Did Jesus descend into Hell?

[Lucas Finch]

I have a general policy against speculating too much about things that I have no way of really knowing. Thus, I make no belief statement regarding God's creative endeavors (age of the cosmos, theistic evolution vs. creationism, etc.) other than knowing that He is indeed the Creator and Sustainer of all things. Likewise, I make no belief statements regarding specifics of how this current existence will transition into the next other than being pretty confident that the dispensationalists are way off track.

With that in mind, I really have no idea what happened while Jesus was in the grave, other than believing that He was truly dead. However, I do really like the idea that He was in some Hades-like afterlife sharing the Gospel with those who had passed without having the opportunity to hear it prior to death. And I would hope that this would not be limited to just those who died in the days of Noah or anytime B.C. but also to those who had no access to the Gospel even after the Christ-event (Incas, Aztecs, Mayans, etc.). This really lines up with what I believe about the character of God as revealed in Christ. I believe that all people will have the opportunity to accept or reject Him, and if He ministered in Hades during His three days in the grave, then that is a perfect explanation of how those people had the opportunity to respond to Him.

So I do think that Jesus descending to and leading forth the prisoners from Hades matches up well with what I believe about His character. But as there is really no way for any of us to know this, I am not going to get too stuck on the idea.

Regardless, it is best for us to be sharing the Gospel with the lost here and now, not to give them a ticket into heaven when they die, but rather so that they can enter into eternity through relationship with Christ now, be set free from brokenness, and begin participating in God's restorative work.

[Kevin Rector]

I think the problem is that we're just too western. lol. Your ability to differentiate between "Hell" and "Hades", is a product of the English langauge, as well as later developments in Western thought. Such a differentiation is not representative of the Early Christian thought around when the Creed was being canonized.

I think it's more of a recognition that the KJV placed into the English Speaking world the inability to differentiate on the part of many between the place where dead people go before judgement and the place where the finally impenitent go after judgement. The KJV did us a huge disservice by calling both "hell". The word "hell" just isn't in the bible, it's an English word and it should not be a catchall like it is in the KJV. Like I said, I don't really understand the details of how it all works out (and it doesn't really affect my faith much), but Jesus was in the grave, not the lake of fire.

[Benjamin Burch]

I think it's more of a recognition that the KJV placed into the English Speaking world the inability to differentiate on the part of many between the place where dead people go before judgement and the place where the finally impenitent go after judgement. The KJV did us a huge disservice by calling both "hell". The word "hell" just isn't in the bible, it's an English word and it should not be a catchall like it is in the KJV. Like I said, I don't really understand the details of how it all works out (and it doesn't really affect my faith much), but Jesus was in the grave, not the lake of fire.

Well, again, in the Early Christian theology in the East, there was no lake of fire. However, it also was not as simple as "in the grave", at least not as those composing the creed understood it.

[Ryan Scott]

No Early Christian theologian that I know of understood the descent to Hell/Hades as simply a way of affirming Christ actually died. They unanimously interpret it to mean something more. Thus, I think it is entirely inaccurate to suggest what you did, seeing as how none of the Earliest Christians would agree.

I don't think I implied what you heard. I don't think I'd disagree with what was said. We do have a gospel account of the dead being raised and walking around the city - likely this could be the result of Christ's preaching. Still, the line in the creed says he died, he went to the place of the dead, then he came back.

Even if the early father's were unanimous in their interpretation of preaching to the dead, that is not in the Creed. As I said before, I don't have a problem with that belief, nor do I think it's a necessary belief.

However, on top of this analysis, we also have to ask ourselves if the general belief in a "place of dead," where those who have died are consciously waiting resurrection, is a cultural understanding or a doctrinal one. For me, I choose "I don't know," because I don't.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Well, again, in the Early Christian theology in the East, there was no lake of fire. However, it also was not as simple as "in the grave", at least not as those composing the creed understood it.

