He Descended into Hell (Acts 2:22-33)

This sermon was preached on 5/1/2014

This particular affirmation that Jesus descended into hell was the last statement to be added to the Creed. It first appears towards the end of the fourth century in connection with a church leader called Ruffinus who is the earliest theologian to mention the addition. Eventually it became part of the Creed and has been accepted as stating valuable truth.

Why would such a statement be added? It seems to me that there could be two possible reasons for this addition. One is that it was inserted for clarity about another statement and the other reason is that it was concluded that it was an important doctrine that needed to be included among those already found in the Creed. Personally I think it was added for clarity about what happened after his burial. Of course, you may look at the clause and say it is not very clear. Hopefully, you will have a clearer understanding as we work our way through various aspects.

Yet it is true to say that this particular statement in the Creed has caused a great controversy among theologians and others in contrast to the rest of its statements. The controversy is caused often by looking at what individual writers from the early church and subsequently said it meant. When one does so, it is inevitable that controversy will result, and sometimes confusion too. The biggest issue are the ancient and modern claims that when Jesus died he went to the regions of the lost and made some form of declaration there, whether to announce his victory over the powers of darkness or to offer some kind of second chance to those who had died as unbelievers. A third suggestion is that Jesus went to lead the saved from a pre-heaven location into heaven. It is the case that people today still believe that one or more of those options took place, but I will argue that it is not what the phrase means.

The meaning of ‘hell’ in this statement

The first thing we need to do is work out what is meant by the noun ‘hell’. Usually the word is used in our theological vocabulary as the name of the eternal location of the lost. One reason why this has happened was because of the failure of older Bible versions to indicate that ‘hell’ can be used to translate two different Greek words in the New Testament. One of those words, gehenna, always describes the place of eternal punishment, but the other word, hades, usually describes the grave. Hades is virtually synonymous with the Hebrew word sheol. Here are a couple of examples each of gehenna and sheol, taken from the Authorised Version, because most of us will have read or heard the verses quoted at some stage during our lifetimes in church.

In Matthew 10:28, Jesus warns his hearers with these words: ‘And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.’ And in Matthew 23:33, Jesus condemns the and Pharisees with these words: ‘Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?’ The word translated ‘hell’ in both places is gehenna and it refers to a place of punishment.

In Revelation 20:14, we are told that after the final judgement, ‘death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.’ It is obvious in that translation that ‘hell’ does not refer to the place of eternal punishment because it is cast there. Instead it refers to the grave. Perhaps the most familiar use of the word is the statement from Psalm 2 in which the psalmist expresses his confidence that the Lord will not leave his soul in hell. What is important for our study is that Peter on the Day of Pentecost said that the words of the Psalm were fulfilled in Jesus. In these examples, the word translated as hell is hades, the place of the dead, or the grave.

Although hades means the place of the dead we are not to think of it as a physical location. The place of the dead is one way of thinking about those who have died, and which says that their souls are in a definite place. But it does not mean that the souls of all the dead are in the same place. There are different destinies for the righteous and the wicked, as Jesus makes clear in his parable of the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man was in Hades and for him it was a place of torment, a foretaste of the awful distress and punishment he would know eternally after the Day of Judgement.

Which meaning of hell does the Creed have? Its compilers have placed their phrase between a reference to the burial of Jesus and a reference to his resurrection. It seems obvious that they had in mind the fact that Jesus went into the grave. If we take the word in the Creed as a general description of the realm of the dead, we will be able to make sense of it without resorting to extra-biblical ideas that have no basis in biblical reality.

The meaning of the word ‘descended’ in the statement

The second word we have to take note of is ‘descended’. Now the compilers of the creed knew that Jesus had promised the penitent thief on the cross that they would be together that day in Paradise, which is another name for heaven. So why would they have used the word ‘descended’ rather than the term ‘ascended’ to describe what happened to Jesus after he died? After all, we would expect them to use a word that indicated he had gone to heaven. So why did they not do so? I would suggest that they were very much aware that Jesus during the period in which he was dead was still in what we call his estate of humiliation. The estate of his humiliation commenced when he humbled himself and was conceived in the womb of Mary. His estate of exaltation would not begin until his resurrection from the dead three days after his death, so whatever happened to him during that short period of three days would be placed in his estate of humiliation.

