The Descent of Christ

There is a high probability I change my mind mid-way through writing this.

The Apostles’ Creed (written in AD… it’s complicated but probably somewhere in the early second century) is one of the most famous and succinct confessions of the Christian faith. And yet, as influential as it was to the foundations of the early church, it is today most famous for four little words that have caused confusion and difficulty among the brightest theologians. The church I went to in college just took the four words out all together whenever we recited it just so that we wouldn’t have to mess with it.

In the middle of the largest paragraph, the paragraph regarding the Person and work of Jesus, the Apostle’s Creed says the following:

“[Jesus] suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to hell.”

And it is those words “he descended to hell” that has caused enormous confusion and controversy throughout the history of the church. Supposedly, as early as the second century after the ascension of Christ, the church was confessing the idea that Jesus descended into hell after his death on the cross.

In other words, after the crucifixion, the Lord Jesus descended into the place known as “hell” for the extent of time in between Good Friday and Resurrection Sunday (liturgically known as “Holy Saturday”). It’s an interesting idea, but an absolute abundance of questions flows out of this.

What was he doing there? Did he actually endure the fullness of what the Bible describes as hell? Is the descent of Christ actually in the Bible? Most importantly, why does no one ever bring this up?

Like I said before, my college church just took out those four words in the Apostle’s Creed. We quite literally just “Ctrl+X” one of the oldest documents in the history of Christianity and just pretended that they hadn’t been put in there in the first place. I do vaguely remember hearing something about Ephesians 4:9 which states that Christ “also descended into the lower parts of the earth”; however, the only thing I remember is the unequivocal declaration that whatever that means, it simply cannot mean that Christ literally descended into hell. The same was said for 1 Peter 3:18-20 and 4:6 which seems to suggest that Christ was not simply enduring while in hell, but preaching to lost souls?

When I got to Seminary, I remember people discussing Christ’s descent into hell almost as though it were a cutting edge theory they’d just stumbled upon. It was new, it was exciting; if there can be such a category in the world of theology, it was cutting edge. I had never even heard it discussed as a possibility, so I essentially dismissed the idea outright. And yet, it was undeniable that one of the earliest Christian documents outside of the New Testament had the words “he descended to hell” (κατελθόντα εἰς τὰ κατώτατα if you want to be fancy). What, then, are we supposed to make of this mysterious Holy Saturday which has occupied essentially no space in my mind until now?

I’ll be real, I’m on this journey as I write this. Indeed, there is a high probability that I end this article with a trustworthy and true “¯\_(ツ)_/¯”.

Side 1: It’s not that deep

Get it? Deep? Like the underworld? As in Jesus didn’t go that deep? I thought it was good.

It turns out, of all the works written against a literal descent into hell, the capstone text was written by Wayne Grudem in an essay called “He did not descend into hell: a plea for following scripture instead of the Apostles’ Creed” in 1991. Grudem is one of the theological heavyweights of the last couple of centuries particularly in regards to this very issue. Thus, in spite of the wordy title, his essay represents perhaps the most comprehensive defense against a literal descent of Christ into hell.

The first thing that Grudem points out is that the words “he descended to hell” do not even appear in Apostles’ Creed up until the fourth century AD right around the same time as the council of Nicaea. He points out that the Apostles’ Creed, unlike Nicaea and Chalcedon, did not go through an official process of recognition. Rather, it grew and developed over time: the full version of our modern Apostles’ Creed is not found until the 7th century AD. As such, the argument that “it was always in there” is a flawed one.

However, “it was always in there” is a flawed argument regardless of whether it’s true or not. If my top priority in accepting or rejecting a doctrine is built around what has the most historical precedent, I would be Presbyterian. But, by the grace of God, I am what I am. Thus, the part of Grudem’s argument I am the most interested in is what he does with the texts that appear to explicitly refer to the descent of Christ such as Ephesians 4:9.

The text reads “Now this expression, ‘He ascended,’ what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts [κατωτερα] of the earth [της γης]?”

That is how the NASB translates it; however, basically every other translation takes out the word “of” in between κατωτερα and της γης (ESV, NLT, NIV in particular). “The earth” is given the genitive case indicating possession, so the natural inclination is to include the preposition “of”, but it is not a grammatical requirement. Thus, it is an equal possibility that the text best translates to “he descended in the lower parts, the earth.” In other words, “the earth” itself is the lower parts. Christ’s descent was not one into hell or the underworld, but one that was from Heaven and down to Earth.

