I'm a pretty low church gal. I'm fine with grape juice at Communion. I'm not really into following the church year. I've never attended a church where the pastor wore any sort of robe. I haven't actually attended a church where anyone even wears a tie. However, there are some high church customs that I truly like and reciting great creeds of our faith is one of them.
I think it's beautiful for a group of Christians to stand together and proclaim the same statements of faith that Christians proclaimed thousands of years ago. Reciting creeds connects us with our history and reminds us of fundamental doctrine. I've always loved the Apostles Creed in particular:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
Wait, what? He descended into hell? I was with you up through crucified, dead, and buried, but where did this come from? What's the biblical basis? And how did it make it into this creed?
In the past, I've dealt with my confusion on the whole descended into hell issue by simply not saying that line of the creed. However, I think the time has come for me to arrive at some conclusion. Thus, I'm going to start examining the basis for the idea that Jesus descended into hell and try to discover why it was so important to include this piece of information in a foundational creed.
So, stay tuned. And if anyone has already figured out this issue - I would be willing to give up the joys of thoughtful and time consuming personal study for the immediate gratification of a quick answer. For the sake of everyone else, of course.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well, I don't know what I believe about that, but it's always helpful to look at what Calvin said, although I think this is one of the weakest areas of Institutes. (I also looked at the Westminster Confession, but didn't find anything about it.)
"How should we understand Christ's 'descent into hell' which is mentioned in the Creed? The Word of God explains it in a way which is inspired and full of marvellous comfort. Nothing would have been achieved if Christ had only suffered physical death. In order to come between us and God's anger, to satisfy his righteous judgment, it was necessary for him to feel the full force of divine vengeance. It was also necessary for him to engage at close quarters with the powers of hell and the horror of eternal death. Isaiah said that 'the chastisement of our peace was upon him,' that he 'was bruised for our iniquities,' that he had 'borne our infirmities' (Isa. 53:4-5). These expressions show that, like a sponsor for those guilty and condemned, he paid all the penalties which we owed. The one exception was that death could not hold him (Acts 2:24). So there is nothing odd in saying that he descended into hell, seeing he endured the death which God has to inflict on the sinner. It is ridiculous to object that this makes a mockery of the order of the Creed, because an event which came before burial is placed after it. After explaining what Christ endured, the Creed rightly speaks of the unseen and incomprehensible judgment which he endured from God. This teaches us that not only was Christ's body given as the price of our redemption, but there was a greater and even more amazing price: he bore in his sould the torture due to condemned and ruined man."
Wow, that took a while to write. I apologize for any typos. But let's look at that.
First of all, his argument seems based only on logic. He references Isaiah 53 as proof. I find verses 9 ("And they made his grave with the wicked") and 11 ("11Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied") support his case better (Acts 2:24 also mentions "agony of death"), but it's not conclusive. Can't the waiting place be agony, not Hell?
What needs to be decided is whether one goes directly to Hell or Heaven after death. Revelation 20:12 makes it sound like this is not the case. I suppose I believe in a waiting place, perhaps Sheol, but I'm not sure. Maybe I just have a narrow understanding of Hell, but I tend to think of it only as the lake of fire, and not the various images The Far Side comic strip has put into my head.
What also needs to be decided is whether Hell or death is the punishment of sin. Romans 6:23 says it is death, although perhaps those who have studied Greek (hint hint) could explain that better. If Jesus paid the punishment of sin, why did He need to go to Hell? If we use C.S. Lewis explanation that Hell is just separation from God, didn't Jesus go through that on Calvary, where He cried, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Can't the torture be on the cross?
Also, citing a Creed that is under speculation already as evidence is just not how Calvin usually rolls.
Good stuff cous! I agree that Calvin's argument is more than a tad disappointing. He is usually so good about using Scripture, but here he kinda sounds like Anselm without the logical force. Anyways, I thought it was an excellent critique.
I would add that Christ seems to have thought his atoning work was finished on the cross (Jn 19:30), and that he was going to paradise subsequent to this judgment (Lk 23:43).
Judging from the fact that you've read the Institutes (wow!), you might want to think about the Torrey Honors program, in addition to a Theology degree.
Jenny, I would check out Grudem on this one.
Wayne Grudem, "He Did Not Descend into Hell: A Plea for Following
Scripture Instead of the Apostles' Creed," JETS 34 (March 1991) 103-113.
(But tell us what you really think, Wayne!)
Post a Comment