# John Piper on "Did Christ descend to hell?"



## Moireach

The question is often asks if Christ descended to hell when he died, with the apostles creed often cited. I don't think he did. This is an excellent wee blog just posted by Piper on the matter. (if you ignore the good friday and easter reference at the end lol )

Did Jesus Spend Saturday in Hell? - Desiring God

P.S I also post this because I was accused on a recent thread of being a judgemental conservative who picks on the faults of more liberal brethren whilst ignoring the good things about them because I expressed surprise and disappointment at Piper's promotion of Lent. He's a very good man with lots of good stuff.


----------



## Zach

Doesn't WLC 50 outline what we mean when recite the Apostles Creed?

Q. 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.

Since I was shown this question in the Larger Catechism I interpret the Creed as saying nothing more than, "His body was really dead and in the ground for three days."

I don't think we need to omit it from the Creed, just correctly understand what it means.


----------



## jogri17

Zach said:


> I don't think we need to omit it from the Creed, just correctly understand what it means.



its worth noting that this was an addition to the original apostles creed. to get rid of it is good textual scholarship, so I think it's more honoring to the text to get rid of it than to use the version that became accepted.


----------



## earl40

Zach said:


> Doesn't WLC 50 outline what we mean when recite the Apostles Creed?
> 
> Q. 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.
> 
> Since I was shown this question in the Larger Catechism I interpret the Creed as saying nothing more than, "His body was really dead and in the ground for three days."
> 
> I don't think we need to omit it from the Creed, just correctly understand what it means.



Which brings up an interesting thought. Though it was His body in the grave can we say His body, in the grave, without a soul is Jesus. In other words, can the physical human nature (body) be without the soul?


----------



## Reformedfellow

I've always understood "he descended into hell" as interpreted by later in the creed it states "I believe in the forgiveness of sins". The fact that Jesus simply died is not the gospel, but that he died in the place of sinners, for the forgiveness of "another's" sins. Saying he descended into hell, in my opinion, is the same as saying he took the punishment that sinners deserved. Absolute separation from God. "Why have you forsaken me..." But that punishment/separation from God took place on the cross. Not in hell. We know he did not literally go to HELL. 
"It is finished" "Today you'll be with me in paradise" "Into thy hands I commit my spirit"


----------



## Peairtach

> In other words, can the physical human nature (body) be without the soul?



Our Lord's human soul was in heaven, while his body was in the grave. These are both parts of a complete human being.



> Though it was His body in the grave can we say His body, in the grave, without a soul is Jesus.



It was the part of Jesus called, "His body".

If your getting mixed up, remember that Christ has a divine nature, to which he added both a human body and a human soul i.e. a complete human nature.

With respect to us the same/similar thing happens when we die. Our human souls go to Heaven, leaving that other part of us, the body. 

But God can do the miracle of reunuiting these parts of a complete human nature.


----------



## MarieP

(Yes, I know it's Doug Wilson) I found this helpful as well:

Ask Doug: Did Christ descend into Hell or Hades?


----------



## earl40

Peairtach said:


> In other words, can the physical human nature (body) be without the soul?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our Lord's human soul was in heaven, while his body was in the grave. These are both parts of a complete human being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Though it was His body in the grave can we say His body, in the grave, without a soul is Jesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was the part of Jesus called, "His body".
> 
> If your getting mixed up, remember that Christ has a divine nature, to which he added both a human body and a human soul i.e. a complete human nature.
> 
> With respect to us the same/similar thing happens when we die. Our human souls go to Heaven, leaving that other part of us, the body.
> 
> But God can do the miracle of reunuiting these parts of a complete human nature.
Click to expand...


I hear you. 

All I was alluding to was that Jesus was in heaven after He died and that it was "His body" in the grave. This is why I used the word "be" in what I wrote. In other words, His being was in heaven.


