek Current, May 20th, 2019), at the 26:10 mark). This is of course not at all true. As Christians, we all know that there will be a general resurrection, and that some will be raised to life, and others to eternal damnation, but we will all stand before the final judgment. However, the particular (or partial) judgment, which is a universal teaching of the Church, is what happens when we die, prior to that final judgment. We will spend the time between our deaths and that final judgement somewhere. The particular judgment is what determines where we will spend that time, at least initially, before the final judgment. Many people will spend that time receiving a foretaste of torment, because they died in rebellion against God, and they will spend that time in Hades. We find a description of one such person in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus:

"And in Hades [the rich man] lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame" (Luke 16:23-24).

Now as for those who object to the idea that if you die without repentance, the demons will drag you down to Hades, and see it as "horrific"... something "contrary to the mercy of God," etc. -- when compared with this depiction by the Savior Himself of the fate of the rich man, how you get there seems to me to be a rather small matter. However bad the ride might be, it's the destination that would be the real downside to the whole deal.

And the objection to the idea that God might use demons, the devil, or evil men for that matter, to deliver judgment upon human beings, is contrary to Scripture, which is full of references to precisely that. The entire book of Habakkuk, for example, is about the Prophet Habakkuk's struggle with the idea that the people of the Kingdom of Judah, though sinful and rebellious, were punished at the hands of an even more evil nation (the Babylonians).

Both George Demacopoulos in that same interview, and Fr. Evan Armatas, on a recent episode of "Orthodoxy Live" (Ancient Faith Radio, May 19, 2019), appeal to the the funeral service, and its lack of references to toll houses, as proof that the Church does not teach such a thing. There actually is an allusion to the trials the soul endures after death in second sticheron of Monk John, which we sing towards the end of the service:

"Alas! What an agony the soul endures when from the body it is parting; how many are her tears for weeping, but there is none that will show compassion: unto the angels she turns with downcast eyes; useless are her supplications; and unto men she extends her imploring hands, but finds none to bring her rescue. Thus, my beloved brethren, let us all ponder well how brief is the span of our life; and peaceful rest for him (her) that now is gone, let us ask of Christ, and also His abundant mercy for our souls" (Funeral Text of the Greek Archdiocese of North America)

And in the stichera after the last kiss for the departed, (in the eighth sticheron) we sing:

"When the soul is about to be carried away from the body with violence by dread Angels, it forgets all kinsmen and acquaintances and is troubled concerning standing before the tribunal that is to come, that shall pass judgment upon vain things and much-toiling flesh. Then, entreating the Judge, let us all pray that the Lord will forgive him (her) the things he (she) has done" (The Office for the Burial of a Layman, vol 3, Book of Needs, (South Canaan, PA: St. Tikhon Seminary Press, 1999, p. 210). This hymn is not found in the online text of the Greek Archdiocese, which is a very much abbreviated version of the Funeral service).

Furthermore, if the souls of the departed were instantly in the eternal bliss of heaven, there would be little reason for all of the prayers in the funeral and memorial services that we do for the departed, which clearly suggest that at least most souls are in need of such prayers. 

But we have more services than just the funeral service, when we pass from this world to the next. The very first service we will likely hear, before our deaths, if a priest is available, or if we wish to pray these prayers ourselves, as many saints have done before us, is the service for the departure of the soul. There are two versions of this service in the Book of Needs: one is "The Canon of Supplication to our Lord Jesus Christ and the Most-Holy Theotokos, the Mother of the Lord, at the Parting of the Soul from the Body of any Orthodox;" and the other is "The Order at the Parting of the Soul from the Body when one has Suffered for a Long Time," which is attributed in the Book of Needs to St. Andrew of Crete.

In the first of these services, we find, for example:

"Noetic roaring lions have surrounded me, seeking to carry me away and bitterly torment me. Do thou crush their teeth and jaws, O pure One, and save me" (The Canon of Supplication to our Lord Jesus Christ and the Most-Holy Theotokos, the Mother of the Lord, at the Parting of the Soul from the Body of any Orthodox, vol 3, Book of Needs, (South Canaan, PA: St. Tikhon Seminary Press, 1999, p. 76). 

