This post is part of a series of communion mediations working through the Apostles’ Creed. You can read the creed here.
He Descended Into Hell
As we have been for the past several months, today we continue moving phrase by phrase through the Apostles’ Creed. Today we come to a sticky one: he descended into hell.
That is a weird phrase.
It’s also worth noting that it’s not in the earliest versions of the Apostles Creed. The creed, which began as what we call the old Roman standard, became pretty well standardized in Christian churches by the mid second century. It did not come directly from the Apostles, despite the name. But it did form within a couple generations after the disciples were off the scene, and is a very early summary of the Apostles’ teaching; specifically about Jesus and his life.
But that phrase, “he descended into hell,” didn't start appearing with regularity in the Creed until about the fourth and fifth century. But that's still a long time ago, right? For 1500 years Christians have been confessing this, so we should think about what it is driving at. We shouldn't jettison it simply because it seems weird to us.
We should ask: what they were talking about? This has been debated since the start.
Further Punished?
One possible view is that when Christ descended, he spent the time between his crucifixion and his resurrection in hell being punished more for sin.
I think we can reject that as flatly false on its face. Jesus says on the cross, “it is finished.” His work was done. I would say we can even go so far as to call this view heretical. It’s not only incorrect, but anti-Christian teaching. It’s in Christian garb, but it contradicts that central element of the gospel: the sufficient nature of Christ’s work on Calvary.
Golgotha
The second opinion became popular with the teaching of John Calvin in 16th century Geneva. Calvin, author of the famous Institutes, was one of the prominent reformers in that century. And he taught the hell referred to in the creed is the hell that Jesus endured on the cross. As recorded in the gospels, we find there was a period when the noonday sun went black, and the wrath of the Father against the sin of the world was poured out on Jesus. On the cross, Jesus faced the hell of God's wrath.
I get where Calvin is going with that. I think what he's saying is true. Jesus did, on the cross, experience what we would call hell. But I doubt that's what the early church meant by it.
The Place of Departed Spirits
Another option would be to consider this as Jesus descending to the place where departed spirits live. The departed spirits of deceased people, as well as those fallen angels who are no longer allowed to roam the earth.
This is a quick—but hopefully not too sloppy—description, but here goes: in the Hebrew understanding you had Sheol, the place of the dead. This was carried over into Greek as Hades. And in Hades or Sheol, there is a place of torment and there is a place of blessing.
The place torment is not Hell in the full sense you find in the book of Revelation. Nor is the place of blessing “heaven” as we think of it, it’s not the immediate presence of God. Rather, it's a place where the departed who are righteous go—Abraham's bosom is how they would've thought about it. And so you have these two places. But they're all grouped together in the term Sheol. And, based on 1 Peter chapter three and Ephesians chapter four, many Christians throughout history have thought that Christ descended here to proclaim his victory over those who are in torment—or at least to the evil spirits there.
In this view, he’s also proclaiming his victory and he's leading out the captives who had been in a blessed state, but had not previously been in the presence of God. After his death, he takes them to heaven, to be with God, to be in the presence of Christ: to paradise. This, of course, is the very place he had promised to meet the thief on the cross.
The Grave
The fourth option is that it's just a reference to the place of the dead. As I said earlier, the Creed doesn't get this line added to it until the fourth and fifth centuries, and it's added in Latin as inferno. Now inferno, to our ears, sounds like a place of punishment. That sounds like hell.
But that’s over-reading our modern perception of those words into an ancient text. The inferno is the place where dead people are. This is where dead bodies are. Inferno is the place beneath. And so the Creed could just be reiterating the fact that Jesus was buried—his real physical body was buried. That’s an important concern.
It was a major concern of the Apostle's Creed, to emphasize the physicality and the humanity of Jesus. That's why it says he suffered under Pius Pilate. There’s a real historical event that his real human body experienced. Likewise, his body was placed in the ground. Again: I think that's true. But it would be kind of redundant when we've just said was crucified, died, and was buried.
Conclusion
I think all three of those last options are actually within the scope of orthodox Christianity.
If I had to pick one, I would say I leaned towards that third option: that Christ descended into the place of the dead and led forth the captives of death who were at Abraham’s bosom. He led forth those who are now able to be in the presence of God because Christ has paid authoritatively for their sins that God had passed over their sins in the past.
They were not suffering for their sins post-mortem, but after three years of living in perfect human obedience, the Lord Jesus now leads the captives into the presence of God. This marks a fundamental shift in the intermediate state for those who have trusted in God for salvation. We might call it a heavenly transition where sinners who have been forgiven are now not only passed over, but are now welcomed into the presence of God.
I won’t go to the mat for this distinction. Again, I think options two, three, and four are all within the scope of historic Christianity. But I think option three is probably what was meant by the early church when they said he descended to the dead. And I think it lines up with the broader biblical teaching on the afterlife.
All of these things should bring our mind to this: the stunning reality that the Lord of glory set aside his throne and he did endure hell at the cross. His body was buried and souls were brought into the presence of God. This includes those of us who trust in Christ today: at death our spirit departs to be with Christ, which is better by far—because Christ Jesus’ blood was shed on our account.
His body was broken for us, and he is resurrected from the dead. Sealing the promise that those things were accepted by God. His sacrifice was an effective and sufficient sacrifice. And for that we should be grateful.
This unites us to him—and to one another, as those who are blood kin. Let us celebrate the Lord, who endured hell for us—and who liberates us by his love.
Share this post