Apostle's Creed: He Descended into hell?

[satz]

The Apostle's Creed states that Jesus Christ 'descended into hell' after his death and burial.

Does anyone else feel a little uncomfortable with this?

If I am not wrong, Calvin defended this statement and said it referred to Christ suffering the hell-like punishment on the cross. Is this correct? Any other thoughts on this statement?

 

[brymaes]

From the Heidelberg Catechism

Question 44. Why is there added, "he descended into hell"?
Answer: That in my greatest temptations, I may be assured, and wholly comfort myself in this, that my Lord Jesus Christ, by his inexpressible anguish, pains, terrors, and hellish agonies, in which he was plunged during all his sufferings, but especially on the cross, has delivered me from the anguish and torments of hell.

While I do not think that this is what was necessarily intended when the words, "He descended into hell" were added, I do think that this clause can, when we recite or make other use of the Creed, remind us of the forsaking of Christ and the hellish torments that he suffered for us.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

On descended into hell, the Westminster divines add this note: "i.e. Continued in the state of the dead, and under the power of death till the third day." The also say "And albeit the substance of the doctrine comprised in that Abridgment commonly called, The Apostles' Creed, be fully set forth in each of the Catechisms, so as there is no necessity of inserting the Creed itself, yet it is here annexed, not as though it were composed by the Apostles, or ought to be esteemed Canonical Scripture, as the Ten Commandments, and the Lord's Prayer (much less a Prayer, as ignorant people have been apt to make both it and the Decalogue), but because it is a brief sum of the Christian faith, agreeable to the Word of God, and anciently received in the Churches of Christ."

 

[ChristopherPaul]

I always get the sense that people try very hard to justify this added statement for the sake of convenience, i.e. preserving the entire Creed.

Let me ask you, what is it that you believe?

Well, I believe in God the Father almighty maker of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord, who….

Now when someone asks you, “Do you believe Jesus descended into hell?” what do you say? Yes or no? Any other statement of the creed put into a yes or no question can be answered easily in the affirmative, except this one. It needs endless qualification.

 

[brymaes]

Now when someone asks you, “Do you believe Jesus descended into hell?” what do you say?

I would say, "No, but the Creed reminds me that I shall not endure the torments of Hell becuase Christ endured torment on the cross." I think that the addition of the descention clause was originally to express a Christus Victor view of the atonement, which I would obviously reject outright. If it's easier, simply omit the clause in your useage of the Creed, or don't make use of it at all.

On descended into hell, the Westminster divines add this note: "i.e. Continued in the state of the dead, and under the power of death till the third day."

Aye, but this would be an atypical understanding of the Latin infernum, would it not?

 

[satz]

I always get the sense that people try very hard to justify this added statement for the sake of convenience, i.e. preserving the entire Creed.

Let me ask you, what is it that you believe?

Well, I believe in God the Father almighty maker of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord, who….

Now when someone asks you, “Do you believe Jesus descended into hell?” what do you say? Yes or no? Any other statement of the creed put into a yes or no question can be answered easily in the affirmative, except this one. It needs endless qualification.

My thoughts exactly... I understand that it can be interpreted in a biblical way, and prehaps that was the initial intention, but that statement does seem poorly worded for our day and age.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

The Apostles' Creed (which was not actually written by the Apostles) developed out of the Roman baptismal formula late in the 2nd century (ca. 150-80).

It appears that the "descendit" (he descended) clause was used interchangeably with the "sepultus" (buried) was added in place of "was buried" so that they had the same meaning as late as the late 4th century. It reappeared in 430 and 570, probably repeating the use in 390. The Creed was standardized ca. 700. By the 6th century, however, it was no longer being used to mean "buried," but sequentially to mean "he went to the place of the dead" (in the reading, "descendit ad infernos"). As C E Hill has shown, there is a link between the rise of this notion and Greek ideas about the inherent evil of the material. See Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Future Hope....

Since before the 7th century it has been widely held that Christ went either to the the place of the dead or to the dead ones to announce victory/preach the gospel (which view Augustine rejected as heretical), and the Anglican/Lutheran view is that he went to conquer Satan and deliver the dead from hell. Luther and the orthodox Lutherans today are quite adamant about this.

Reformed exegesis of 1 Peter 3:18ff rejects such a possibility. We generally intrepret 1 Peter 3 to teach that Christ, through God the Spirit, preached through Noah to Noah's contemporaries.

By the 16th century the sequence of the articles was fixed. There was no real possibility of reverting to an earlier form without the descendit clause so, Calvin and the Heidelberg Catechism after him, having rejected the equation of "descent" with burial as making nonsense of the Creed, re-interpreted it to refer to Christ's spiritual suffering.

Some have advocated doing away with the clause. Others (such as my Lutheran friend, David Scaer) have defended it on the basis of their interpretation of 1 Peter 3:18-20.