"Count me worthy to pass, unhindered by the persecutor, the prince of the air, the tyrant, him that stands guard in the dread pathways, and the false accusations of these, as I depart from earth" (Ibid., p. 77).

"Behold, terror has come to meet me, O Sovereign Lady, and I am afraid of it. Behold, a great struggle awaits me, in which be thou unto me a helper, O Hope of my salvation" (Ibid., p. 77).

"Do thou translate me, O Sovereign Lady, in the sacred and precious arms of the holy Angels, that sheltered by their wings, I not see the impious, foul and dark form of the demons" (Ibid., p. 79).

"Do thou count me worthy to escape the hordes of bodiless barbarians, and rise through the aerial depths and enter into Heaven, that I may glorify thee unto the ages of ages, O holy Theotokos" (Ibid., p. 81).

In the second of these services, we find:

"Behold a multitude of evil spirits are standing about, holding the handwriting of my sins, and they cry out exceedingly, shamelessly seeking my lowly soul" (The Order at the Parting of the Soul from the Body when one has Suffered fro a Long Time, vol 3, Book of Needs, (South Canaan, PA: St. Tikhon Seminary Press, 1999, p. 87). 

Have mercy on me, O all holy angels of the Almighty God, have mercy upon me and save me from all the evil toll-collectors [which should actually have been translated as "toll houses," telonion poneron, in the Greek text], for I have no good deeds to balance my evil deeds" (Ibid., p. 90).

These prayers are literally the final instructions given to those about to depart this life, but these are by no means the only prayers in the liturgical tradition of the Church. For example, at Cheesefare Saturday Matins, we hear the hymn:

"We ever give thee thanks and magnify thee, O pure Theotokos; we venerate and praise thy childbearing, O full of grace, and we call upon thee without ceasing: Save us, merciful Virgin, in thy love; deliver us from the fearful scrutiny which we must undergo before the demons, and in the hour of our examination suffer not thy servants to be put to shame" (The Lenten Triodion: Supplementary Texts, trans. Mother Maria and Bishop Kallistos Ware (South Canaan: St. Tikhon Seminary Press, 2007, p. 58).

At the prayer to the Theotokos at the end of Small Compline, we ask each day for her "at in the hour of my departure, to care for my wretched soul, and drive far away from it the dark countenances of evil demons" (The Great Horologion (Brookline, MA: Holy Transfiguration Monastery, p. 1997, p. 230).

At the Saturday Midnight Office, at the prayer of St. Eustratius, we pray:

"And now, O Master, let Thy hand shelter me and let Thy mercy come upon me, for my soul is troubled and in sore distress at its departure from this, my wretched and defiled body, lest the evil counsel of the adversary come upon it and hinder it because of the sins I have committed in this life, whether in ignorance or in knowledge. Be gracious unto me, O Master, and let not my soul behold the gloomy and darksome countenance of the wicked demons, but let Thy radiant and luminous Angels receive it. Give glory unto Thy holy Name, and by Thy might lead me up unto Thy divine tribunal. When I am to be judged, let not the hand of the prince of this world seize me, that he might drag me, the sinner, down unto the deep of Hades; but stand Thou by me, and be Thou unto me a Saviour and Helper" (The Great Horologion (Brookline, MA: Holy Transfiguration Monastery, p. 1997, p. 48).

Many, many more examples could be cited here.

You also find many examples of commentaries on the Scriptures by the Fathers, which allude to this same reality.

For example, in Luke 12:20, in the parable of the rich fool, most translations read, like the King James Version:

"But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?"

However, the King James margin note, correctly notes: "Gr[eek], do they require thy soul."

Young’s Literal Translation notes this fact in its translation:

"And God said to him, Unthinking one! this night thy soul they shall require from thee, and what things thou didst prepare -- to whom shall they be?"

In the commentary of Blessed Theophylact (which is pretty much the gold standard when it comes to commentaries in the Orthodox Church) he makes a point about the verb translated by the KJV in the passive voice as "shall be required", but he points out that that it is is in the active voice, future, third person, plural -- and so should be "they shall require".

