Hey Church!
This Sunday, we will confess our faith in unison with the words of The Apostles’ Creed. Being the earliest extant creed of the Christian Church, it is known as the Apostles’ Creed, not to ascribe apostolic authorship per se but to affirm in it the doctrines taught by our first fathers in the faith. It was not intended to be a thorough theological treatise, like the Westminster Confession or its catechisms, for example, but rather to be a statement of fundamental doctrines concise enough to be memorized by even the least educated laymen. Its principal use, before it was commonly used in worship liturgies, was to prepare new converts for baptism.
The Apostles’ Creed as we know it today existed in seminal form in the Old Roman Creed, which appears by name in mid-second-century writings. It served as “the rule of faith” by which doctrines could be measured as orthodox or false. It seems that there were originally three questions asked of the new convert, later distilled to one, such as, “Christian, what do you believe?” In response, the catechumen was to give a concise answer according to the Trinitarian formula of Christ’s commission in Matthew 28 (“…baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”). Thus, the Creed begins by affirming belief in “God the Father… and in Jesus Christ… who was conceived by the Holy Spirit.”
However, given its ancient liturgical context, we who recite the Creed on a Sunday morning in 2024 might find some of its language problematic. Most notably, the references to “the holy catholic church” and Jesus’ descent “to hell” may be troubling if not understood according to their original intent. As a result, some churches change the text, while others omit these lines altogether. At Rio, we typically take the middle road between these two by honoring the traditional text while also taking care to explain its true meaning.
The word “catholic” literally means “universal.” Before the word was inextricably associated with the idolatrous Roman Catholic Church, when Christians would affirm their belief in “the holy catholic church,” they simply meant, “the one true Church of Jesus Christ, in all times and in all places.” Likewise, we join our voices with theirs in agreement that there is but “One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all” (Eph. 4:5-6).
As for the phrase, “He descended into hell,” a bit more work is required to untangle it from controversy and to show the truth and beauty of its meaning. First, we can quickly dismiss every variety of that popular fable in which Jesus is said to have died and descended into a firey cave of judgment, where He brawled with the devil for three days before finally emerging victorious in resurrection. Jesus’ dying words refute this line of thinking quite simply: “It is finished” (Jn. 19:30). The penalty for our sin had been paid in full; Jesus did not need to contend any further with the realm of evil, the fullness of God’s wrath had been poured out, and the way back to paradise was opened through Him at the moment He died on the cross.
Sorry, 1990’s CCM star, Carman! I still think your vision of a cosmic boxing match between Jesus and Satan for the title of “champion” was a cool idea though…
Second, the translation of the Greek word hades as “hell” is, admittedly, not helpful. The word is better translated as “the place of the dead,” or more simply, “the grave.” Alternatively, the word translated as “hell” in the Bible, referring to a place of eternal judgment opposite heaven, is gehenna. It is “hell” in the former sense that was intended by the Creed, not the fiery home of a pitchfork-wielding, horned devil as imagined in Far Side cartoons. (Two of my favorites below, because I just couldn’t resist)
So, why do we not simply change the word? Well, we could! And many churches do prefer something more like, “He descended into the grave.” Besides the fact that generations of Christians have committed “into hell” to memory, the most compelling reason I have heard for maintaining the traditional text comes from John Calvin’s Institutes.
“Here we must not omit the descent to hell, which was of no little importance to the accomplishment of redemption… This much is uncontroverted, that it was in accordance with the general sentiment of all believers, since there is none of the Fathers who does not mention Christ’s descent into hell, though they have various modes of explaining it.”
Calvin says that this language holds such an important place in the summary of our redemption “that the omission of it greatly detracts from the benefit of Christ’s death.” Contrary to the perspective I stated above, Calvin rejected the idea that “hell” adds nothing new to the Creed but only reiterates what was said in the previous line (that Jesus was “crucified, died, and was buried”). First, it would be foolish to repeat something in strange and ambiguous language (“hell”) after stating it with perfect clarity at the start (“buried”). Second, he cites “the improbability that a superfluous tautology of this description should have crept into this compendium, in which the principal articles of faith are set down summarily in the fewest possible number of words.”
Here, then, is how Calvin interprets Christ’s descent to hell:
“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 judgment, it was necessary that he should feel the weight of divine vengeance. When 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… But after explaining what Christ endured in the sight of man, the Creed appropriately adds the invisible and incomprehensible judgment 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.”
Surely none can imagine an abyss of suffering more dreadful than that experienced by our Lord when He was abandoned and forsaken of God, and not heard in His cries for mercy. He bore the full weight of divine wrath so that, “smitten and afflicted, he experienced all the signs of an angry and avenging God.” In this true sense of the word, then, Christ did indeed descend to hell—the utterly desolate place of separation from God.
Whether you agree with Calvin’s perspective or have some counterargument of your own on this subject, take time to meditate on the Apostles’ Creed over the weekend. Wrestle with it if you must, but come ready to proclaim it with confidence this Sunday. Think of it like a Christian’s pledge of allegiance; to forget our historic credo is to forget who we are.
Your brother,
Ryan
*John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion II, xvi, 8-12.