Our church confesses the Apostles’ Creed on an almost weekly basis. Sometimes I am asked why, if we believe Jesus fully accomplished our penal substitution on the cross, do we include the clause, “he descended into hell” (descendit ad inferna) ? Others have asked whether we plan to revise the Apostles’ Creed, as some churches have, to exclude this phrase.
First, I can say with virtual certainty that neither Phoenix URC nor our Federation (URCNA) will adopt a revised version of the Apostles' Creed anytime soon. With the ratification and publication of the Forms & Prayers book in 2018—a labor spanning more than a decade—the churches expressed a clear consensus concerning the present wording. It is worth noting, the common objections were raised in the years leading up to it. Apparently, these were addressed to the satisfaction of Synod.
I admit the inclusion of the phrase, “he descended into hell,” was at first disturbing and confusing to me. However, I was chastened to learn that few of the major (or minor) Protestant theologians from 1500-1900 expressed a desire to remove the clause. This suggested the possibility that I was the one misunderstanding something the early church wished to emphasize.
Bear in mind, the Greco-Roman concept of hades signified the abode of all deceased souls, not just the damned. Notably, where the Latin text of the creed has descendit ad inferna, the Greek reads “descended to the dead” (ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς). The formula, “he descended into hell,” will be found to have several layers of meaning which require unpacking to be fully appreciated.
Context of the Creed: recapitulation theory
The earliest versions of the Apostles' Creed date to the second and third centuries. One of the most influential theologians of that period was a man named Irenaeus, known for his theory of Christological recapitulation. Basically, he taught that redemption required the Son of God not only to become incarnate but also to assume (i.e., pass through) all the common stages of human existence, sin excepted. Irenaeus’ view was received as orthodox and is summarized in his phrase, “what Christ did not assume, he did not redeem.”
Now, let's put meat on these bones. While on the cross, Jesus assumed the hellish torments of final damnation in our place, as our Heidelberg Catechism states in Q&A 44. According to Calvin, the Creed “sets forth what Christ suffered in the sight of men, and then appositely speaks of that invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he underwent in the sight of God.” In this sense, Jesus underwent judicial descent prior to death, having been plunged under divine wrath. But that was not the only kind of descent he experienced.
According to Irenaeus, it was also necessary for the Lord to assume the lower states of burial and disembodiment, since these are among the stages common to humanity. Both involve “descending” in different ways. Spatially, Jesus went down into the grave when his body was placed “in the heart of the earth for three days and nights” (Mt 12:40). Moreover, there was also an anthropological descent. Because God created humans to enjoy a unified body and soul, any separation of these amounts to a degraded, lower state of being. Thus, we can say with truth that Jesus “descended to the dead” when he underwent a period of disembodiment.
The Bible does not disclose all that Jesus’ human soul experienced during that time. But it is clear he did not continue atoning for sin, as reflected in his assurance to the dying thief: “today, you will be with me in paradise.” From this we may surmise that the latter instances of Christ’s descent did not serve to satisfy our debt, but to sanctify our passage through death.
The Sequence As Pastoral theology
It is apparent by now that the order in which the Apostles’ Creed presents each stage of Christ’s descent—death, burial, disembodiment, and fiery torment—does not strictly reflect the actual sequence in which he endured the consequences of our sin. The sequence, rather, reflects the order common to sinners, whom Christ came to redeem. In other words, the order reflects pastoral theology as much as it does biblical and systematic truths. The Apostles’ Creed presents our Savior going down with us, before rising and ascending victoriously for us.
Bear in mind, even those justified in Christ must ordinarily pass through physical death and a period of disembodiment. The thought of this can be disconcerting, even to mature Christians. The apostle Paul calls this rupture of our mortal being, “the last enemy to be defeated” (1 Cor 15:26). It is therefore of great consolation to remember that Jesus himself has descended through all these states and has overcome them. Thee Creed teaches us to approach our own mortality confessing, “my Savior went down before me, and he will bring me up again!”
Conclusion
No doubt, retaining the clause, “he descended into hell,” invites questions in our context—just as the word “catholic” does. But I see that as a good thing. We gain the opportunity to explain the faith we cherish. Indeed, I would see it as a far greater loss to catholicity if Protestants were to abandon this most ancient of creeds, which was upheld by all the great Reformers.
Further Study
If your eyes haven't entirely glazed over by this time, allow me to make two recommendations. The first is a fine article by Mark Jones which provides more historical and theological context to the debates surrounding this clause. The second is a little book written by my former pastor, Daniel R. Hyde, called In Defense of the Descent. I have a copy which you are welcome to borrow. Just let me know.
