Did Jesus descend into Hell?

[Benjamin Burch]

Piper doesn't think so, neither does Grudem. Does this trouble anyone else?

http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/post...day-in-hell--2

This is the problem with sola Scriptura.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I don't have a problem with Christ not descending into the Miltonian version of Hell that we are all so accustomed to. But as to the article and the interpretations of the Peter passages, well I just don't see it. I do not see how they get that Christ preached to those who disobeyed way back in the days of Noah, before they were imprisoned. But I don't get the version of Hell that we generally mean from the passage either.

[Jim Chabot]

I don't see this as a problem with sola scriptura, not at all. Scripture plainly says that Jesus preached to them who were held in chains, the creeds agree with scripture.

I have no idea where Piper would get the notion, he expresses on this.

[Ryan Scott]

Hell is a poor choice of words. The Greek is Hades, the place of the Dead, similar to the Hebrew concept of Sheol. The statement was intended to say he really died; it wasn't a pretend death. He was really human and he really died. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Doug Ward]

Hell is a poor choice of words. The Greek is Hades, the place of the Dead, similar to the Hebrew concept of Sheol. The statement was intended to say he really died; it wasn't a pretend death. He was really human and he really died. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes. Ryan stated it well.

[Marian Schwaller Carney]

That is why, I think, not all versions of the Apostle's Creed include that phrase. The one I used for sermons this spring does not include it; this wasn't intentional on my part, it's just not in the study book I happened to use (written by an Anglican) , and liked very much.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Hell is a poor choice of words. The Greek is Hades, the place of the Dead, similar to the Hebrew concept of Sheol. The statement was intended to say he really died; it wasn't a pretend death. He was really human and he really died. Nothing more, nothing less.

This is how I tend to understand "Hell" in the NT. Although, as I think about it, I think we are better off with the concept behind the word Sheol with Hades being a translation, if there is a real difference.

[Randy Wise]

Ok, do we now have a "Hell" again?

The only thing that was made known about Jesus's activities from the ending on the cross to His resurrection was that He went and preached to the spirits in prison. (commonly referred to as Hell) I don't think Peter could make such a statement about where Jesus went unless the Lord gave that info to the Apostles.

So I believe Jesus went to preach to the spirits who were imprisoned in a holding place. (not free to leave of their own will) A prison cell context. I don't know the temperature of that place. Now "to me" that means they also were forgiven/redeemed by Jesus's act as they died before Christ and apart from any Law. So the judgment was according to the flesh not according to the spirit. (waiting the 2nd death)

Randy

[Wes Smith]

"There is no spot where God is not!"

Friend,

Wes

[Ian Gentles]

"There is no spot where God is not!"

Friend,

Wes

Well said.

[James Diggs]

I think the problem with this is what is meant by "hell" isn't the same as what we tend to think about when we talk about "hell".

My only real problem with this is when people say Jesus went to hell and suffered there as if this was required for some sort of extra payment on our behalf. Jesus did not "go to hell" like we are told we will unless we repent and believe.

[John Reilly]

"But we ought not to omit his descent into hell, a matter of no small moment in bringing about redemption." John Calvin

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I think it just means "he really died."

[Jim Chabot]

"But we ought not to omit his descent into hell, a matter of no small moment in bringing about redemption." John Calvin

Piper needs to read this Calvin guy, whoever he is.

[Benjamin Burch]

I don't see this as a problem with sola scriptura, not at all. Scripture plainly says that Jesus preached to them who were held in chains, the creeds agree with scripture.

I see your point and I can appreciate it. However, I do still think that the issue has to do with sola Scriptura.

Regardless of what Scripture does say, Piper thinks it says something else. And, for Piper, due to his commitment to sola Scriptura, our interpretation of Scriptures are not subject to the Creeds. Instead, the Creeds are subject to our interpretation of Scripture.

That is backwards and not even within the realm of orthodox Christianity. The Creeds are Christianity.. They are the Christian faith. This is what we believe, and it is what it means to be Christian. To be Christian means to believe that the Bible says this.... not whatever else we might think the Bible says. The Creeds interpret the Scriptures for us.