Blessed Theophylact says:

"Notice also the words "they will require". Like some stern imperial officers demanding tribute, the fearsome angels will ask for your souls, and you will not want to give it because you love this life and claim the things of this life as your own. But they do not demand the soul of a righteous man, because he himself commits his soul into the hands of God and Father of spirits, and he does so with joy and gladness, not in the least bit grieved that he is handing over his soul to God. For him the body is only a light burden, easily shed. But the sinner has made his soul fleshy, something difficult to separate from the body. This is why the soul must be demanded of him, the same way that harsh tax collectors treat debtors who refuse to pay what is due. See that the Lord did not say, "I shall require thy soul of thee," but, "they shall require"" (The Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to Luke. Fr. Christopher Stade, Trans. (House Springs, MO: Chrysostom  Press, 1997), p. 148).

One of the oldest Christian texts we have is St. Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho", and in it, he says:

“And what follows of the Psalm, -- ‘But Thou, Lord, do not remove Thine assistance from me; give heed to help me. Deliver my soul from the sword, and my only-begotten from the hand of the dog; save me from the lion’s mouth, and my humility from the horns of the unicorns,’—was also information and prediction of the events which should befall Him. For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten of the Father of all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs. Moreover, it is similarly foretold that He would die by crucifixion. For the passage, ‘Deliver my soul from the sword, and my only-begotten from the hand of the dog; save me from the lion’s mouth, and my humility from the horns of the unicorns,’ is indicative of the suffering by which He should die, i.e., by crucifixion. For the ‘horns of the unicorns,’ I have already explained to you, are the figure of the cross only. And the prayer that His soul should be saved from the sword, and lion’s mouth, and hand of the dog, was a prayer that no one should take possession of His soul: so that, when we arrive at the end of life, we may ask the same petition from God, who is able to turn away every shameless evil angel from taking our souls" (Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 105, ANF 1, p. 251f).

St. Basil the Great says this, in his homily on Psalm 7:

"Accordingly, being under the sentence of death, knowing that there is One Who saves and One Who delivers, 'In Thee have I put my trust,' he says, 'save me' from 'weakness' and 'deliver me' from captivity. I think that the noble athletes of God, who have wrestled considerably with the invisible enemies during the whole of their lives, after they have escaped all their persecutions and reached the end of life, are examined by the prince of the world, in order that, if they are found to have wounds from the wrestling or any stains or effects of sin, they may be detained; but, if they are found unwounded and stainless, they may be brought by Christ into their rest as being unconquered and free. Therefore he prays for his life here and for his future life. For he says: 'Save me' here 'from them that persecute me; deliver me' there in the time of the scrutiny 'lest at any time he seize upon my soul like a lion.' You may learn this from the Lord Himself who said concerning the time of His passion: 'Now the prince of this world is coming, and in me he will have nothing' [John 14:30]. He who had committed no sin said that he had nothing; but for a man it will be sufficient, if he dares to say: 'The prince of this world is coming, and in me he will have few and trivial penalties.' And there is a danger of experiencing these penalties, unless we have some one to deliver us or save us. For, the two tribulations set forth, two petitions are introduced. 'Save me from the multitude of them that persecute me, and deliver me, lest at any time I be seized as if there were no one to redeem me" [Psalm 7:2-3] (The Fathers of the Church,  vol. 46: St. Basil, Exegetical Homilies, trans. Sister Agnes Clare Way, C.D.P (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1963), p. 167f).

And many more quotes of this kind are found throughout the Fathers. It just cannot be disputed that this is so, which is why so few of those who wish to dismiss this teaching of the Church actually dare to engage the evidence.

For those who wish to see more of that evidence laid out, the text "The Departure of the Soul According to the Teaching of the Orthodox Church" does so. You can also see Evidence for the Tradition of the Toll Houses found in the Universally Received Tradition of the Church online, for a small bit of that evidence.

There is nothing Gnostic about this. To avoid being dragged down to Hades, there are no secret passwords, handshakes, or incantations that will save you. You simply need to pray for "a Christian ending," and strive, by God's grace, to prepare for such an ending. A Christian ending is one, wherein a person dies, having a clear conscience, and with faith and repentance toward God. If you die in that way, you will have nothing to worry about.