My own view is that we can retain the clause so long as we admit the original intent was to teach merely that he was buried; that we clearly express our interpretation of the clause (it elaborates his sufferings, including grave) on the ground that the Creed only lives if we confess it and to confess it we must interpret it. As confessors of the Creed we have right, in this case, to assign an interpretation which retains the clause which is consistent with at least some patristic interpretations and agrees with Scriptural teaching.

Given our place in history, it might be possible now to revert to an earlier form and omit the descendit clause in favor of sepultus. Arguably we would not be substantially altering a catholic creed as much as removing medieval accretions from it thus making it less Roman and more catholic.

rsc

Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem caeli et terrae.
Et in Iesum Christum, Filium eius unicum, Dominum nostrum,
qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine,
passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus,
et sepultus, descendit ad inferos/infernos,
tertia die resurrexit a mortuis,
ascendit ad caelos, sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis,
inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos.
Credo in Spiritum Sanctum,
sanctam Ecclesiam catholicam,
sanctorum communionem,
remissionem peccatorum,
carnis resurrectionem, vitam aeternam.

The Apostle's Creed states that Jesus Christ 'descended into hell' after his death and burial.

Does anyone else feel a little uncomfortable with this?

If I am not wrong, Calvin defended this statement and said it referred to Christ suffering the hell-like punishment on the cross. Is this correct? Any other thoughts on this statement?

 

[johnny_redeemed]

What language was the creed written in? Could the word translated “hell” mean anything else?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

In a previous thread on this subject, Jeff Bartel recommended a helpful resource: William Cunningham's Historical Theology, Chapter 3.

And Patrick Severson recommended Herman Witsius' exposition of the Apostle's Creed.

Both very good for further study.

 

[satz]

Thanks, Dr Clark.

That is helpful.

 

[satz]

In a previous thread on this subject, Jeff Bartel recommended a helpful resource: William Cunningham's Historical Theology, Chapter 3.

And Patrick recommended Herman Witsius' exposition of the Apostle's Creed.

Both very good for further study.

Thanks, Andrew.

In your opinion, is this a matter worthy of study? For example there has been much debate and study over the WCF and the historical context in which it was written. Does the Apostle's creed warrant similar respect?

 

[R. Scott Clark]

The Creed was written in Latin.

There are textual variants. Some readings say "ad infernos/inferos" = "to the dead ones" and other variants read "ad infera" i.e., to the place of the dead. In either place, "hell" is a good translation.

rsc

What language was the creed written in? Could the word translated “hell” mean anything else?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Thanks, Andrew.

In your opinion, is this a matter worthy of study? For example there has been much debate and study over the WCF and the historical context in which it was written. Does the Apostle's creed warrant similar respect?

It's very important, in my opinion, to study the Apostle's Creed. It is one of the ecumenical creeds to which, generally speaking, Protestants and Catholic (not Eastern Orthodox) churches subscribe, either explicitly or by default. It serves not only as a creed by itself but also as the basis or plan for systematic theology as found in Calvin's Institutes, the Geneva Catechism, the Heidelberg Catechism, etc., and its place in Christian theology and worship has been a source of both unity and conflict for centuries (witness, for example, those who believe in liturgically reciting or singing it in worship and those who don't; or how the Westminster Assembly viewed the place of the Creed in catechism).

Chad Van Dixhoorn:

The Apostles' Creed

The main difference between Westminster's catechisms and earlier catechisms has to do with the Apostles' Creed. The standard practice of catechisms written earlier had been to expound the Apostles' Creed, phrase by phrase, just as they did the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer. But the Westminster Assembly decided to exclude the Apostles' Creed because it, though scriptural, was not Scripture.

Scripture Alone

Avoiding the Apostles' Creed gave both of the Westminster catechisms two strengths. First, the catechisms are based explicitly on Scripture, which is consistent with the position expressed in the first chapter of the Confession: all our doctrine comes from Scripture alone. Second, every catechism that uses the Apostles' Creed reflects one of the weaknesses of the Creed: there is no mention of the importance of Christ's life.

The Life of Christ

The Apostles' Creed says that Jesus Christ "was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary." And what does it say next? He "suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried." Similarly, the Heidelberg Catechism moves right from Christ's birth to his death. The same thing is true of Craig's Catechism, a popular Scottish catechism written in 1581, and the New Catechism, written in 1644.

Calvin notes this jump in the Creed and asks in question 55 of his catechism: "Why do you go immediately from His birth to His death, passing over the whole history of His life?" While this observation is helpful, Calvin's answer is disappointing: "Because nothing is said here about what belongs properly to the substance of our redemption." A similar approach is taken in his Institutes, II.xvi.5–7.