----------



## Zach

jogri17 said:


> Zach said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think we need to omit it from the Creed, just correctly understand what it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its worth noting that this was an addition to the original apostles creed. to get rid of it is good textual scholarship, so I think it's more honoring to the text to get rid of it than to use the version that became accepted.
Click to expand...


I didn't know that. Thanks Joe.


----------



## Jack K

The language of the creed at this point invites confusion... as evidenced by the need for the good explanations of what we mean by it mentioned in this thread (going back as far as Westminster and Heidelberg and Calvin and continuing with the likes of Piper and Wilson). 

I teach through the creed every other year. I include this line because it's traditionally there and kids are likely going to hear it eventually. I want them to know how to think about it correctly. And there are some good points made by the catechisms regarding the line. But I will confess that I often wish it weren't there. It seems to create misunderstandings more than it clarifies the truth.


----------



## Unoriginalname

Without side tracking to much, is the reformed understanding of the phrase "he descended into hell" really true to the text of the creed? Did Calvin or the Westminster Divines really believe that the position they were presenting was the authorial intent of the creed? Mind you I think the position of the reformers is correct but their explanation always seemed to not jive with the text itself.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

The real point is being honest with where we have to differ with tradition. We'll keep the original expression, and be open with why we can't adopt what appears to be the "original intent" of those words. This is exactly what men like Calvin or the Westminsterians were doing. None claimed that some or all the fathers had put the issue in exactly the manner they were.

Does an improved understanding of truth that inspired the text mean that we must _deny_ a connection with the terms used by past authors and professors? No. This is quite different, in my opinion, to pouring totally new content into words and phrases--the kind of "reinterpretation" of Constitutional statements that Justices are prone to employ for social-engineering purposes. The latter involves adopting new (and even contrary) notions, and looking for old language in which to shoe-horn the idea, then claiming "It's always been there; we've always thought that." The proper procedure for such changes is by amending or adjusting the language.


As Danny Hyde pointed out in his article in _The Confessional Presbyterian,_ the two phrases, "was buried" and "descended into hell (the grave)," were actually synonymous phrases used in different parts of the empire, originating in different languages and cultures. In the standardization process, both phrases were made parallel to one another, instead of in favor one for the other. Content was actually imported, therefore, into the one phrase (descended into hell) from the beginning, as theologians from places other than the origination tried to find theological justification for the terminology. They knew it had been received as an orthodox expression of the faith, so how should it be understood? And these men latched onto certain verses from Peter's letters, which in turn became a fairly standard interpretation of those verses (back-formation).

We don't need to abandon the "traditional" phrases and cadences of the Creed. We simply need the best understanding of them, that is sustainable by proper exegesis--not of the Creed itself, but of the Scripture that supports it.


----------



## John Bunyan

On a side note: If Piper is a liberal, I wonder what the Lutheran Church of Denmark is...

On the topic: What did the writers of the creed really meant for "descended into hell", did they leave any written remarks on that phrase?


----------



## Unoriginalname

John Bunyan said:


> If Piper is a liberal, I wonder what the Lutheran Church of Denmark is...


I believe David's point was that he always gets accused of criticizing liberals so here is some criticism of a theological conservative. 



Contra_Mundum said:


> We don't need to abandon the "traditional" phrases and cadences of the Creed. We simply need the best understanding of them, that is sustainable by proper exegesis--not of the Creed itself, but of the Scripture that supports it.


Agreed and thank you for your insight.


----------



## py3ak

Unoriginalname said:


> I believe David's point was that he always gets accused of criticizing liberals so here is some criticism of a theological conservative.



That's a bit backward. David's point is that he is accused of criticizing anyone who is not a strict conservative, so here is an expression of appreciation for someone who does not fit that description.


----------



## Unoriginalname

py3ak said:


> That's a bit backward. David's point is that he is accused of criticizing anyone who is not a strict conservative, so here is an expression of appreciation for someone who does not fit that description.


Sorry I cannot read.


----------