For more information, see:

David Bentley Hart and the Toll Houses

David Bentley Hart and the Toll Houses

There he goes again. David Bentley Hart, the "Orthodox Theologian" who thinks he knows better than the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils about what Orthodoxy is, has now decided to weigh in on the question of the toll houses. I don't really have any great desire to rehash this question yet again, and would have just ignored this article, had DBH not decided to call me out personally in it:

"Among a great many Orthodox scholars in the academic world (especially when they gather together in hushed colloquy among the shadows and feel at liberty to speak strictly entre eux) it is often taken as depressing evidence of how radically the public intellectual culture of Orthodoxy in America has degenerated in recent years—how, that is, it has declined from the urbane, scholarly, perhaps slightly Mandarin sophistication of the generation of Alexander Schmemann and John Meyendorff to the fundamentalist, doctrinaire, and yet deeply uneducated primitivism promoted principally by former Evangelicals in the John Whiteford mold—than the increasing respectability of the myth of the aerial toll houses."

He further attempts to dismiss this tradition as having been "at most a fragment of quaint folklore, found in this country only among marginal eccentrics, like Seraphim Rose."  Though later, he later concludes his essay with:

"Admittedly, some genuinely holy and venerable teachers of the Orthodox past have promoted the myth. But that is of no consequence. As Paul also says, “even if an angel out of heaven should proclaim to you good tidings that differ from what you received, let him be accursed”" (Galatians 1:8)" [emphasis added].

So apparently, the teaching was not limited to just a few "eccentrics" and uneducated fundamentalists, after all. But once again we run into some of the same problems with DBH's reasoning that we have run into before. Had he been properly catechized before he was received into the Orthodox Church, DBH would have learned to affirm "that the Holy Scriptures must be accepted and interpreted in accordance with the belief which hath been handed down by the Holy Fathers, and which the Holy Orthodox Church, our Mother, hath always held and still doth hold" (from the affirmations found in "The Office for the Reception of Converts," in  the Service book of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church, tr. Isabel Florence Hapgood, fourth Edition, Syrian Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of New York, New York, 1965, p. 458).

DBH does not demonstrate why he knows better than those "genuinely holy and venerable teachers" of the Church. He does not engage anything that they actually say on the subject. He does not even mention the countless references to the toll houses that are found in the services of the Church. He in fact does not engage a single statement or argument made by anyone on the subject. He merely dismisses them all as being advocated only by "uneducated fundamentalists," and then shares his opinions on the matter, which he apparently considers to be self-evidently true, since not a shred of evidence is actually offered.

It also doesn't seem to have occurred to DBH that by citing Galatians 1:8, as he does, he is suggesting that these "genuinely holy and venerable teachers of the Orthodox past" are anathema, having preached a false Gospel.

I readily admit that DBH's academic education is far better than my own -- my family's "white privilege" debit card having been mostly exhausted a few generations before my time -- and so as much as I would have liked to have gone on and gotten a PhD., I was doing good to pay the debt accrued for my BA in Theology, which was entirely my own responsibility. However, I did learn how to read fairly well, and I can follow a reasoned and supported argument, and can spot an argument based on little more than ad hominem and gratuitous assertions. And even if someone is uneducated, that does not disprove that what they say is true... if it did, much of the New Testament would be proven false. After all, on Pentecost, we do not sing:

"Blessed art Thou, O Christ our God, Who hast shown forth the fishermen as supremely wise, by sending them to the University of Notre Dame..."

But let's consider some of the other contemporary "uneducated fundamentalists" that DBH does not deign to even engage:

1. Fr. Thomas Hopko. DBH longs for the days of Fr. Alexander Schmemann and Fr. John Meyendorff, but Fr. Thomas Hopko was first their student, and then their successor as dean of St. Vladimir Theological Seminary. What did he have to say on the subject?

"It is a very old teaching, and you will find the teaching about toll houses in practically every Church Father. You find it in St. John Chrysostom. You find it in John of the Ladder. The first development of it was in St. Cyril of Alexandria. The teaching was, and is, as far as I understand it, that when you die, you have to let go of, and be delivered from, and purified from, whatever sins and demons are holding you" ("Toll Houses: After Death Reality or Heresy?" from The Illumined Heart Podcast, on Ancient Faith Radio, September 30, 2007).

