The Four Cs Part 3 – The Apostles’ Creed

One area that I would deviate from this article is on the "descent of Christ". The article states:

The phrase “descended into hell” was meant to depict the real death of Christ. Perhaps based on a difficult text of 1 Peter 3:19 where the Greek word for “hell” is the word Hades, which simply means the realm of the dead, or the grave. In other words, do not think that this use of the word “hell” refers to the Lake of Fire. It would be perhaps clearer in our time to say that he “went to the realm of the dead” or “went to the grave.”

First, it is not just based on 1 Peter 3:19, but also Ephesians 4:9-10, "In saying, He ascended what does it mean but that he also descended into the lower regions of the earth? He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heaves, that he might fulfill all things." As well as many other passages.

I would not say that it was meant to depict the real death of Christ. It is clear in early literature it was the actual descent of Christ into Hell. Augustine's Epistles to Evodius and Dardanus both highlight the common belief in the early church that this was a literal descent. It was not a descent to face punishment, but it was a descent to Hell to proclaim and preach triumph and to break the chains and bring those from Abraham's bosom into paradise. I would recommend the book, "Crux, Mors, Inferi - A Primer and Reader on the Descent of Christ" by Dr. Samuel D. Rehnihan. A great book on the richness of this phrase in church history and how it has been lost in modern times. It may be that the author, Taigen Joos has not been exposed to the rich history of this statement.

Nor do I, FWIW

Don,

This I realize. It is interesting how this rich doctrine has just been lost. It was held by so many that we look up to. I find it misinterpreted in the Independent Fundamental Baptist world. Many take the view that Christ descending into hell meant that he undertook a form of punishment, which does not align with their other views. As a result I think many abandon this doctrine, missing what it really meant. What I find is that like Taigen, many will recite it in the Apostle's Creed, but provide an interpretation of what it means to their congregation that is in conflict with the historic teaching of this doctrine, or the historic meaning in the Apostles Creed. They do this, I guess to avoid the challenges of having to explain it in the actual terms of which it is written. But I find it a disservice to the Apostles Creed.

It is surprising given the consistent view of the early church fathers, as well as the extensive literature around this, something that has been lost in our circles. A great study is from Thomas Bilson, who was responsible for the final edit of the KJV. He taught a series of sermons around 1600 on this topic, which is actually in print today, titled, "Christ's Sufferings for Man's Redemption and Of His Descent to Hades or Hell for Our Deliverance" A great work that delves into this as well.

A lot of baptismal regeneration among the church fathers, for example. We can learn from them but they aren’t authorities for us

I would not say we should base something on just church fathers. Just that you find a rich history of the doctrine amongst:

• Church Fathers
• Early Creeds (such as the Apostles Creed)
• Pre-Reformers and Reformers
• Throughout Protestant Literature
• Later Creeds (Belgic Confession, Irish Articles of 1615)
• And Most Importantly Scripture

My take is not so much to convince one or the other. There are good points in place on both sides of the fence. Just that the author of the article did not do the doctrine justice in his comments as to why it was in the Apostles Creed. A local descent is held for much of the history of the faithful, with a focus of giving latitude to both a local descent and a figurative descent in recent constructs such as the Geneva Bible, the Westminster Confession and subsequent Baptist views. It is interesting that the KJV changed the translation from what was in the Geneva Bible due to a desire to hold to a local descent.

It is a difficult element in the creed and one which has been problematic. What has been interesting is that while it has been difficult, assemblies such as the Westminister Assembly have been unwilling to remove it.

I grew up learning that this was an RC view. Or that there is no way Christ could have descended into hell, as He told the thief on the cross that He would be with him in Paradise that day. After digging into this a bit more, it is quite interesting the richness that was there, despite the glossing over it from our pulpits.

Don, where do you see the word hades (ᾅδης) in 1 Peter 3:19? I don't see it (nor in the entire book). It has φυλακή (prison or keep).

The descent in Ephesians 4:8-11 is His descent to earth, not hell.

The picture here "led captivity captive" refers to a descent into battle followed by ascent back with captives, which are conquered people who are given as gifts (servants) to people in one's home country. The gifts here are explicitly identified as apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors-teachers.

Those gifts were obtained in the location of descent. They are living people - not souls taken from hell to serve in our churches.