This is rather shocking, particularly from Calvin. Christ's life has everything to do with our salvation: he spent his life fulfilling all righteousness; he kept the law that Adam broke. It is because of Jesus' active, lifelong obedience that God the Father sees us as righteous in Christ. The Larger Catechism, using a framework different from that of the Apostles' Creed, recognizes the importance of Christ's life. It speaks about his birth in question 47, his life in question 48, and his death in question 49, thus presenting a more balanced and biblical picture. The Shorter Catechism does something similar, summarizing these three statements in question 27. The Larger Catechism also recognizes the importance of Christ's life, at least implicitly, in its statements on justification (questions 70 and 71).

Comparing the Larger and Shorter Catechism with previous catechisms is a useful exercise. It reveals that the Westminster catechisms (1) explicitly base their teaching on Scripture alone, and (2) emphasize Christ's life (and active obedience) as well as his death and resurrection. For these reasons also, then, the Larger Catechism is very worthwhile.

From a historical perspective, and from a practical one, it is worth some time and effort to get a better understanding of the place of the Creed both today and in yesteryear. It's an ongoing source of study for me anyway.

 

[johnny_redeemed]

I thought it was first written in Greek. I guess I was off.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Chad is a friend, sometime colleague, and terrific scholar. I'm very excited by his work on the assembly. It guess that it will revolutionize the study of the Standards.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding him, but it appears that he wants to marginalize the Creed. I understand and sympathize with the reluctance to use the creed in services on the basis of the RPW, but the Creed has formed a very important part of our pedagogy for a long time. I survey the use of the Creed as a pedagogical tool in the Olevianus book and in an article in the WTJ (most of which is in the book). Olevian wrote three commentaries (and we could perhaps count another, in which case, four) on the Creed.

Second, it's not that the divines or British Reformed theology was averse to the Creed, whatever its difficulties.

I think one could find the main outlines and influence of the Creed in the Standards, but more to the point his criticism that the Creed omits the life of Christ (and implicitly gives rise to denial of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ) is hard to understand. It's not as if Scripture itself did not speak this way:

Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

- 1 Peter 3:16

The Creed follows this pattern closely.

Paul moves from incarnation to resurrection in one move. Surely we wouldn't argue that the same apostle who used the "one act of obedience" as an enthymeme or synechdoche for Jesus' active obedience overlooks it in 1 Tim 3?

I just want to caution also about making too much about the relative absence of the Creed in the Standards or the relative absence of material in the Creed or in any brief confessional formula (e.g., Deut 6:4).

In its nature the Creed is meant to be brief, but it's more complete than the confessional summary in 1 Tim 3!

This should be borne in mind when evaluating the language of Calvin's catechism. The debate over IAO didn't erupt until 3 decades after the catechism. It would be unfair and misleading to use this statement to imply that Calvin did not teach the substance of the IAO. There is far too much evidence to the contrary. This move to juxtapose Calvin with the Divines (which John Fesko does) wherein the divines are right and Calvin was wrong is interesting, because it turns the Calvin v Calvinsits argument on its head in certain ways but also suffers a little from the same problem. Calvin died 80 years before the Assembly! He wrote in a different context, addressing different problems. The divines inherited a much more developed theology and method, a theology that had been subject to criticism for a century, that had seen the rise of the Arminian movement and was now facing a growing Amyraldian movement. The divines lived and wrote in a different world than Calvin. Let us be careful of anachronism.

I don't think either John or Chad mean to be anachronistic and its true that the divines and others by that time had seen real limits in Calvin's theology. We should recongize those. The Barthians and others who make Calvin the be all and end of Reformed theology are not looking at it as the Reformed theologians themselves looked at, but I also think that Calvin should be read in his context, which in historical theology, does not always occur as fully as one might wish.

rsc

 

[Arch2k]

Francis Turretin also has a helpful section on the phrase "descended into hell" in his Institutes.

 

[JoshCasey]

The Athanasian Creed also mentions it:

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Exactly. Contrary to the expectation created by the name, the Athanasian was not composed by Athanasius himself and is probably quite late (possibly as late as the 7th century). The inclusion of the "descendit" clause signals the development of the Roman/medieval doctrine of the intermediate state.

rsc

The Athanasian Creed also mentions it:

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

 

[Ambrose]

Descended into Hell

I always took it to mean simply that he descended into the grave - died. Maybe the problem is equating "hell" in all cases with Gehenna, the great burning trash pit. Perhaps it is just used in the creed as denoting the grave.

 

[kvanlaan]

I have previously been quoted "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani" as an answer when asking this question, though it doesn't really fit chronologically (crucified, dead, buried, descended into hell...) But the principle is there: to be forsaken by God is to be in hell, that was the point.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I have no problem saying "descended into hell" in the Creed. Of course, I take Calvin's spin on it, and mean the hell Christ endured on the cross in my place. Witsius pointed out in his book on the Creed that "descended into hell" was synonymous with "crucified, dead, and buried." One phrase was used by the east and another by west, and that over time they were just assimiluated together. I don't know if that is the case or not, but if so it would make sense.