My understanding of Hades, as well as Hel, well the realms of each, is more than simply the grave. They are places where the dead dwell, where they are cognizant of where they are. I think that a similar understanding of Hades would be in the minds of the authors of the creeds. I must confess that my understanding of Hades is more of the Classical period than the Hellenistic, but I am not sure that there was a shift. All that to say I agree with your statement.

[Larry Parsons]

I notice that my post didn't show up did I say something wrong?
Thanks
Larry

[Roland Hearn]

I think you miss the contextual nature of that statement. Obviously this applies only to those who come after the establishment of orthodoxy.

I think you may have missed my oh so suttle point Ben. While the creeds surely are descriptive of the Christian faith language that appears to make them prescriptive makes me uncomfortable.

[Benjamin Burch]

I think you may have missed my oh so suttle point Ben. While the creeds surely are descriptive of the Christian faith language that appears to make them prescriptive makes me uncomfortable.

I can appreciate that, to an extent, and you're certainly not a poster I'd have much issue with! However, in this context, that doesn't really compute in my mind, as I don't see a difference in this context.

If something describes the Christian faith, and another does not believe it, is that person's faith "Christian"? That is, to describe the core of religious beliefs, is to prescribe those beliefs. For instance, the TULIP is descriptive of Calvinism, and also one cannot be a Calvinist without believing those 5 points --- it is both descriptive and prescriptive.

I see it the same way, and don't see the difference in this context.

[Dennis Bratcher]

This is the problem with sola Scriptura.

Well, again, in the Early Christian theology in the East, there was no lake of fire. However, it also was not as simple as "in the grave", at least not as those composing the creed understood it.

I think this entire discussion illustrates a significant interpretive issue that has emerged on several occasions here, that of contextual awareness. Ideas are presented in language with nuances of word meanings that themselves depend on three intersecting contextual fields for adequate communication: literary, cultural, and historical. And conversely, those intersecting contexts influence not only language and word meanings (which include issues of style, how those ideas and issues are communicated, as well as grammar and syntax) but what ideas and issues are even addressed and what are not addressed.

Complicating the matter, those three contextual fields are multiplied across at least three time frames, that of the original milieu of the communication, that of the tradition that attempts to preserve it and pass it on into a later context (which itself extends across many layers of historical and cultural context), and that of the receiver of the tradition that attempts to understand and re-contextualize the original communication from and into a new context. That suggests that statements like “the Bible says” or “the creeds say” cannot be used as paradigmatic statements of truth without careful consideration of the intersecting and multilayer contexts that shape how we understand the statements or, indeed, the statements themselves.

This has some implications for how we deal with both Scripture and Tradition. Without rehashing the details of language theory or tracking the development of critical biblical studies the past 150 years, the bottom line is that we have come to a keen awareness of the extent to which those contexts have shaped our understanding of Scripture and Theology in general. I would suggest the same principle applies to Tradition.

Some want to get behind the complexities of the issue and retreat to a simpler “God said it and I believe it” approach to Scripture in which truth just falls off the page. That desire can take various forms, from ignoring the issues and adopting some form of inerrancy or inspiration that privileges personal understanding, to privileging one context as paradigmatic while disregarding the others. I think placing the creeds as the final arbitrator of belief, without understanding the context of those creeds both in terms of how they originated and how they were used within various contexts, is analogous to viewing the Bible as “God said it” without further consideration. The Creeds, like Scripture, are authoritative for the Church, yet both must be understood beyond the words on the page and without locking belief into specific historical contexts, whether the tenth century BC, the first century AD, the fourth century, or the 21st century.

