Creeds and confessions are unavoidable. As many have noted even the slogan “no creed but Christ” is a short, inadequate confession. Let someone enter a congregation where that confession reigns and say, “We should say more about the faith” and what will happen? He will be shown the door. On what basis? Presumably that very short confession. As a matter of history, the church has always confessed her faith in formulae. The so-called Carmen Christi (Song of Christ) in Philippians 2:5–11 may well be a confessional formula. Colossians 1:15–20 seems like a confessional statement. The Nestle-Aland (28) edition of the Greek NT indents the passage to signal the change in Paul’s form of discourse. 1 Timothy 3:16 is almost certainly a confession since Paul uses the verb “to confess” and then says:
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 Tim 3:16; ESV).
Then there are the “faithful sayings” in 1 and 2 Timothy.1 All these places would lead us to expect that the early post-apostolic church would continue to confess the faith and they did. The Heidelberg Catechism, which we are studying in this series, exposits one of those early creeds, the Apostles’ Creed.
The document we know as the Apostles’ Creed, which was not actually written by the Apostles, began to develop as part of the catechesis (basic Christian instruction) in the church in the 2nd century.2 One of the clauses of the creed that has caused questions is that which reads: “he descended into hell.” It is held in some traditions that by this Christians are confessing that our Lord, after his death, went to the place of the dead. It has been understood figuratively, however, by the Reformed churches to refer to Christ’s suffering. So Calvin and the Heidelberg Catechism interpreted this clause.
As a matter of history, early on it appears that the “descendit” (he descended) clause was used interchangeably with “sepultus” (buried) and was added in place of “was buried” so that they had the same meaning into as the late 4th century.3 Thus, “he descended” was another way of saying, “he was buried.”
By 570, however, the received form of the creed included both “he was buried” and “he descended into hell.” Thus, by that time, “descendit” (he descended) was no longer being used to mean “buried,” but rather it was used temporally and sequentially to mean “he went to the place of the dead” (in the reading, “descendit ad inferos“). As Charles E Hill has shown, there is a link between the rise of this notion and Greek ideas about the inherent evil of the material world.4
Since before the 7th century it has been widely held that Christ went either to 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.5 Reformed exegesis of 1 Peter 3:18ff rejects such a possibility. We generally interpret 1 Peter 3 to teach that Christ, through God the Spirit, preached through Noah to Noah’s contemporaries. Scripture says:
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the Spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water (1 Pet 3:18–20).
I’ve revised the ESV by capitalizing the s in Spirit in v. 18. Peter’s point here is to remind believers to behave themselves as those who’ve been redeemed by Christ. His pattern is to exhort us to piety and obedience and then to remind us of the gospel (where Paul usually does things the other way round). The basis for the exhortation is that Christ suffered not because he was a sinner or a lawbreaker but as the righteous one, as the substitute. As Peter says, the righteous for the unrighteous….” He did so “in the flesh” but he was raised from the dead, by the Holy Spirit. Peter is not saying that Jesus soul was made alive but that he, Jesus, was made alive by the Holy Spirit. The first phrase in v. 19 refers back to the Holy Spirit: “in whom he went….” (ἐν ᾧ) Where ever Jesus went, he went in the Holy Spirit not in his soul or in some other way. Where did he go “in the Spirit”? To the souls who were in prison. Where and when were these souls in prison? In the days of Noah! Peter’s point here, which he’s made in other places, is that our time is just like Noah’s. Just as Jesus, by the Spirit, was preaching to the world through Noah, so too, he’s preaching to the world through the Apostle Peter and the other ministers. Just as the world was disobedient and faced a cataclysmic judgment, so too our world faces an even greater and more final judgment. He goes on to say that baptism is a witness to this reality. Just as Noah and the others were saved through (not by) the flood waters of judgment so we, in our baptism, we’ve been identified with Jesus’ passage through those waters on the cross. We who believe should be confident that he has endured it all and in that confidence live as those who’ve been redeemed.
There is nothing in this passage about Jesus going to the place of the dead or to the dead ones. That notion arose because of the influence of pagan ideas and tragically was adopted by Christians. Some have advocated that, since we do not believe that Christ went to the place of the dead, we should remove that clause from the creed. Others have defended retaining it.6 Calvin and the Reformed have retained the clause but have understood it to refer to Christ’s sufferings. We should explain that the original sense was merely “buried.” We might omit the clause on the ground that we would be reverting to an earlier form. Arguably we would not be substantially altering a catholic creed as much as removing early medieval accretions from it thus making it less Roman and more catholic.