However, for Piper, it appears he sees it the other way around. He has the tail wagging the dog.

I have no idea where Piper would get the notion, he expresses on this.

Nor do I.

[Benjamin Burch]

Hell is a poor choice of words. The Greek is Hades, the place of the Dead, similar to the Hebrew concept of Sheol. The statement was intended to say he really died; it wasn't a pretend death. He was really human and he really died. Nothing more, nothing less.

I think it just means "he really died."

Yes. Ryan stated it well.

While I agree that "Hades" or "Sheol" are probably more helpful terms in a post medieval world with newer and varying conceptions of "Hell", the idea that it "just" means that Jesus died, or "nothing more, nothing less", doesn't seem to fit the historical data. The earliest Christians -- every one of them, to my knowledge -- believes that Jesus truly descended down to the abode of the dead and preached to captives, setting them free, and conquering hell and death.

Many believe Jesus only saved the OT saints. Many also believe Jesus saved and liberated all who were dead, emptying hell and conquering it (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory Nazianzus, Maximus the Confessor, Cyril of Alexandria).

Scott McKnight did a few blog posts on a very interesting book on this topic that I've read through parts of (but haven't be able to finish due to school), here.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I see your point and I can appreciate it. However, I do still think that the issue has to do with sola Scriptura.

Regardless of what Scripture does say, Piper thinks it says something else. And, for Piper, due to his commitment to sola Scriptura, our interpretation of Scriptures are not subject to the Creeds. Instead, the Creeds are subject to our interpretation of Scripture.

That is backwards and not even within the realm of orthodox Christianity. The Creeds are Christianity.. They are the Christian faith. This is what we believe, and it is what it means to be Christian. To be Christian means to believe that the Bible says this.... not whatever else we might think the Bible says. The Creeds interpret the Scriptures for us.

However, for Piper, it appears he sees it the other way around. He has the tail wagging the dog.




Nor do I.

So, while the Bible is not infallible the ecumenical creeds are? And IF I hold to the position that there are portions, passages, narratives within the inspired texts that are/ were meant to address specific issues at a particular place in time and location why should I believe that the creeds should not be treated similarly? I mean weren't the creeds the church's response to specific "heresies"?

[Benjamin Burch]

So, while the Bible is not infallible the ecumenical creeds are?

No. Nothing is infallible. That's always been my position. The Creeds, Tradition, Scripture, Reason, Liturgy, and Experience, are all fallible sources by fallible humans through which God speaks to and encounters us, through which we come to know about God.

However, to be Christian means to covenant to walk this journey into the heart of God together, with a common starting point -- what we believe. Thus, the credos, or creeds.

To be Christian is not to believe in the Bible. It is to confess the creeds, and to believe that the Bible teaches us these things.

And IF I hold to the position that there are portions, passages, narratives within the inspired texts that are/ were meant to address specific issues at a particular place in time and location why should I believe that the creeds should not be treated similarly? I mean weren't the creeds the church's response to specific "heresies"?

See above. I think one can believe whatever they want about the creeds and Scripture! However, to be Christian is to confess the Creeds. This is what we believe.

Now, again, I don't think one necessarily has to be Christian to be saved. But I do think that "Christian" is a word that means something. To be Christian is to covenant together on the journey to knowing our God, and to start together with the creeds.

[Paul DeBaufer]

No. Nothing is infallible. That's always been my position. The Creeds, Tradition, Scripture, Reason, Liturgy, and Experience, are all fallible sources by fallible humans through which God speaks to and encounters us, through which we come to know about God.

However, to be Christian means to covenant to walk this journey into the heart of God together, with a common starting point -- what we believe. Thus, the credos, or creeds.

To be Christian is not to believe in the Bible. It is to confess the creeds, and to believe that the Bible teaches us these things.