As I have said before, I think privileging the creeds as paradigmatic without further nuancing is just as much a problem as is privileging Scripture without doing the necessary interpretation. Both need to be interpreted considering the milieus in which they came into being, were transmitted, and are heard today. I understand the journey some have made from Scripture as authoritative to the creeds as authoritative. I cannot fault that as a personal journey. But that journey is not definitive for the Church. I also understand some of the reaction to sola scriptura as it is used in modern evangelicalism. But I don’t think the answer is to return to what I sometimes perceive as an inordinate emphasis on Tradition in the name of orthodoxy. I have heard on more than one occasion at least one of the Nazarene proponents of a return to the Creeds make very militant and “fundamentalist” statements about the priority of the creeds using the term “orthodoxy” as a way to exclude differing opinions.

I will agree that the way the Bible is viewed among many modern evangelicals is problematic. Often that is exemplified by a naïve appeal to sola scriptura. But I don’t think replacing one overemphasis with another is a good solution. That is why I think an authentic Wesleyan balance in how we do theology, a genuine Protestant balance in which Scripture and Tradition are mutually informative and processed through God-given and Spirit-directed Reason, is still the best approach.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Benjamin Burch]

I think this entire discussion illustrates a significant interpretive issue that has emerged on several occasions here, that of contextual awareness. Ideas are presented in language with nuances of word meanings that themselves depend on three intersecting contextual fields for adequate communication: literary, cultural, and historical. And conversely, those intersecting contexts influence not only language and word meanings (which include issues of style, how those ideas and issues are communicated, as well as grammar and syntax) but what ideas and issues are even addressed and what are not addressed.

Complicating the matter, those three contextual fields are multiplied across at least three time frames, that of the original milieu of the communication, that of the tradition that attempts to preserve it and pass it on into a later context (which itself extends across many layers of historical and cultural context), and that of the receiver of the tradition that attempts to understand and re-contextualize the original communication from and into a new context. That suggests that statements like “the Bible says” or “the creeds say” cannot be used as paradigmatic statements of truth without careful consideration of the intersecting and multilayer contexts that shape how we understand the statements or, indeed, the statements themselves.

This has some implications for how we deal with both Scripture and Tradition. Without rehashing the details of language theory or tracking the development of critical biblical studies the past 150 years, the bottom line is that we have come to a keen awareness of the extent to which those contexts have shaped our understanding of Scripture and Theology in general. I would suggest the same principle applies to Tradition.

Some want to get behind the complexities of the issue and retreat to a simpler “God said it and I believe it” approach to Scripture in which truth just falls off the page. That desire can take various forms, from ignoring the issues and adopting some form of inerrancy or inspiration that privileges personal understanding, to privileging one context as paradigmatic while disregarding the others. I think placing the creeds as the final arbitrator of belief, without understanding the context of those creeds both in terms of how they originated and how they were used within various contexts, is analogous to viewing the Bible as “God said it” without further consideration. The Creeds, like Scripture, are authoritative for the Church, yet both must be understood beyond the words on the page and without locking belief into specific historical contexts, whether the tenth century BC, the first century AD, the fourth century, or the 21st century.

As I have said before, I think privileging the creeds as paradigmatic without further nuancing is just as much a problem as is privileging Scripture without doing the necessary interpretation. Both need to be interpreted considering the milieus in which they came into being, were transmitted, and are heard today. I understand the journey some have made from Scripture as authoritative to the creeds as authoritative. I cannot fault that as a personal journey. But that journey is not definitive for the Church. I also understand some of the reaction to sola scriptura as it is used in modern evangelicalism. But I don’t think the answer is to return to what I sometimes perceive as an inordinate emphasis on Tradition in the name of orthodoxy. I have heard on more than one occasion at least one of the Nazarene proponents of a return to the Creeds make very militant and “fundamentalist” statements about the priority of the creeds using the term “orthodoxy” as a way to exclude differing opinions.

I will agree that the way the Bible is viewed among many modern evangelicals is problematic. Often that is exemplified by a naïve appeal to sola scriptura. But I don’t think replacing one overemphasis with another is a good solution. That is why I think an authentic Wesleyan balance in how we do theology, a genuine Protestant balance in which Scripture and Tradition are mutually informative and processed through God-given and Spirit-directed Reason, is still the best approach.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Hopefully I was clear in my response to Ryan that I have no problem with people disagreeing with the Church Fathers on what that line means. My responses to Kevin and Ryan were only to what I perceived to be statements claiming that the line means something historically that doesn't seem to fit the data.

