Descended into Hell: A discussion on the Apostle's Creed

Our session has had some discussion about the Apostle’s Creed and the phrase, “he descended into hell.” Some believe the expression should be retained and that Calvin believed that Jesus, after his death actually descended into hell. Below I quote Calvin from the translation by Henry Beverage (public domain). Following is Dabney’s interpretation of Calvin and the Larger Catechism on the same phrase.

“But, apart from the Creed, we must seek for a surer exposition of Christ's descent to hell: and the word of God furnishes us with one not only pious and holy, but replete with excellent consolation. Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death. In order to interpose between us and God's anger, and satisfy his righteous judgement, it was necessary that he should feel the weight of divine vengeance. Whence also it was necessary that he should engage, as it were, at close quarters with the powers of hell and the horrors of eternal death. We lately quoted from the Prophet, that the "chastisement of our peace was laid upon him" that he "was bruised for our iniquities" that he "bore our infirmities;" expressions which intimate, that, like a sponsor and surety for the guilty, and, as it were, subjected to condemnation, he undertook and paid all the penalties which must have been exacted from them, the only exception being, that the pains of death could not hold him. Hence there is nothing strange in its being said that he descended to hell, seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God. It is frivolous and ridiculous to object that in this way the order is perverted, it being absurd that an event which preceded burial should be placed after it. But after explaining what Christ endured in the sight of man, the Creed appropriately adds the invisible and incomprehensible judgement which he endured before God, to teach us that not only was the body of Christ given up as the price of redemption, but that there was a greater and more excellent price - that he bore in his soul the tortures of condemned and ruined man.” Calvin, Institutes, Beverage translation, online.

The event – “the descent into hell” preceded the burial; although, in the creed, it is placed after the burial. Calvin writes that we should not think it absurd that an event – “the discent into hell” [suffering of the pains of hell] - should be place after the burial in the formula of creed. The “pains of hell” is what he “endured in the sight of man”, meaning while he was on the cross.

At best, at least from the Beverage translation, it is difficult to say definetly what Calvin meant. The great southern Presbyterian theologian, Robert Louis Dabney, interpretated Calvin as saying that Christ suffered the pains of hell on the cross before death:

“Calvin understands the creed to mean, by Christ’s descent into hell, the torments of spiritual death, which He suffered in dying, not after. His idea is, that the creed meant simply to asseverate, by the words, ‘descent into hell,’ the fact that Christ actually tasted the pangs of spiritual death, in addition to bodily, and in the same sense endured hell-torments for sinner, so far as they can be felt without sin. Calvin expressly says that the whole of that torment was tasted before the Redeemer’s soul left the body.” (Lectures in Systematic Theology, p. 546)

Of course the teaching of the Larger Catechism is important to us as it makes an allusion to the Apostles Creed and the expression “descended into hell”. Notice:

“Question 49: How did Christ humble himself in his death?
“Answer: Christ humbled himself in his death, in that having been betrayed by Judas, forsaken by his disciples, scorned and rejected by the world,condemned by Pilate, and tormented by his persecutors; having also conflicted with the terrors of death, and the powers of darkness, felt and borne the weight of God's wrath, he laid down his life an offering for sin, enduring the painful, shameful, and cursed death of the cross.

“Question 50: Wherein consisted Christ's humiliation after his death?
“Answer: Christ's humiliation after his death consisted in his being buried, and continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of death till the third day; which has been otherwise expressed in these words, he descended into hell.”
For the framers of the catechism, “descended into hell” [they are obviously alluding to the Apostles Creed] means the same as continuing “under the power of death till the third day”, meaning, it is the same as remaining dead and buried until the third day.

I do not believe that is what they meant to teach who added this phrase about 600 A.D. They a meant to teach he went down to the place of the damned and suffered the damnaton of hell, as though that gave worth to his suffering.
However, what does give worth to the suffering of Christ? The catechism brilliantly answers that questons:

“Question 38: Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God?
Answer: It was requisite that the Mediator should be God, that he might sustain and keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God, and the power of death; give worth and efficacy to his sufferings, obedience, and intercession; and to satisfy God's justice, procure his favor, purchase a peculiar people, give his Spirit to them, conquer all their enemies, and bring them to everlasting salvation.”

What gives infinite worth to his suffering is his divinity. He suffered as God and man. Amazing! That is enough for me.

In summary, when we call upon God’s people to recite the creed, in effect, we are saying to them, “If you are a Christian this is what you must believe.” How can we possibly expect them to confess what is so equivocal an expression, frought with so many interpretations. I, for one, cannot impose this on God’s people with a clear conscience. I cannot allow anyone to force me to do this.

I believe it is simpler and does no violence to our faith to omit the expression, “and he descended into hell.”