This is indeed a fair exegetical argument for the text. It is certainly plausible from the Greek that Jesus did not literally descend into hell after his crucifixion, at least based on the text in Ephesians. However, there is another common New Testament text used to defend a literal descent of Christ: 1 Peter 3:18-20. This one, so it seems, does not just claim that Christ descended into the realm of the dead, but that he was actually preaching to lost spirits. Let’s take a look.

1 Peter 3:18-20 says:

“Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, [19] in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison,(20) because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared”(ESV).

Thus, the understanding taken by those who believe in Christ’s literal descent after his crucifixion is that Jesus then preached to the lost souls of the underworld while he dwelled there. Specifically, Jesus was preaching to those who died during the days of Noah. My temptation here is to point out all the troubling implications that come out of this idea of Jesus preaching to those who lived in the time of Noah (least of which is a seemingly absolute contradiction with Hebrews 9:27), but I’ll see what Grudem does with the argument.

Grudem, when dealing with this text, leans heavily on the use of the word “spirit.” He says that it was the spirit of Christ who preached to those who lived during the time of Noah through Noah. In other words, this does not depict the spirit of Christ preaching to lost souls on Holy Saturday; rather, it depicts Christ being proclaimed even during the time of Noah to the spirits of those who are now in prison (which is to say, hell).

Once again, I find this a convincing exegetical argument which most certainly reads as a more consistent theology of life-after-death in regards to the rest of the Bible. And yet, there is but one more question that needs to be addressed before we can move on to the other side (Get it? Other side? I’m not even doing this on purpose!):

If Christ did not descend into hell after the crucifixion, then where did he go? Was he in some kind of soul-sleep? Did he go to Abraham’s bosom with Lazarus and the rest of the Old Testament saints? Grudem argues that Jesus went right where he said he was going: back to the Father.

Grudem points to phrases Jesus said during his crucifixion such as when he shouted to the Father, “into your hands, I commit my spirit”(Lk. 23:46), or when he promised to the thief on the cross, “today you will be with me in paradise”(Lk. 23:43, emphasis mine). Furthermore, the Gospel of John describes that Jesus knew before he washed the disciples feet “that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God”(Jn. 13:3, emphasis mine). These verses, Grudem argues, clearly demonstrate that Jesus fully expected to go right back to the Father after his death and before his resurrection.

Thus, Grudem effectively defends a two-fold argument regarding the descent of Christ: 1) the clearest NT texts to prove the descent of Christ are circumstantial at best and are 50/50 exegetically, and 2) there are clear NT texts that appear to directly contradict the idea of Christ descending into hell on Holy Saturday.

And yet, there is a dimension of this argument which Grudem is not addressing: the countless number of biblical allusions that suggest a descent of Christ. The story Jonah descending into the belly of the whale for three days and three nights is one that Jesus explicitly ties to his coming death (Matt 12:40); however, this is by no means the only plausible Old Testament allusion. Daniel is thrown into the lion’s den, Jeremiah is cast into a cistern and left to be swallowed by mud, Joseph is thrown into a well. All throughout the Old Testament, prefigurements to the person of Christ are seen descending and then being rescued out of it by divine power.

It would have been interesting to see his interactions with this especially given that these allusions prove to be the keystone argument to the other side. Let’s take a look.

Side 2: It’s about to go down

The amount of times I almost made the title of this section “rolling in the deep”, but then decided it was too cliché would astound you.

While looking at some of the main arguments for the literal descent of Christ, I most heavily utilized a resource called He Descended to the Dead: An Evangelical Theology of Holy Saturday by Matthew Emerson. Now, the title that he chose is incredibly telling, and I think it is essential to clarify it before moving to his arguments. Emerson intentionally said that he descended to “the dead” instead of “hell"; in other words, Emerson is making a distinction between the lake of fire described at the end of Revelation and another kind of realm of the dead.

Further in the book, Emerson argues that Biblical writers understood three different locations of the after-life (before the final resurrection) which were: “paradise, or Abraham’s bosom; Tartarus, or the abyss; and Gehenna, or the lake of fire”(28). According to Emerson, these three locations are all located “under the earth” with “paradise” being the place of the Old Testament righteous, the lake of fire being the place of the Old Testament unrighteous, and Tartarus being the realm of imprisoned fallen angels. All three of these places make up three different levels of the underworld. Emerson argues that this was the default understanding of the underworld in the Jewish mind. He first points to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus which appears to depict two different areas of the dead both located in the same “realm”(Lk. 16:19-31). Furthermore, Emerson argues that Pauline language (particularly in 1 Corinthians 15) appears to describe Christ exerting authority over the realm of the dead in between the crucifixion and the resurrection (verses 25-27, 54-57).