As far as believing the creeds go, in the authoritative sense that I've advocated for here, I think there is a distinct difference between negotiating with the beliefs within our context and reinterpreting the words in a more believable way on the one hand (which I would say Ryan and Kevin have done a good job of) and saying a line needs removed because it is a mistake and is flat wrong.

I do think the creeds hold enough of an authoritative weight so as to stand as authoritative. Negotiation or reinterpretation is one thing. Rejection seems another.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Hopefully I was clear in my response to Ryan that I have no problem with people disagreeing with the Church Fathers on what that line means. My responses to Kevin and Ryan were only to what I perceived to be statements claiming that the line means something historically that doesn't seem to fit the data.

As far as believing the creeds go, in the authoritative sense that I've advocated for here, I think there is a distinct difference between negotiating with the beliefs within our context and reinterpreting the words in a more believable way on the one hand (which I would say Ryan and Kevin have done a good job of) and saying a line needs removed because it is a mistake and is flat wrong.

I do think the creeds hold enough of an authoritative weight so as to stand as authoritative. Negotiation or reinterpretation is one thing. Rejection seems another.

I just wonder whether the creeds were relevant truth in their setting in history that maybe they need to be readdressed from time to time. It seems to me that that is what was happening back then as there are several creeds seems to mean that several groups had gotten together to struggle with and articulate just what the faith is. Should we not gather to do the same for our context? In so doing maybe we do come to reject some of the statements made in the ancient creeds? Just as we re-interpret the biblical texts to better communicate within our cultural contexts and incorporate recent scholarship.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Hopefully I was clear in my response to Ryan that I have no problem with people disagreeing with the Church Fathers on what that line means. My responses to Kevin and Ryan were only to what I perceived to be statements claiming that the line means something historically that doesn't seem to fit the data.

Fair enough. I think it does, but that’s another discussion.

As far as believing the creeds go, in the authoritative sense that I've advocated for here, I think there is a distinct difference between negotiating with the beliefs within our context and reinterpreting the words in a more believable way on the one hand (which I would say Ryan and Kevin have done a good job of) and saying a line needs removed because it is a mistake and is flat wrong.

I do think the creeds hold enough of an authoritative weight so as to stand as authoritative. Negotiation or reinterpretation is one thing. Rejection seems another.

I would certainly agree that we cannot just excise what does not appeal to us or what we do not understand on the surface. Otherwise we end up with Marcion’s or Thomas Jefferson’s truncated bibles. The reality in biblical studies is that there are some features or even assertions of Scripture that we have a hard time accepting today without looking more carefully at context, and asking deeper questions than what the text says. In such cases it is not a matter of excising the passage or denying its authority, but of realizing the differences in world view, culture, history, and larger milieu that allows us to accept that authority functionally.

In Scripture, three notable examples come quickly to mind, that of the extermination of the Canaanites, the issue of slavery, and the role of women in society. Our perspectives now are almost totally opposite from what Scripture says about those issues, yet we have not excised those objectionable passages. We strive to understand the context of those passages, ask larger questions of meaning and theological witness, what the passages were trying to do in context and say about God, and re-contextualize those aspects within a larger witness into contemporary contexts (that is, unless preservation of tradition itself is allowed to be primary and infallible).

I would suggest that the same is true of the Creeds. It is not that we need to abandon the Creeds or redact them. Rather, we need to hear the Creeds as a historically conditioned witness that, like Scripture, preserves truths, not as disconnected absolutes, but incarnated into human contexts with all that implies. We need to understand what they were trying to do within a context, what factors influenced what they addressed and what they did not, what they were trying to say about God, and then re-contextualize that in light of our modern understanding of both the world and Scripture, as well as different views of humanity. In some cases that might just lead to a different understanding of the Creeds that gives us a larger view of “orthodoxy” than simply defining what is heretical and what is orthodox in a narrow sense (illustrated quite well in another thread; not suggesting that you have done that!).

