Frank, you need more exegesis and exposition.

HEADER FOR Expressions

(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)

Welcome

Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."

God bless you...

Frank, you need more exegesis and exposition.

Forum: Theological Expressions
Re:

Lord Jesus went to Hell. (frankie lee)
Re:

The Apostles Creed - Back to Exegesis (Christopher Yip)
Re:

Our Lord Jesus went to Hell. (frankie lee)
Date: 2001, Jul 13
From: Christopher Yip CKHY

Frank,
Where is paradise (Luke 23:34 - "to day thou shalt be with Me in paradise")? Jesus was in Paradise between His death and resurrection. These are words from His very lips.
The Apostles' Creed is not Scriptures, it is BASED on Scriptures but not Scriptures. Do you see that the descent article in the Apostles' Creed is a summary of thought expressed by Acts 2:31, 1 Peter 3:19, and Ephesians 4:8-10? If you do, then the true meaning of this phrase "He descended into Hades" would depend entirely on the exegeses of these three passages, right? It's quite straightforward. What do these passages tell us: that Jesus went down into Hades and depopulated Abraham's bosom of all the saved? Can that be exegeted from these three passages or four if the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is included?
You haven't exegeted the passages yet, Frank. I'm still waiting.
As for the Apostles' Creed descent article, here's Calvin's view with my comments inserted. He is more eloquent than me and so I will borrow his words and ride on them. It's a different view from mine but adds another dimension to the article. This is solely on explaining the phrase "He descended into hell" and not an exposition on the three passages to determine where Jesus was in those three days.
In summary, Calvin said that the descent article referred to the time Jesus hung on the cross, not to the time He was in the tomb. His descent into hell was His paying our penalty, i.e. He went to hell (gehenna) on our behalf during the six hours on the cross. The only difference is that while the unsaved, when they are in gehenna, will never escape, gehenna could not hold Jesus. So the descent article was referring to the time prior to his burial. Why then did it come after the burial in the Creed? Wouldn't it invert the order? Not at all, Calvin said, because "crucified, dead and buried" was meant to describe what could be seen by the human eyes; while descent into hell described the (invisible) spiritual suffering Jesus went through in gehenna in payment for our sins which the human eyes could not see.
Calvin does not say here where Christ was during the three days but I believe, as I have said earlier, that Jesus Himself has given us the answer - He was in Paradise (Luke 23:34).
For your reading pleasure:
http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/institutes/bookii/bookii28.htm
Institutes of the Christian Religion Book II Chapter XVI
HOW CHRIST PERFORMED THE OFFICE OF REDEEMER IN PROCURING OUR SALVATION. THE DEATH, RESURRECTION, AND ASCENSION OF CHRIST.
ABOUT ITS ADDITION TO THE CREED AND ITS BASIS
8. Here we must not omit the descent to hell, which was of no little importance to the accomplishment of redemption. For although it is apparent from the writings of the ancient Fathers, that the clause which now stands in the Creed was not formerly so much used in the churches, still, in giving a summary of doctrine, a place must be assigned to it, as containing a matter of great importance which ought not by any means to be disregarded. Indeed, some of the ancient Fathers do not omit it (Augustine for example), and hence we may conjecture, that having been inserted in the Creed after a considerable lapse of time, it came into use in the Church not immediately but by degrees. 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. But it is of little consequence by whom and at what time it was introduced. The chief thing to be attended to in the Creed is, that it furnishes us with a full and every way complete summary of faith, containing nothing but WHAT HAS BEEN DERIVED from the infallible word of God. But should any still scruple to give it admission into the Creed, it will shortly be made plain, that the place which it holds in a summary of our redemption is so important, that the omission of it greatly detracts from the benefit of Christ's death.
CALVIN DISAGREES WITH RUFINUS' VIEW - THAT IT IS A REPETITION OF "DEAD"
There are some again who think that the article contains nothing new, but is merely a repetition in different words of what was previously said respecting burial, the word Hell (Infernis) being often used in Scripture for sepulchre. I admit the truth of what they allege with regard to the not infrequent use of the term infernos for sepulchre; but I cannot adopt their opinion, for two obvious reasons. First, What folly would it have been, after explaining a matter attended with no difficulty in clear and unambiguous terms, afterwards to involve rather than illustrate it by clothing it in obscure phraseology? When two expressions having the same meaning are placed together, the latter ought to be explanatory of the former. But what kind of explanation would it be to say, the expression, "Christ was buried", means, that "he descended into hell"? My second reason is 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. I have no doubt that all who weigh the matter with some degree of care will here agree with me.