Whatever the outcome of that discussion, the truth that we confess is vital:
44. Why is it added: “He descended into hell”?
That in my greatest temptations I may be assured that Christ my lord, by His inexpressible anguish, pains and terrors, which He suffered in His soul on the cross and before, has redeemed me from the anguish and torment of hell.
Jesus did certainly endure the “anguish, pains and terrors” of hell before his crucifixion and on the cross. He did so not for any macabre reason but as a satisfaction to God’s justice. For more on this see the three-part exposition of Question 40
Notice that the catechism points to Christ’s suffering as a part of the ground of our assurance. When we are tempted we ought to think of Jesus’ suffering. The assumption seems to be that we do not always resist temptation, which, of course resonates with Christian experience, Scripture (see Romans 7), and the catechism (e.g., questions 60, 114, 115). As we struggle with sin, however, it is of the greatest value to remember and to meditate on Christ’s sufferings because even as we struggle we are also tempted to think that God no longer loves us and that lie leads only to more sin. “Well,” the Devil says, “Now that you’ve fallen out of favor with God, why not sin even more. After all, life is short and you might as well enjoy yourself on the way to hell.” Jesus did not endure what he did, that which we are not able to articulate or fully understand, so that we might be lost. He did not suffer and die to make it possible that we might be saved but to accomplish salvation for those who, of themselves, even with the help of grace, are helpless. If our salvation depends even the littlest on our cooperation, then to the degree our cooperation is imperfect, to that degree we are unsaved. No, Jesus did it all.
That is why we say “redeemed.” We’ve been saved. We are being saved now and we shall be saved. We have been purchased. This is the basic truth of question 1: “What is your only comfort in life and in death?” We say, “That I, with body and soul, both in life and in death, am not my own….” We have been purchased body and soul by our Lord Jesus who has suffered in our place, as our substitute, as our representative, and the Suffering Savior (Isa 53:10) is our Mediator. He stands before the Father now perfectly righteous, with the scars on his hands and back and those most eloquent marks say it all.
As we struggle against sin, as we seek to die to self and to live to Christ, as we seek, by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in union with Christ to be conformed to his image we do so with the confidence that all that justice required for our sins has been paid. There is no outstanding debt. Hell has no claim on us. So, when the Devil or your conscience tells you that “you’ve done it now” you remember our suffering Savior. Your salvation isn’t lost. It’s a certain as the empty tomb and the scars on the true, glorified humanity of our Lord Jesus.
notes
1. On which see George Knight’s wonderful book, The Faithful Sayings in the Pastoral Letters. Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1969.
2. Some of what follows is revised from an earlier post.
3. Rufinus wrote c.410:
18. They who have handed down the Creed to us have with much forethought specified the time when these things were done—“under Pontius Pilate,”—lest in any respect the tradition should falter, as though vague and uncertain. But it should be known that the clause, “He descended into Hell,” is not added in the Creed of the Roman Church, neither is it in that of the Oriental Churches. It seems to be implied, however, when it is said that “He was buried.”
Rufinus of Aquileia, “A Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed,” in Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings, Etc., ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. William Henry Fremantle, vol. 3, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 550.
4. See Charles E. Hill, Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity.
5. David Scaer defends the confessional Lutheran view of the descendit.
6. See Daniel R. Hyde, In Defense of the Descent: A Response to Contemporary Critics (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010).
©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.
RESOURCES
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
Dr. Clark, in your 3rd paragraph on the history of the Creed, that words buried and descent were used interchangeably, which I take to mean that “descent” means “buried.” From my reading of Rufinus, in his Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed, it seems that Rufinus means the opposite. Namely that buried includes the idea of a literal descent into hell.
In sections 28-29 of his work, seem most pronounced in terms of advocate that Jesus literally descended into hell. John the Baptist is likely there before Christ’s descent (28), and that Jesus “… returned, therefore, a victor from the dead, leading with Him the spoils of hell” (29). He goes on.
So earlier when Rufinus’s explanation earlier that Descent = Buried would seem to me that the word Buried includes Jesus’s descent into hell (sect. 18) by what he says later.
I realize that doesn’t mean your entire paragraph is wrong, but Rufinus is one of the earliest orthodox writers, writing on the Apostles’ Creed, it lends a bit of weight on to interpretation of that line.