At the very least, that suggests that “authority,” while standing alone as a faith confession, still needs careful parsing to be viable.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Ryan Scott]

My responses to Kevin and Ryan were only to what I perceived to be statements claiming that the line means something historically that doesn't seem to fit the data.

All I was doing is clarifying what the Creed doesn't say. There may be implications for what Jesus did in death beyond the actual wording of the creed, but whatever those implications are, they don't include hell (defined as the destination of the finally impenitent).

[Bob Carabbio]

Where WOULD a dead human associated with the SIN of humanity go??

Getting thrown into hell by Father is certainly a reasonable option. Is Ps 88 Messianic. As usual, some theologians say yes, and some say no.

More reasonable to me than just a 72 hour visit to "Abraham's Bosom" to socialize with the repentant theif, before being ressurected on Sunday morning.

[Jim Chabot]

All I was doing is clarifying what the Creed doesn't say. There may be implications for what Jesus did in death beyond the actual wording of the creed, but whatever those implications are, they don't include hell (defined as the destination of the finally impenitent).

While Hell is indeed the destination of the finally impenitent, it is not necessarily defined as the final destination. I don't believe that anyone is saying, nor do the creeds contemplate that Jesus visited the lake of fire. Scripture tells us that he descended int the lower parts of the earth, and that he preached to spirits held in chains. Sound to me that he visited a transitory accomodation of the finally impenitent. Hell is an ok descriptor for me, although hades, sheol, gehenna, walmart, starbucks, or a chevy dealer would work for me as well. I think that sometimes we can lose sight as we seek to narrowly define terms. Especially as we converse in a dynamic language.

[Peggy Gray]

I don't understand why He would have preached to the finally impenitent?

[Randy Wise]

I don't understand why He would have preached to the finally impenitent?

Those Jesus went to died before Christ Jesus came down to us and apart from any law.

While I assume those around Noah thought he lost his marbles the world is a large place. Scripture supports a just God.

Romans 3:25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[a] through the shedding of his blood —to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished —

John 15:22
If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.

He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19 through whom[d] also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[e] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand —with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

1 Peter 4:6
New International Version (NIV)
6 For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.


Keep in mind these people died long before Christ Jesus was revealed to mankind.
Now all come before Jesus for judgment after the life of the body. As is written "man is appointed once to die and after to face judgment." With light comes accountability.

Randy

[Benjamin Burch]

I don't understand why He would have preached to the finally impenitent?

To save them?

[Benjamin Burch]

Where WOULD a dead human associated with the SIN of humanity go??

Getting thrown into hell by Father is certainly a reasonable option.

I don't know of any Christian theologian that would follow this line of thought. Does anyone else?

[Larry Parsons]

Ben, I’m just wondering if we don’t take 1st Peter 3:19 so literally why couldn’t we say that the hell was the Gentile world that Christ gospel descend into to set the prisoners free.
Thanks
Larry

[Cam Pence]

Ben, I’m just wondering if we don’t take 1st Peter 3:19 so literally why couldn’t we say that the hell was the Gentile world that Christ gospel descend into to set the prisoners free.
Thanks
Larry

Larry please...language

[Larry Parsons]

Larry please...language

Ok the prison here in 1st Peter was the Gentile world full of satan salves that the gospel of Christ went into to set the Satan slave free.
Thanks
Larry

[Randy Wise]

Ok the prison here in 1st Peter was the Gentile world full of satan salves that the gospel of Christ went into to set the Satan slave free.
Thanks
Larry

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Jesus first preached to the lost in Israel. Jesus was also a light to Israel who also were in need of salvation. Do you also define that as a prison and a people enslaved by satan? How do you single out just gentiles as that prison? Unless the Son sets you free (all people) you are a slave to sin but if the Son sets you free you are free indeed. I don't see how one came up with what you wrote above as a reasonable interpretation of what Peter wrote in regard to Jesus's preaching to the dead who died in the days of Noah. I assume what you wrote wasn't your own thinking.