Personally, Fr. Thomas interpreted the toll houses in a largely allegorical way, but he did not dismiss the Tradition as a gnostic heresy, as does DBH. I would argue that Fr. Thomas' view is within the bounds of acceptable opinions on the subject, but DBH's view is not.

2. Jean-Claude Larchet, is thought by many to be the foremost patristic scholar of our time. He has written numerous texts on Orthodox Theology, that are highly respected, and widely disseminated, and among those texts is the book "Life after Death according to the Orthodox Tradition." He spends quite a bit of time discussing the toll houses, and among the fathers he cites as affirming the Tradition are St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Maximus the Confessor, and St. Gregory the Dialogist. Those are hardly just a random minority collection of Church Fathers -- they are among the most important of them. Nor are they the only ones that could be mentioned here, by any stretch.

See also the French Wikipedia article on Jean-Claude Larchet for more information on his academic career.

3. Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos), is not often described as being an "uneducated fundamentalist" a "primitivist" or a convert from Evangelicalism. He likewise has published countless texts on the teachings of the Fathers, is highly regarded, and he also published a book entitled "Life after death." He has an entire chapter that focuses on this question, and it begins as follows:

"Also related to the foregoing is the teaching of both Holy Scripture and the holy Fathers about the taxing of souls. At this point we shall examine the subject thoroughly, as it has a bearing on the terrible mystery of death. We find this topic in the whole biblico-patristic tradition and it corresponds to a reality which we need to look at in order to prepare ourselves for the dreadful hour of death. What follows is written not in order to arouse anxiety, but to prompt repentance, which has joy as its result. For he who has the gift of the Holy Spirit and is united with Christ avoids the terrible presence and activity of the customs demons.

According to the teaching of the Fathers of the Church, the soul at its departure from the body, as well as when it is preparing to leave, senses the presence of the demons who are called customs demons, and is possessed with fear because of having to pass through customs.

Of course we must say from the start that the customs demons have no sovereignty over the righteous, those who have united with Christ. The righteous not only will not go through "customs-houses", but they will also not be in fear of that. We shall see all this better when we compare the teaching of the Fathers. The characterisation of the soul's passage through the demons as customs is taken from the tax collectors of that time. We may look briefly at this subject in order to understand why the Fathers characterise the soul's passage through the demons as customs.

In ancient times the name of tax gatherer was given to those who purchased the public taxes from the State and then collected them from the people" [48]. The tax gatherers were divided into two classes. The first class comprised the so-called "publicans ('confiscators') or tithe collectors", who were the wealthiest class and the force of authority, and the second comprised the "tax collectors". The publicans were the general public collectors, who had bought the taxes from the State, while the tax collectors were their salaried servants, who collected the taxes from the people and gave them to the publicans" (Life after death, by Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos), trans. Esther Williams, Birth of the Theotokos Monastery: Levadia, Greece, 1995, p. 62f, emphasis added. This chapter can be read in its entirety, online).

If DBH wants to argue that the this tradition is not really found throughout the Fathers and the Services of the Church, something like actual arguments, with evidence, would need to be made. No one has made  any attempt to refute these texts since they were published, and that is probably because there is no argument to be made. In fact, in addition to the above referenced texts, St. Anthony's Greek Orthodox Monastery has published a very hefty tome entitled "The Departure of the Soul According to the Teaching of the Orthodox Church," and its 1,111 pages consist largely of patristic and liturgical citations that demonstrate just the opposite.

Now is it true that some have focused too much on this issue? Probably so. However, just as I would agree that one could have an unhealthy focus on the book of Revelation, I would likewise challenge anyone who argued that the book of Revelation should be removed from the Bible as a result.

When my parishioners ask me about the toll houses, I explain what the Tradition is, but I always say that they should focus on repenting of their sins, and not having anything on their consciences when they die, and then they won't have anything to worry about.