See above. I think one can believe whatever they want about the creeds and Scripture! However, to be Christian is to confess the Creeds. This is what we believe.

Now, again, I don't think one necessarily has to be Christian to be saved. But I do think that "Christian" is a word that means something. To be Christian is to covenant together on the journey to knowing our God, and to start together with the creeds.

There was a time not too long ago when I would have fully agreed with this statement, but I am currently in the process considering that position. I mean the early Christians were Christian prior to the creeds. And Yes, Christian should mean something and that something involves community in loving relationship one with the other and with God both collectively and personally.I guess I think that our beginning point, our collective connection is Christ Himself and not statements about Him. Statements I am not sure that I can affirm wholly as I once did. I'm in a weird place in this journey.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I don't see this as a problem with sola scriptura, not at all. Scripture plainly says that Jesus preached to them who were held in chains, the creeds agree with scripture.

I have no idea where Piper would get the notion, he expresses on this.

I actually have a sermon on this passage:

1 Peter 3:19-20 through whom (the Spirit) also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 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.

This section of 1 Peter is about how much the Lord wants to save people, even to the point of sending his Son to the cross. Peter is reminding his readers that there are plenty of instances in the Scriptures in which the Lord reaches out to a fallen race. One of those instances is found in Noah's story.

Interestingly enough, we tend to read the Noah story as a story of judgment, Peter though, sees it as a story of grace; not only in Noah and family being spared, but in how long the Lord waited before sending judgment, giving people over 100 years in which to hear the message of God and respond to it.

Peter imagines Noah preaching to his contemporaries in the Spirit of Jesus - reaching out to them with hope and grace even as we see in Christ's ministry. After all, any hope of salvation is in Jesus: for those looking forward to the promise of the Messiah as well as those looking back to his First Coming.

The wording of the passage is a bit confusing, but not outside of our common approach. Imagine a tour group from Japan is visiting Houston. For some reason, they ask me to come and preach on Sunday morning. I go and do that and then they return to Japan. A person might say, Pastor Scott preached to people in Japan. It would be true - I preached to them, and they are in Japan.

When Peter says that through the Spirit Jesus preached to the spirits of those who were disobedient in Noah's day it doesn't mean he visited them after his crucifixion. It means that long ago as Noah plead with them to repent that his preaching was in the Spirit of Jesus. They rejected that ministry and now await the judgment of God.

Remember this: no one ever accused the Apostle Peter of writing a simple, easy to understand letter.

[Ryan Scott]

While I agree that "Hades" or "Sheol" are probably more helpful terms in a post medieval world with newer and varying conceptions of "Hell", the idea that it "just" means that Jesus died, or "nothing more, nothing less", doesn't seem to fit the historical data. The earliest Christians -- every one of them, to my knowledge -- believes that Jesus truly descended down to the abode of the dead and preached to captives, setting them free, and conquering hell and death.

Again, Jesus was dead. He did whatever dead people do. Then he came back from the dead, thus ending death's term as final destination.

None of that has anything to do with hell. That was really my point.

[Jim Chabot]

I actually have a sermon on this passage:

1 Peter 3:19-20 through whom (the Spirit) also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 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.

This section of 1 Peter is about how much the Lord wants to save people, even to the point of sending his Son to the cross. Peter is reminding his readers that there are plenty of instances in the Scriptures in which the Lord reaches out to a fallen race. One of those instances is found in Noah's story.

Interestingly enough, we tend to read the Noah story as a story of judgment, Peter though, sees it as a story of grace; not only in Noah and family being spared, but in how long the Lord waited before sending judgment, giving people over 100 years in which to hear the message of God and respond to it.

Peter imagines Noah preaching to his contemporaries in the Spirit of Jesus - reaching out to them with hope and grace even as we see in Christ's ministry. After all, any hope of salvation is in Jesus: for those looking forward to the promise of the Messiah as well as those looking back to his First Coming.