I’m curious about your thoughts.
Michael,
Yes, Rufinus’ commentary is the first but it only signals the transition from the synonymous use to the sequential. The old Roman form c, 341 says “sub Pontio Pilato crucifixus, et sepultus. The next line reads, “tertia die resurrexit….” The form associated with Augustine (Forma Augustini) c. 400 omits the descendit. Rufinus in §18 acknowledged that the old Roman form omitted the descendit. Thus, in the Aquileian form from c. 390 the descendit is in brackets. It wasn’t a fixed part of the form until the late 6th century.
Rufinus was among those who thought Jesus went to the place of the dead/hell but opinion in the ancient church were split, with the chiliasts tending to support the idea of subterranean intermediate state to which Jesus putatively went and the orthodox non-chiliasts tending to reject it.
The point is that it was a later addition, not universally used by the churches and early on, when it was used, it did not refer to a visit to a subterranean world but merely to Christ’s burial. The question is whether now, almost 500 years after the Reformation, we need to remain wedded to the sequential use of the descendit or whether the Reformed churches, at least, could agree to return to the pre-390 version of the creed?
I see the main point of your argument and don’t wish to highjack this post! But thank you for taking the time to respond.
As far as Hill’s work goes, it seemed to me that he was saying that chiliast and a subterranean dwelling place was for all the saints of either epoch, not specifically revolving around Christ’s harrowing of Hell. A good example is Mileto of Sardis in his On the Passover is explicit about Christ’s harrow of Hell (but Hill puts him in the non-chiliast camp). Hermas also comes to mind (although his has the apostles descending into hell!) but also in the non-chiliast camp.
Thomas Oden in his Classic Christianity says that the belief in the descent into Hell was confessed and affirmed by Polycarp, Martyr, Origen, Hermas, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Clement of Alexandria (p. 80). Which according to the way Hill ranks them cuts across the chiliast divide.
My question is then where do we see a clear reference to the descent as burial that would show this split in the early church that your talking about.
I did a MA thesis on this so that’s where all of this is coming from.
On the synonymous use I’m working from memory. I checked the chart in Schaff, Creeds vol 2. but it shows descendit first c. 390. I’ll have to track down where I read that.
Okay, I’ve discovered where I might first have seen the notion that descendit and sepultures were used interchangeably:
Rufinus of Aquileia, “A Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed,” in Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings, Etc., ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. William Henry Fremantle, vol. 3, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 550.
Schaff, Creeds 1.36 (PDF version, not sure if the page numbers match the printed edition), fn. 36 says:
I wonder on what authority Schaff thought that Rufinus was confused? I’m happy to be corrected.
The old Roman form c, 341 says “sub Pontio Pilato crucifixus, et sepultus. The next line reads, “tetra die resurrexit….” The form associated with Augustine (Forma Augustini) c. 400
? “TETRA die resurrexit” = “resurrected on the FOURTH day”????? (?ablative-of-something-or-other?)
thank you. Autocorrect strikes again.
If our salvation depends even the littlest on our cooperation, then to the degree our cooperation is imperfect, to that degree we are unsaved. No, Jesus did it all.
“For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous. And the law came in besides, that the trespass might abound; but where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly: that, as sin reigned in death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Rom 5:19-21)
All glory to God.
JND Kelly says something similar that “Rufinus, as his comment that the clause was equivalent to ‘buried’ shows, was clearly in the dark as to its real bearing and intention.” (Rufinus, Commentary, trans. Kelley p. 121n88).
I hate to say that Schaff and Kelly are wrong here but I think it’s apparent that Rufinus believes that the Descent into Hell to liberate captive souls is scriptural, so for Kelly and Schaff to say that Rufinus doesn’t know what he’s talking about seems strange and generally a point we try to avoid in historical observations.
If we assume that Rufinus did know what he was talking about, then that means that the word “buried” is a metonymy for the descent into Hades. So one would have to prove that more than just Rufinus understands that, but then one would read say Nicene-Constantinople’s “buried” as including the descent into Hades which is why no one felt the need to append that any earlier because everyone just assumed that since you are buried, you are dead, and as your a dead, you go to Hades and that Jesus was the last for God’s people to go there (at least, possibly, according to Rufinus).
Hmm. I thought Calvin defended the view that Jesus went to hell. For he suffered a sinners punishment, death, but does that punishment not also include hell?
Hans,
Why do you understand Calvin thus?