Randy

[Larry Parsons]

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Jesus first preached to the lost in Israel. Jesus was also a light to Israel who also were in need of salvation. Do you also define that as a prison and a people enslaved by satan? How do you single out just gentiles as that prison? Unless the Son sets you free (all people) you are a slave to sin but if the Son sets you free you are free indeed. I don't see how one came up with what you wrote above as a reasonable interpretation of what Peter wrote in regard to Jesus's preaching to the dead who died in the days of Noah. I assume what you wrote wasn't your own thinking.

Randy

Randy, you are right I came across that idea while back and I thought I would throw it out. But guess one could say that the Gentile world of that was hell compare to the Christiian culture'
Thanks
Larry

[Steven Burton]

The version used at SNU is Hades not hell. The first time I saw hell was the one used by Calvin.

[Sarah Smith]

Um, well, uh, since some Baptists are ardently anticreedal, does that make them non Christians

[Benjamin Burch]

Um, well, uh, since some Baptists are ardently anticreedal, does that make them non Christians

Yes, it does.

[David Graham]

Um, well, uh, since some Baptists are ardently anticreedal, does that make them non Christians

I don't know of any Baptists out here that are "ardently anticreedal"; I do know of many that are completely against any form of liturgy (which seems crazy to me) because they "don't want to hinder the movement of God's Spirit among them in worship. Their arguement not mine!

I think that many Baptists accept the "truth" of the Creeds, but for whatever reason don't like reciting them. These people may certainly be Christians ..... just like all others who believe in Jesus Christ unto salvation and confess him as Lord.

It's those that not only don't recite the creeds but don't believe them that I suspect are either not Christian or are on dangerous ground. For although some may trust in Jesus as Saviour and Lord, yet how long can they continue to reject the historical and essential truth of the church catholic and remain as followers of Christ. i.e. Not be led astray?

[Lucas Finch]

I don't know of any Baptists out here that are "ardently anticreedal"; I do know of many that are completely against any form of liturgy (which seems crazy to me) because they "don't want to hinder the movement of God's Spirit among them in worship. Their arguement not mine!

I think that many Baptists accept the "truth" of the Creeds, but for whatever reason don't like reciting them. These people may certainly be Christians ..... just like all others who believe in Jesus Christ unto salvation and confess him as Lord.

It's those that not only don't recite the creeds but don't believe them that I suspect are either not Christian or are on dangerous ground. For although some may trust in Jesus as Saviour and Lord, yet how long can they continue to reject the historical and essential truth of the church catholic and remain as followers of Christ. i.e. Not be led astray?

Along the same lines, I know of some supposedly non-denominational folk who say, "No creed but Christ", but these people would affirm each line of the creeds. They do not see the creeds as "I believe" statements (as they are intended to be) but rather as some sort of "high church" tradition that they try to distance themselves from. But ultimately they accept what is contained within the creeds, even if they reject the creeds in their traditional format. I personally think that it is silly, but I have no problem considering these folk to be my brothers and sisters in Christ.

[Sarah Smith]

The anti creedal Baptist I've known do accept what is in the creeds, but reject the concept of creeds.

And of course some of them have turned the BFM2000 into a creed.

They used to have "no creed but the Bible."

[Benjamin Burch]

The anti creedal Baptist I've known do accept what is in the creeds, but reject the concept of creeds.

Most I've had conversations with wouldn't. They actively deny the dual wills of Christ.

They used to have "no creed but the Bible."

In word, but not in practice. Everyone has creeds in practice.