Apostles Creed in Error
Question
A question occured to me regarding the apostle's creed... What is the scriptural backing for the statement "descended into hell"? Was this necessary for substitutionary atonement? If so, why wasn't his physical death suficient? Please list scripture.
Answer
Actually, yours is a question that many people ponder. Most modern Reformed theologians affirm the phrase “he descended into hell,” but interpret it to mean that Jesus was buried in the earth and continued under the power of death for a time. But most of us also believe that this probably isn’t what was originally meant by these words. The Apostles’ Creed seems to imply that our Christian forebears believed that Jesus descended into hell after his death and before his resurrection, but some have argued that they believed the same thing we do.
Other theologians throughout the ages have argued that, in fact, Christ really did descend into hell. Some have said he did so victoriously, proclaiming his victory over sin and death to the departed saints imprisoned there. Generally, they base this idea on 1 Peter 3:19-20, though the meaning of those verses is highly debated. A reasonable argument can be made that Christ preached to the imprisoned spirits not at the time of the atonement, but in the days of Noah, before these spirits were imprisoned. This preaching may have taken place either by direct revelation, or through Noah himself, who had the spirit of Christ (1 Pet 1:11). In any event, some interpreters believe that this preaching took place during the three days that Christ’s body lay in the tomb.
Others have argued that Jesus descended into hell as part of the atonement, suffering torment until his resurrection. They base this idea on passages such as Acts 2:24-31, where Jesus is said to have endured the “pains of death” until his resurrection, and to have been in “hell” (Greek hades) until that time (cf. Ps 16:10). But hades probably doesn’t mean “hell” in this passage. For one thing, in Acts 2:29, Peter basically says that David is still in hades. The logic is as follows: David said that God wouldn’t leave him in hades, but David could not have been speaking of himself because he died and was buried, and his tomb is still standing. So long as David’s tomb is still standing, David is in hades. But David was never in hell because he was a believer. And even if one wrongly believes that David was in hell before Christ’s atonement, he was definitely in heaven by the time Peter made this speech, since Jesus had already ascended to heaven at this point. Therefore, this text only proves that Jesus was not abandoned to the tomb. This reading is confirmed by the fact that Peter’s final assertion is that Christ was bodily resurrected (Acts 2:31-32), not that Christ’s spirit was released from torment.
Still others have suggested that Jesus went to hell on the basis of Ephesians 4:8-10, which says that Jesus descended into the lower parts of the earth. This argument relies on hell being in the lower of parts of the earth. Now, the Greek tartarus is potentially presented as being underground (2 Pet. 2:4), but that is supposed to be where spirits await judgment, not where they undergo it. The Hebrew sheol, which the Septuagint often translates with hades, was also portrayed as being in the lower parts of the earth (cf. Ezek. 26:20; 31:16). It was portrayed as the afterworld, the dwelling of the dead, but it was also equated with the grave (cf. Ezek. 31:16) and with other regions of the earth that are beneath its surface (cf. Num. 16:33-34). In short, Ephesians 4:8-10 may also mean that Jesus descended into the grave. Other commentators point out that, grammatically, “lower parts of the earth” may also be translated “lower parts that are the earth.” If this is the meaning here, then the point is simply that Jesus descended from heaven to earth before ascending from earth to heaven.
In general, the interpretations traditionally used to prove that Jesus descended to a place of torment for three days are questionable. Besides this, there is evidence in other texts that Jesus did not descend to a place of torment. For example, on the cross he cried, “It is finished,” indicating that he had finished the work God had sent him to do, that he had made atonement (John 19:30). If he had already finished this work, there would be no point in sending him to hell after he died. Also, Jesus committed his spirit into the hands of the Father when he died (Luke 23:46). Although the Father punishes people in hell, this statement was one of hope, drawn from Psalm 31:5. It did not mean “hurt me some more,” but “you are my savior.” Thus, it should be taken as an indication that Jesus’ suffering was ending, not just beginning.
Also, it is worth noting that after a sacrifice was slain, it was offered to God as something holy, good and pleasing to him, not as an object of his further wrath and punishment. God’s wrath and punishment was portrayed in the taking of the life of the sacrificial animal, and not in subsequent abuse of its body parts or spirit. Since Jesus’ was the archetypal sacrifice, we should be inclined to view God’s wrath as having been poured out on him in his death and in the suffering that preceded it, not in what came after it.
Now, all that being said, there is another interesting interpretation to consider, namely that Jesus’ descent into hell took place on the cross. In a very real sense, it can be said that Jesus underwent the torments of hell during the crucifixion and in his death, regardless of what happened to his body or spirit once they had been separated.
Answer by Ra McLaughlin