This understanding of the underworld is tricky to nail down. The Old Testament is intentionally ambiguous as to what exactly the Realm of the Dead is like. All we really know is that life on earth is preferred(Ps. 6:5), and it is filled with both the just and unjust (Eccl. 9:10). The understanding of the underworld as Paradise, the Lake of Fire, and Tartarus is a very Greek idea even though it is echoed in the New Testament. How much of this understanding found in second-temple Judaism is accurate to the Bible’s understanding of spiritual life after death, and how much is just a regurgitation of the Hellenistic culture around them?

The Greeks clearly understood a three-part underworld: the Fields of Punishment which is essentially hell; the Fields of Asphodel which is essentially the “meh” of the underworld reserved for those who did nothing extraordinarily good or bad with their lives; and Elysium which is reserved for the best and noblest. Interestingly enough, the Fields of Asphodel represent the closest version of Sheol compared to the other two. Also interestingly is the Greek understanding of Tartarus: the lowest part of the underworld functions exactly as the realm of Tartarus does in Emerson’s understanding of the lowest realms of the underworld. It functions to imprison the evilest of creatures: Titans and monsters in the Greek mind, demons in the Jewish mind. The interaction of these two ideas is fascinating, and it is at this point essentially impossible to distinguish between where these ideas originated.

Whether this interpretation is accurate or not, it does indeed immediately eliminate Grudem’s argument that Jesus’s comment to the thief on the cross disproves any understanding of a literal descent. Jesus did indeed the join the thief in paradise; that is, the realm of the underworld in which the righteous dwelled in before Jesus was resurrected. Furthermore, it adds a great host of clarity to the idea of Jesus leading up “a host of captives” after his ascension (Eph. 4:8,Ps. 68:18). Indeed, according to this understanding of the descent, Jesus freed the entire host of Old Testament saints from the land of the dead and into Heaven at his ascension.

Before going into details regarding some of Emerson’s exegesis, I wanted to highlight one of his first remarks. Emerson says that there is something intrinsic to the meta-narrative that scripture encompasses to the idea of the hero descending into enemy territory. He references everything from Hercules descending into Hades to finish the last of his labors to Harry Potter descending into the Chamber of Secrets (WHAT A FANTASTIC EXAMPLE, MY GUY!). Emerson argues that there is something essential to this idea of the hero descending into the “lair of the enemy” and conquering a foe.

Now, in respect to Emerson, I want to make clear that this is not part of his theological argument. Rather, Emerson is simply demonstrating that there is indeed something instinctual to our understanding of a hero descending in all of the most famous and powerful stories. There is almost something essential to our understanding of “good beating evil” in which the good guy enters the realm of the evil one.

However, Grudem would simply respond that Jesus absolutely descended to the realm of the evil one, but it was in his incarnation. Thus, this intrinsic understanding of the hero descending needs to be more nuanced. Why is the incarnation not enough? Why do we need this image of Jesus descending to the realm of the dead post-crucifixion in order to complete this understanding? Thus, Emerson moves to a biblical argument.

Emerson then goes on to make it clear that there is no “crux text” to argue for a literal descent of Christ. Rather, defense for the descent consists of, “a tapestry made of inner-biblical allusions, Jesus’ [sic] own and the apostles’ testimony to the work of redemption, and patterns of biblical language”(24). At first glance, I’m curious; still, I’m troubled by the ambiguity in some of Emerson’s language. I will need to see some clearer direction as to what exactly he means by “patterns of biblical language.”

Emerson first traces out the extensive number of times in the book of Psalms where the Lord’s anointed appears to cry out to God to be rescued from the grave. At the capstone of this is the Psalm that Peter quotes at Pentecost which reads “you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption”(Ps. 16:10). The implication being that Jesus “the Holy One” was indeed in Hades, but his soul was not abandoned. Instead, he was resurrected out of the land of the dead in his resurrection. Indeed, all throughout the Psalms, we see this striking image of the Lord’s Anointed in some kind of “pit” and longing to be brought out of it (see also 30:3 and 9, 88:3-4, 116:1-3, 118:17-18). Thus, Jesus’s victory over the grace isn’t only in regards to his resurrection, but in regards to the very emptying of Sheol that his people dwelled in.