The wording of the passage is a bit confusing, but not outside of our common approach. Imagine a tour group from Japan is visiting Houston. For some reason, they ask me to come and preach on Sunday morning. I go and do that and then they return to Japan. A person might say, Pastor Scott preached to people in Japan. It would be true - I preached to them, and they are in Japan.

When Peter says that through the Spirit Jesus preached to the spirits of those who were disobedient in Noah's day it doesn't mean he visited them after his crucifixion. It means that long ago as Noah plead with them to repent that his preaching was in the Spirit of Jesus. They rejected that ministry and now await the judgment of God.

Remember this: no one ever accused the Apostle Peter of writing a simple, easy to understand letter.

Perhaps. I won't say that your explanation is impossible or even implausible. But it's just as possible that He did descend into hell, hades, sheol, gehenna, wal mart or whatever anyone wants to call it and actually preach to spirits held in chains. I don't have any reason to believe otherwise.

[Jim Chabot]

There was a time not too long ago when I would have fully agreed with this statement, but I am currently in the process considering that position. I mean the early Christians were Christian prior to the creeds. And Yes, Christian should mean something and that something involves community in loving relationship one with the other and with God both collectively and personally.I guess I think that our beginning point, our collective connection is Christ Himself and not statements about Him. Statements I am not sure that I can affirm wholly as I once did. I'm in a weird place in this journey.

My understanding is that the creeds contained the essentials needed for faith, and that they were constructed in such a way that they could be memorized, thus faith could be passed along before the Canon and the printed page.

The Canon of Scripture is infallible and authoritative, the creeds while fully affirming Scripture aren't actually needed, they are the equivalent of Cliff's Notes.

[Benjamin Burch]

Again, Jesus was dead. He did whatever dead people do. Then he came back from the dead, thus ending death's term as final destination.

None of that has anything to do with hell. That was really my point.

Dead people don't usually conquer death and hell, nor set others free, do they?

It might not have anything to do with a medieval idea of hell, but it does have everything to do with "hell", as all of the early Church Fathers who comment on it seem to say so...

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I don't see this as a problem with sola scriptura, not at all. Scripture plainly says that Jesus preached to them who were held in chains, the creeds agree with scripture.

I have no idea where Piper would get the notion, he expresses on this.

Perhaps. I won't say that your explanation is impossible or even implausible. But it's just as possible that He did descend into hell, hades, sheol, gehenna, wal mart or whatever anyone wants to call it and actually preach to spirits held in chains. I don't have any reason to believe otherwise.

I don't mind if you aren't awed by my explanation, but I think it does (and really, it's not mine at all - just the result of research) pretty much counter your first response that the scripture "plainly says" this. Really, you are arguing for a fairly narrow understanding of one sentence of the Apostle's Creed more than debating Scripture.

[John Kennedy]

Piper needs to read this Calvin guy, whoever he is.

What a concept!

Nah! It'd probably just get him distracted.

[Paul DeBaufer]

My understanding is that the creeds contained the essentials needed for faith, and that they were constructed in such a way that they could be memorized, thus faith could be passed along before the Canon and the printed page.

The Canon of Scripture is infallible and authoritative, the creeds while fully affirming Scripture aren't actually needed, they are the equivalent of Cliff's Notes.

You may be right about the creeds, however I had been taught that they arose in response to specific heresies, which could've been misinformation.

We will, probably, just have to disagree about infallibility.. But that is neither here nor there as I agree with your assessment of the import of the affirmation of the creeds.

[Ryan Scott]

Dead people don't usually conquer death and hell, nor set others free, do they?

It might not have anything to do with a medieval idea of hell, but it does have everything to do with "hell", as all of the early Church Fathers who comment on it seem to say so...

So are you saying that the Early Church Fathers believed that everyone who had ever lived was judged upon their death and already enduring either eternal reward or punishment and Christ's beyond the grace preaching allowed some to move from one to the other?

I don't necessarily have a problem saying Christ provided opportunity for dead persons to embrace the gospel. I don't particularly believe there's enough evidence to say it definitively. I'm not sure you can rule it out either. As a rule, I try to avoid embracing ideas I can't definitively commit to.