The toll house tradition is an image that is intended to teach us something about things that are beyond our normal experience. No one believes there are literal toll booths in the heavens, but it is true that if we die without repentance, we won't be successfully passing through them (however literally or figuratively you may take them).

This is certainly not the most important tradition of the Church, but dismissing a tradition found throughout the Fathers and the Services of the Church as being a gnostic heresy reflects a mindset that is not Orthodox by any stretch or measure.

For More Information:

The Strange Theology of David Bentley Hart

The Hart Idiosyncratic Version

Evidence for the Tradition of the Toll Houses found in the Universally Received Tradition of the Church

Stump the Priest: The New Israel, New Jerusalem

Olive Trees

Question: "Is the Church the new Israel? I heard this idea disparaged as "Replacement Theology." Also, how are we to understand the the term "New Jerusalem"? Is it Heaven? The Church? A literal city? All three?"

St. Paul's teaching in Romans 11 is clear that those Jews who rejected Christ are like branches cut off from the olive tree, which represents the people of God -- and that gentile converts are like wild olive branches that have been grafted on to that same tree. The Church is the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16), the Israelites formed the Church of the Old Testament, but the New Testament Church is in continuity with the old. However, Romans 11 is equally clear that there is still a future in God's providence for those who are the physical descendants of the Old Testament Israel, who rejected Christ and so have been cut off from the Church, but who will one day be saved. And so we do speak of the Church as the new Israel, but this does not mean there is no sense in which we can still speak of the Israel according to the flesh.

We do not accept the notion of some Protestants that teach that there is still a separate covenant for the Jews, and that they may be saved by the Old Covenant, while Christians are saved by the New. Nor do we believe that the descendants of those who rejected Christ have some special claim on the Holy Land that entitles them to steal land from Arab speaking Christians, many of whom are no doubt descended from those Jews that embraced Christ. Christians are children of Abraham in the truest sense, and as such are the true heirs of God's promise to him:

"Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham" (Galatians 3:7-9).

Because we do not equate the modern state of Israel with the Israel of the Old Testament, some Protestants attempt to argue that this constitutes antisemitism, but we reject this claim. Furthermore, I would argue that this abuse of the label of antisemitism in an attempt to defend even the most indefensible actions of the state of Israel only cheapens the term, and has the effect of providing greater credibility for real antisemitic voices.

As for the term "New Jerusalem," we find this phrase in Revelation 21:2:

Here are examples of what the Fathers say this phrase means:

"The heavenly Jerusalem is the multitude of the saints who will come with the Lord, even as Zechariah said: "Behold my Lord God will come, and all his saints with him [Zechariah 14:5 LXX]" (Apringius of Beja, Tractate on the Apocalypse 21:2, quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XII, William C Weinrich, ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervasity Press, 2005) p. 355).

"By Jerusalem he symbolized the blessed destiny and dwelling of the saints, which he figurately calls Jerusalem both here and in the following passages (Oecumenius, Commentary on the Apocalypse, 20:13-21:2, quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XII, William C Weinrich, ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervasity Press, 2005) p. 355).

"The city is constructed of the saints concerning whom it is written, "Holy stones are rolled upon the land, [Zechariah 9:16 LXX]" and it has Christ as it cornerstone. It is called a "city," since it is the dwelling place of the kingly Trinity -- for [the Trinity] dwells in it and walks in it, as he promised -- and it is called "bride," since it is joined to the Lord and is united with him in the highest, inseparable conjunction" (St. Andrew of Caesarea, Commentary on the Apocalypse, 21:2, quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XII, William C Weinrich, ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervasity Press, 2005) p. 356).

We find something similar in Hebrews 12:22 ("But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem"), as well as Galatians 4:26 ("But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all"). In context, both of these passages are contrasting the heavenly Jerusalem with the Old Covenant and those refusing to embrace the New Covenant.

And so, from these passages, and from what the Fathers say about them, I think we can say that the New Jerusalem refers to the Church, to all the saints in heaven, and to heaven itself.

See Also: Stump the Priest: Antisemitism in the Holy Week Services?

Stump the Priest: Millennialism?