From here, Emerson points to the most obvious example of Jesus dwelling in the land of the dead: the allusion made to Jonah in Matthew 12:40. Jesus says that, just as Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights, so Jesus will be “in the heart of the earth”(η καρδια της γης) for three days and three nights. Thus, the implication is quite clear that Jesus is not ascending to any heavenly place after his death. Rather, he is going to descend to the realm of the dead where he will lie truly dead for three days.

Here, among many things, we can truly grasp the mystery of the Lord’s Anointed One: a mystery that has spanned the entire Old Testament. How is that the Holy One of Israel, the true Seed of the Promise, the lasting heir to David’s line, is going to actually die? Furthermore, what do we make of all these images that have to do with this anointed one somehow being brought out of the pit to resurrected glory? It is no wonder the disciples blindly ignored Jesus’s passion predictions!

And yet, Emerson argues that the descent of Christ into the realm of the dead is not simply an okay theological idea, but essential to the mystery of the gospel. God the Son incarnate after suffering the fullness of wrath then descended to the deepest parts of the earth to rescue his people and swallow up death in victory.

Now, there is a very specific reason why Grudem does not interact with the arguments of these Old Testament allusions in his own essay: he does not find this form of exegesis to be valid. Grudem adheres to heavily to a historical-grammatical method when reading scripture. Authorial intent and the meaning given to the first readers are essential to his framework. Grudem takes very little stock in allegory, in prefigurement, or in symbolism. Thus, Emerson’s connections to the Psalms and Jonah are not just insufficient to Grudem, but rules to an entirely different game.

Therefore, the only real hole in Emerson’s argument is that it is presupposing too much of the reader’s hermeneutic. He presupposes a patristic understanding of the Old Testament that emphasizes allegory and symbolism as well as a deeply Hellenistic understanding of the underworld. There’s nothing wrong with this. After all, Emerson did not intend to write a hermeneutics book. Even still, it is worth pointing out that both Grudem and Emerson made dozens of different exegetical decisions leading up to answering the question: did Jesus truly descend into the dead?

Thus, I guess the only real moral to this research is that we should study hermeneutics more.

Concluding Thoughts: A Shameless Plug For Amillennialism

Wayne Grudem is absolutely right in that the line in the Apostle’s Creed is inaccurate. That is the only thing that I can say confidently after my time in this field of study. The idea of Jesus entering into the place of eternal conscious torment after his death on the cross is not found in the Bible and should indeed be removed from our modern day Creeds.

And yet:

There is a potent reality to the understanding that Jesus descended into the realm of the dead after his crucifixion. He descended to conquer the grave and to free his people from Sheol. Whether or not the underworld is actually made up of those three layers that Emerson describes, I honestly have no idea. The Old Testament is intentionally vague regarding the realm of the dead. How much of this imagery was picked up by the Hellenized culture around them is difficult to say. Regardless, we have absolute confidence that whatever the grave is has been utterly conquered in the resurrection of Jesus.

As much as my research in this area has grown and developed my knowledge regarding the descent of Christ and the sheer depth of the gospel as a whole, it has also made me a few shades more confident in Amillennial eschatology. Indeed, in understanding what exactly Jesus descended into, what he accomplished during Holy Saturday, and what exactly is different in light of a post-resurrection world, there are several key points to the Amillennial perspective that are made clearer in light of this doctrine.

1. The souls which came to death and reigned with Christ very clear lines up with Jesus leading up his people from the realm of the dead and into the intermediate state we call heaven (Rev. 20:4)

2. Jesus, in his descent into the realm of the dead bound up Satan and cast him into Tartarus, the deepest part of the underworld, until the reign of the church has been completed (Mat. 12:29, Rev. 20:2-3). As the Kingdom of Heaven was inaugurated with the binding and casting out of demons, so the ministry of Christ before his resurrection includes the binding and casting out of Satan himself.

3. The first resurrection is not a literal bodily resurrection, but an escape from the realm of the dead and into the heavenly places. Thus, those who enter into these heavenly places are freed from the power of the second death (Rev. 20:6).

Any who, you can take or leave that last part: it was just brewing in my mind the whole time. This was a fun way to make up my mind on a theological principle. I hope you made up your mind as well. If not, I’ll go ahead and drop my sources below for your further research.

Sources

[1] Grudem, W. (1991). He Did Not Descend into Hell: A Plea for Following Scripture Instead of the Apostles’ Creed.”. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 34(1), 103-113.

[2]Grudem, W. A. (2009). Systematic theology: An introduction to biblical doctrine. Zondervan Academic.

[3] Emerson, M. Y. (2019). " He Descended to the Dead": An Evangelical Theology of Holy Saturday. InterVarsity Press.