The idea that there's a place people go when they die to await the resurrection is a suspect one to me. It's certainly a Jewish cultural assumption in the time of Christ, but there's not enough there for me to complete embrace it as a necessarily scriptural belief.

[Paul DeBaufer]

So are you saying that the Early Church Fathers believed that everyone who had ever lived was judged upon their death and already enduring either eternal reward or punishment and Christ's beyond the grace preaching allowed some to move from one to the other?

I don't necessarily have a problem saying Christ provided opportunity for dead persons to embrace the gospel. I don't particularly believe there's enough evidence to say it definitively. I'm not sure you can rule it out either. As a rule, I try to avoid embracing ideas I can't definitively commit to.

The idea that there's a place people go when they die to await the resurrection is a suspect one to me. It's certainly a Jewish cultural assumption in the time of Christ, but there's not enough there for me to complete embrace it as a necessarily scriptural belief.

I think that many cultures had a realm of the dead. Hades was such a place (well Hades was the god of the place which has come to bear his name but was simply referred to as the underworld )grave). Death was the great equalizer because everybody went there. Now the Greeks developed the idea of the Elysium Fields, that place of honor within the realm of Hades, for warrior heroes. When I have read about Sheol it was very much the same sans Elysium Fields. And both were prisons, once you went there there was no return to the realm of the living.

How much of this understanding of the realm of the dead, whether Sheol or Hades, should we use to view these passages through?

[Jim Chabot]

I don't mind if you aren't awed by my explanation, but I think it does (and really, it's not mine at all - just the result of research) pretty much counter your first response that the scripture "plainly says" this. Really, you are arguing for a fairly narrow understanding of one sentence of the Apostle's Creed more than debating Scripture.

Moi? Argue for a sentence in a creed? Inconcevable!

I did allow that your explanation is both possible and plausible, did I not? All I'm saying is that when I read the passage in Peter, the explanation offered wouldn't be my first choice. Same as Piper's similar interpretation didn't capture me.

I suppose that I'm mindful of Paul's mention of this in Ephesians 4 where he notes that Jesus "descended into the lower parts of the earth."

While I'm not working from the creeds, I must say that I haven't thought of the statement "he descended into hell" as anything out of the ordinary, just seems to follow that which I've read in scripture. I'm not sure why or where the alternate explanations are necessary.

[Ryan Scott]

I think that many cultures had a realm of the dead. Hades was such a place (well Hades was the god of the place which has come to bear his name but was simply referred to as the underworld )grave). Death was the great equalizer because everybody went there. Now the Greeks developed the idea of the Elysium Fields, that place of honor within the realm of Hades, for warrior heroes. When I have read about Sheol it was very much the same sans Elysium Fields. And both were prisons, once you went there there was no return to the realm of the living.

How much of this understanding of the realm of the dead, whether Sheol or Hades, should we use to view these passages through?

It's one passage in Peter, not the most reliable book in the world, but certainly canonical, so we have to give it credence.

The 1st century Jews had a belief in a divided Sheol, with Abraham's Bosom being the reward for good dead people and gahenna being the place for bad dead people.

The writers of the NT sure seemed to take this concept as a given. Whether they actually believed in its reality is up in the air. The writer of Peter seems pretty certain (or else its a thick, indecipherable analogy). Paul seems pretty convinced that dead people are just sleeping until resurrection.

I think both solutions are possible. I prefer option c - I don't know.

[Benjamin Burch]

So are you saying that the Early Church Fathers believed that everyone who had ever lived was judged upon their death and already enduring either eternal reward or punishment and Christ's beyond the grace preaching allowed some to move from one to the other?

No. I'm saying that Hades and Death were as shadowy and difficult a concept to put your finger on as this conversation has already made clear. While certain NT authors and 1C Jews likely followed some split versions of Sheol/Hades (Abe's Bosom/Gehenna), this doesn't seem to be the norm among Early Christian theologians. They seem to envision one place, Hades, where all the dead exist, forever trapped in "death" (which itself is strange, because they are dead without any future life, yet experience this death). Only through Christ's Gospel can salvation come and, with it, resurrection unto new life.