One of many charts from the premillennialist book "Dispensational Truth"

Question: "Why do the Orthodox adhere to Amillennialism, when it is so obvious that Satan is alive and active now and not confined. The following fathers were premillenarians: Justin Martyr, Melito, Hegesippus, Tatian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Apollinaris. So why is Chiliasm a heresy?"

Of the names that are listed, I do not believe there is any clear evidence that St. Hegesippus held premillennialist views. St. Hippolytus actually changed his mind on this question, in favor of rejecting premillennialism. Tatian, Tertullian, and Apollinaris all ended their lives in heresy and schism, and so their views were clearly not mainstream.

St. Justin Martyr, while he did hold to a premillennial view, acknowledged that many in the Church in his time did not. He wrote:

"I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion [that there will be a future millennial reign of Christ], and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise" (Dialogue with Trypho LXXX).

Prior to the Church issuing a definitive statement on the issue, it was possible for saints, such as St. Justin and St. Ireneaus to hold such views, but at the Second Ecumenical Council, the Church added to the creed the phrase "whose kingdom shall have no end" immediately following the statement that Christ "shall come again with glory to judge both the living and the dead..." This was added to make it clear that there would be no temporary millennial kingdom, but an eternal one, as Scripture itself confirms:

"He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end" (Luke 1:32-33).

"His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed (Daniel 7:14b).

Premillennialism is based on an erroneous interpretation of Revelation 20:1-3, which states:

"And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season."

The problem with interpreting this as referring to something that will happen after the time of the second coming of Christ is that you then have to believe that for some inscrutable reason, God would turn the devil loose a thousand years later, and that there would still be people in that millennial kingdom capable of being deceived by the Devil and rebelling against Christ, who has come in all His glory, with all the hosts of heaven. You also would have to believe that when Christ returns that the general resurrection would not take place then, but only a thousand years after that, and only then would final judgment take place:

"But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished" (Revelation 20:5).

"And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever" (Revelation 20:7-10).

Such an interpretation does not square with what is stated clearly elsewhere in Scripture, that when Christ returns He will raise the dead and judge everyone:

"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works" (Matthew 16:27)

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats" (Matthew 25:31-32).

"For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not precede them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17).

"...when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power" (2 Thessalonians 1:7b-9).

See also 1 Corinthians 15.

It makes far more sense to understand the thousand years to be an indefinite time between the first and second comings of Christ. St. Andrew of Caesarea points out that often the number "one thousand" is used to refer to an indefinite number:

"By the number one thousand years by no means is it reasonable to understand so many years. For neither concerning such things of which David said, "the word which he commanded for a thousand generations" [Psalm 104[105]:8] are we able to count out these things as ten times one hundred; rather they are to mean many generations" (Andrew of Caesarea,trans. Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou, Andrew of Caesarea, Commentary on the Apocalypse, (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2011) p. 206).

As for the releasing of Satan and the deception of the nations, this refers to the coming of the antichrist, and the last days before the second coming. The binding of Satan does not mean that he has no power at all during this period, but that he is restrained until just before the end of this age. This also aligns with what St. Paul said about the coming of the antichrist and the great falling away:

"Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-7).

St. Andrew of Caesarea says that this binding is what Christ spoke about in which He said that to spoil the house of a strong man, the strong man must first be bound (Ibid, p. 205f, cf. Matthew 12:29; Mark 3:27; Luke 11:21-22). This statement, in all three of the Synoptic Gospels, is in the context of Christ speaking of the power by which He caste out demons.

Most Christians, including Protestants, claim to believe the Nicene Creed, and the Nicene Creed is unambiguous on this point, and its statement that Christ "Kingdom shall have no end" is taken straight from Scripture. Some early fathers, who did not have the benefit of the instruction of the Second Ecumenical Council, have some excuse for being mistaken on this point; but now we have no such excuse.

The problem with premillennialism is that it tended to feed into other heresies, such as Montanism, which believed that Montanus was the Holy Spirit incarnate, and which believed that the Kingdom of God was soon to come to be established in Phrygia. We have seen similar heresies with millenialist eschatology in more recent times, with the Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormonism, the Jim Jones Cult, and Branch Davidians. Given the excesses this view has tended to produce, the Church felt it necessary to clearly define the matter.