This is how the phrase is dealt with in the Larger Catechism, number 50: ‘Wherein consisted Christ's humiliation after his death?
A. 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 hath been otherwise expressed in these words, He descended into hell.’ This answer indicates that the compilers of the catechisms recognized that the descent into hell was connected to the Saviour entering into the experience of death and remaining under it for three days.

J. I. Packer gives this reminder about the use of words such as ‘descended’: ‘Perhaps it should be said (though one shrinks from labouring something so obvious) that “descended” does not imply that the way from Palestine to Hades is down into the ground, any more than “rose” implies that Jesus returned to surface level up the equivalent of a mine shaft! The language of descent is used because Hades, being the place of the disembodied, is lower in worth and dignity than is life on earth, where body and soul are together and humanity is in that sense whole.’

Five reflections on the statement

The next comment that we can make about this descent into hell is that it actually indicates that Jesus was active during the period of his death. We can see this from the kind of verb that is used – it is an active verb. The statement says that Jesus descended. It does not say that he was compelled to go there or placed there but rather he went there. And that is an important perspective to note. This was his choice. Is there any scripture that indicates that Jesus chose to go into the place of the dead? I would suggest that the last of the seven sayings on the cross does so. The Saviour, in a sense, is taking the initiative and committing his soul into the hands of his Father. Jesus was acting as a Sovereign in entering into death.

A second comment to note is that part of the Saviour’s humiliation included the separation of his human soul from his body. When Jesus died, his spirit went to heaven and his body was placed in a tomb. As he drew his last breath, the human soul of Jesus immediately went to heaven. An important element of this separation is that it reveals the reality of the humanity of Jesus. Sometimes the impression is given that Jesus had a physical body in which dwelt his divine person, which is very similar to the ancient heresy of Apollinarius (indeed some have argued that this statement was inserted into the Creed in opposition to it). The Saviour’s human soul indwelt his physical body.

When we think of the promise of Jesus to the penitent criminal on the cross, that later that day he would be with Jesus in paradise, the meeting would not include the body of Jesus or the body of the converted criminal. Of course, we cannot understand all that was involved, but it must have included fellowship between the perfected soul of the criminal and the holy soul of the Saviour. And we can extend the fellowship to include all the redeemed souls who were already there.

Our reference to the separation of the soul and body of the Saviour leads us to a third comment, which is that the separation reveals the loving willingness of Jesus to share all the experiences that his people will have. Apart from those believers who will be alive when Jesus returns, as well as Enoch and Elijah who were taken to heaven without dying, every other believer in Jesus will experience this separation. It is marvellous to know that our Saviour was willing to undergo this experience as part of his identification with us. Whether this has relevance to the souls now in heaven is hard to say. But I recall hearing or reading about a sermon in which the preacher referred to them looking forward to the resurrection when they would receive their bodies, currently in humiliation, in a glorified form. If his suggestion is right, then we can say that Jesus understands that longing because it is expressed in the words of Psalm 2 that describe his own longings for his resurrection.

A fourth comment to make about his descent into the grave is that it is different from any other who died in that his body saw no corruption. We can compare what happened to Jesus with what the relatives of Lazarus thought had happened to his body after a few days in the tomb. They did not want his tomb to be opened because they knew that the process of corruption would have begun. With the body of Jesus it was very different. That is a very striking distinction, which had never happened before or since to anyone else. His descent, while part of his humiliation, also indicated his purity and sinlessness, that death had no claim upon him because he had not died as a sinner.

A fifth and final comment that can be made regarding the descent of Jesus under the power of death was that it was only for a short time of three days. No doubt, one reason for the length of time was to fulfil the prophecy made by Jesus himself that ‘just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth’ (Matt. 12:40). The accuracy of that prediction would have been recalled with wonder by those who knew it had been fulfilled by Jesus. Another reason for the shortness of the period would be to show to all how weak the power of the grave was as far as Jesus was concerned. As Peter said in Acts 2:24, ‘God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.’

Hopefully, the contents of this chapter have shown us that the purpose of inserting the clause was to provide clarification about what happened when Jesus was buried. We can close with another quotation from J. I. Packer: ‘What makes Jesus’ entry into Hades important for us is… simply the fact that now we can face death knowing that when it comes we shall not find ourselves alone. He has been there before us and he will see us through.’