The Early Christian theologians unanimously envisaged Christ descending to this place and preaching to those who had died. For some, only the OT Saints are liberated from death and hades. For others, all who had faith in Christ's gospel message were liberated. For others, all were liberated.

I don't necessarily have a problem saying Christ provided opportunity for dead persons to embrace the gospel. I don't particularly believe there's enough evidence to say it definitively. I'm not sure you can rule it out either. As a rule, I try to avoid embracing ideas I can't definitively commit to.

I'm not saying you necessarily have to believe this to believe the line in the creed. I am, however, responding to your statement about what the line in the creed means. 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.

[Roland Hearn]

No. Nothing is infallible.

To be Christian is not to believe in the Bible. It is to confess the creeds, and to believe that the Bible teaches us these things.



See above. I think one can believe whatever they want about the creeds and Scripture! However, to be Christian is to confess the Creeds. This is what we believe.

Oh good I am glad that is settled for a moment there I thought we were going to think that Paul and everyone that lived before the 4th century were Christians - I am glad we can assert with confidence that they were not - a lot of weight off my mind.

[Benjamin Burch]

Oh good I am glad that is settled for a moment there I thought we were going to think that Paul and everyone that lived before the 4th century were Christians - I am glad we can assert with confidence that they were not - a lot of weight off my mind.

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

[Kevin Rector]

Hell is a poor choice of words. The Greek is Hades, the place of the Dead, similar to the Hebrew concept of Sheol. The statement was intended to say he really died; it wasn't a pretend death. He was really human and he really died. Nothing more, nothing less.

That's exactly what I was going to say verbatim if you hadn't beat me to it.

[Kevin Rector]

But it's just as possible that He did descend into hell, hades, sheol, gehenna, wal mart or whatever anyone wants to call it....

One slight correction, Jesus absolutely went to Hades at his death, he absolutely did not go to Gehenna at his death. Hades is Sheol, the grave, the place where dead people go before judgement, Gehenna is an image of the disposition of the finally impenitent. How that works out I'm not sure, but too much confusion happens already when people confuse Hades with Gehenna (thanks to the KJV calling both Hell, which is like calling both Boston and Moscow the same name).

[Kevin Rector]

Dead people don't usually conquer death and hell, nor set others free, do they?

It might not have anything to do with a medieval idea of hell, but it does have everything to do with "hell", as all of the early Church Fathers who comment on it seem to say so...

I think that's the point. He was dead, dead as a doornail. Dead people go to Hades. But he is superior even in death, even in his death he is still God and can still speak to those who are dead. This however is not Hell - it is the grave.

[Benjamin Burch]

I think that's the point. He was dead, dead as a doornail. Dead people go to Hades. But he is superior even in death, even in his death he is still God and can still speak to those who are dead. This however is not Hell - it is the grave.

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.

[Jim Chabot]

One slight correction, Jesus absolutely went to Hades at his death, he absolutely did not go to Gehenna at his death. Hades is Sheol, the grave, the place where dead people go before judgement, Gehenna is an image of the disposition of the finally impenitent. How that works out I'm not sure, but too much confusion happens already when people confuse Hades with Gehenna (thanks to the KJV calling both Hell, which is like calling both Boston and Moscow the same name).

Sorry about that, I should have covered myself with an emoticon or two. It was meant as a joke, hence the inclusion of wal mart. I've got opinions on the particulars, but this is naznet and I was thinking of possibly avoiding 400 posts about who's on first.

[Benjamin Burch]

Sorry about that, I should have covered myself with an emoticon or two. It was meant as a joke, hence the inclusion of wal mart. I've got opinions on the particulars, but this is naznet and I was thinking of possibly avoiding 400 posts about who's on first.

Why would we need to go 400 posts? The answer is obvious. Who is on first.