Why do we refer to four last things?
Death, Judgment, Hell, and Heaven.
Now, everyone experiences the first two without exception--but the last two everyone experience only one of. Thus experientially they will be the three last things--Death, Judgment, Hell or Heaven.
Now one could say that there were five last things if we were counting this way--Death, Judgement-general, Judgment Particular, Hell, and Heaven.
It's just one of those curious anomalies that make me wonder. Probably the Medieval equivalent of one of Rev. Schuller's ubiqitous acronyms. The triads of the Island of Britain--Troiedd ynys Prydein were written for mnemonic purpposes and I suppose listing hell and heaven separately and counting all as four makes more sense from the mnemonic sense.
And then--speaking of mnemoics, what about the book of Proverbs that tells us things like, "These two things does the Lord despise, yea! these three things he will thrash eternally."
Don't forget Purgatory.
I believe the "Four Last Things" is a pedagogical tool for concentrating the mind, and for concentrating the human mind both heaven and hell are generally required. (Purgatory, however, would distract the mind, and so can be wrapped up within Judgment.)
Dear Tom,
That just reinforces my point that Heaven and Hell are taken as a set and therefore there are three last things. Or so it would seem.
shalom,
Steven
Dear Steven,
Perhaps we can refer to the four last things, because, for better or worse, Christians have traditionally believed that those in heaven do see the sufferings of the damned and indirectly rejoice in their punishment. Likewise, the damned, it was said, will see the glory of the blessed (e.g., Lk 16:23).
For instance, St Thomas writes, "Nothing should be denied the blessed that belongs to the perfection of their beatitude. Now everything is known the more for being compared with its contrary, because when contraries are placed beside one another they become more conspicuous. Wherefore in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned" (III.suppl.94.1.resp).
And, "The damned, before the judgment day, will see the blessed in glory, in such a way as to know, not what that glory is like, but only that they are in a state of glory that surpasses all thought. This will trouble them, both because they will, through envy, grieve for their happiness, and because they have forfeited that glory" (III.suppl.98.9.resp).
So, perhaps we can say that one does, in a sense, experience both heaven and hell. I do wonder how much of the above can be reconciled with more recent interpretations. But, even if we do want to change the emphasis (as I would), we can still speak, in a sense, of the saints experiencing hell:
"For the saints, 'Hell' is not so much a threat to be hurled at other people but a challenge to oneself. It is a challenge to suffer in the dark night of faith, to experience communion with Christ in solidarity with his descent into the Night. ... One serves the salvation of the world by leaving one's own salvation behind for the sake of others. In such piety, nothing of the dreadful reality of Hell is denied. Hell is so real that it reaches right into the existence of the Saints. Hope can take it on, only if one shares in the suffering of Hell's night by the side of the One who came to transform our night by his suffering. Here hope does not emerge from the neutral logic of a system. ... It must place its petition into the hands of its Lord and leave it there."
--- Joseph Ratzinger, Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life (1988
Thanks.
Neil
Perhaps we can refer to the four last things, because, for better or worse, Christians have traditionally believed that those in heaven do see the sufferings of the damned and indirectly rejoice in their punishment. Likewise, the damned, it was said, will see the glory of the blessed (e.g., Lk 16:23).
That, frankly, is just sick. Why would those in Heaven rejoice in the eternal suffering of those separated from God?
Dear Nathan,
I agree, but quickly point out that Neil did say for "better or worse." I think the point is that the blessed rejoice in some way in the justice of God. I don't fully understand it and I'm not certain I buy it. How can it be heaven if you are rejoicing in another's suffering? But I think I'll set all of that aside until I find out in person (assuming of course that I do.)
shalom,
Steven