For more information, see:

On the Thousand Year Reign (Chiliasm), by Elder Cleopa of Romania

The Inconsistency of Chiliasm , by Bishop Alexander (Mileant)

The Error of Chiliasm (from Orthodox Dogmatic Theology), by Fr. Michael Pomazansky

Stump the Priest: Monarchy

The Royal Martyrs

Question: "Is monarchy the only form of government man can institute that represents both the fullness of the Orthodox faith and the Incarnational reality of Christ?"

If we go back to the Old Testament, there was a time when God ruled the people of Israel through prophets and judges, such as Moses and Samuel, who were specially called by Him. Toward the end of the life of the Prophet Samuel, the people of Israel asked him to anoint a king for them, so that they could be like all the other nations, and no longer dependent on God raising up a judge to lead them, and we are told:

"But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them" (1 Samuel 8:6-7).

So one could argue that the most ideal form of government is a theocracy, but as the history of Israel up to this point demonstrated, such a theocracy only worked out well for the people when they were zealous to obey God, which very often was not the case. So monarchy is perhaps the second best system of government, but not one without problems... because for monarchy to work out well, you need a king that is pious. God warned Samuel, and through Samuel, the people, of the downside of having a king:

"And [Samuel] said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day. Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; that we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles" (1 Samuel 8:11-20).

The subsequent history of Israel, and then the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah show that some kings lived up to the ideal of faithfulness to God, and functioned as icons of Christ, but more often then not, they fell short of this -- and sometimes they were more like foreshadowings of the antichrist. King David was the best example of a righteous King -- and he not only served as an image of the future Messiah, but it was from his line that the Messiah would actually come.

With the coming of Christ and the spread of the Christian Faith, there were kingdoms that became Christian, and so looking to the example of King David, the Church anointed them to rule as Christian monarchs. We have many examples of such kings that are now reckoned as saints of the Church, and when you had a pious king who was also a capable ruler, you had the best examples of Christian government we have ever seen. Unfortunately, the combination of piety and competence is something that was not invariably found in such monarchs.

So is monarchy superior to democracy? St. John of Kronstadt once observed "Hell is a democracy but heaven is a kingdom." However, we live in a representative democracy that has afforded us freedom of religion -- and we are grateful for that. But on the other hand, we have also begun to see in recent years that the problem with democracy is that it only works well for a moral people, and given fallen human nature, it can facilitate a rapid decline in morality. The 20th century, especially in the wake of the two world wars, saw the rise of democracy around the world and the rapid decline in monarchy, and in the course of just under a hundred years we have essentially seen the end of Christendom as a result.

In 2 Thessalonians, St. Paul spoke about the great falling away and the coming of the antichrist:

"Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-7).

So what is the restraining force that holds back the mystery of lawlessness, but will be taken away? St. John Chrysostom and other fathers say that this was the Roman Empire (see Homily 4 on 2 Thessalonians). Now many, especially Protestants, might be inclined to dismiss this interpretation, but consider the words of the noted Protestant New Testament scholar and theologian George Eldon Ladd:

"The traditional view has been that the restraining principle is the Roman empire and the restrainer the Emperor. This view, or a modification of it, fits best into the Pauline theology. In Romans 13:4, Paul affirms that the ruling authority (even though it be pagan Rome is "God's servant for your good"" (A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), p. 560).

The Roman Empire is usually said by westerners to have ended in 476. The East Roman empire continued on until the fall of Constantinople in 1453. However, the Russian Empire, which continued both the religious and political tradition of Christian Rome, continued until 1917, and so it may be that this marks the beginning of the removal of this restraining force. It certainly marked the beginning of both rapid moral decline as well as a time of martyrdom which has surpassed the worst persecutions of the early Church in intensity. Of course, we cannot say for sure that the end has come until we see Christ return.

But while democracy may not be an ideal form of Christian government, since we have the right to vote, we should exercise what influence for good we can and assert our rights as citizens, as St. Paul, who was a Roman citizen, often did.

See also: The Mystery Of  The Anointed Sovereigns Tsar Nicholas II & Tsarina Alexandra of Russia