(Chris: Calvin's clear explanation is very helpful. It is unlikely, given the fact that the Creed was to be economical in the number of words used - perhaps for the sake of easy commission to memory, that the composer would employ tautology but to be fair to Rufinus' view, readers must not forget that repetition is a literary device used to create emphasis. An example is "holy, holy, holy" in Revelation 4:8. The Majority Text repeats the word hagios NINE times, Codex Sinaiticus repeats it EIGHT times, the Critical Text repeats it THREE times.)
THE VIEW THAT CHRIST DEPOPULATED HADES OF THE SAVED
9. Others interpret differently--viz. That Christ descended to the SOULS OF THE PATRIARCHS who died under the law, to announce his accomplished redemption, and bring them out of the prison in which they were confined. To this effect they wrest the passage in the Psalms "He hath broken the gates of brass, and cut the bars of iron in sunder." (Ps. 107:16); and also the passage in Zechariah, "I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water," (Zech. 9:11). But since the psalm foretells the deliverance of those who were held captive in distant lands, and Zechariah comparing the Babylonish disaster into which the people had been plunged to a deep dry well or abyss, at the same time declares, that the salvation of the whole Church was an escape from a profound pit, I know not how it comes to pass, that posterity imagined it to be a subterraneous cavern, to which they gave the name of Limbus. Though this fable has the countenance of great authors, and is now also seriously defended by many as truth, it is nothing but a fable.
TO CONCLUDE FROM IT THAT THE SOULS OF THE DEAD ARE IN PRISON IS CHILDISH. And what occasion was there that the soul of Christ should go down thither to set them at liberty? I readily admit that Christ illumined them by the power of his Spirit, enabling them to perceive that the grace of which they had only had a foretaste was then manifested to the world. And to this not improbably the passage of Peter may be applied, wherein he says, that Christ "went and preached to the spirits that were in prison," (or rather "a watch-tower") (I Pet. 3:19). The purport of the context is, that believers who had died before that time were partakers of the same grace with ourselves: for he celebrates the power of Christ's death, in that he penetrated even to the dead, pious souls obtaining an immediate view of that visitation for which they had anxiously waited; while, on the other hand, the reprobate were more clearly convinced that they were completely excluded from salvation. Although the passage in Peter is not perfectly definite, we must not interpret as if he made no distinction between the righteous and the wicked: he only means to intimate, that the death of Christ was made known to both.
CALVIN'S OWN VIEW
10. But, apart from the Creed, we must seek for a surer exposition of Christ's descent to hell: and the word of God furnishes us with one not only pious and holy, but replete with excellent consolation. 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. Whence 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. It is frivolous and ridiculous to object that in this way THE ORDER IS PERVERTED, it being absurd that an event which preceded burial should be placed after it. But after explaining what Christ endured in the sight of man, the Creed appropriately adds the INVISIBLE AND INCOMPREHENSIBLE JUDGEMENT 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.
(Chris: Calvin does not say where Jesus really was. It seems to me that Calvin takes the Creedal article as a metaphorical description of the redemptive torment Christ went through when He died on the cross. What men could only see was His physical suffering while hanging on the cross, when behind it was also the invisible spiritual suffering which could only be described as "he descended into hell."
On the other hand, Calvin also seems to be saying that because Christ paid our penalty, it would have to mean He actually went to hell (gehenna, not hades) since that was the final penalty for us. Christ did not do away with the penalty, He PAID it, so He must have literally gone to gehenna. The only difference, as Calvin pointed out, is that gehenna couldn't KEEP Him there as it could for all the unsaved. But note that Calvin places this descent into hell BEFORE the burial, not during the burial. In other words, while hanging on the cross for 6 hours, He was spiritually in hell. This is why just before He died on the cross, He could declare, "It is finished!" It was His spiritual death that saved us, not His physical death but the latter was, like all others - passover, atonement, eucharist, baptism, was merely the outward symbol. Good argument.)
11. In this sense, Peter says that God raised up Christ, "having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible he should be holden of it," (Acts 2:24). He does not mention death simply, but says that the Son of God endured the pains produced by the curse and wrath of God, the source of death. How small a matter had it been to come forth securely, and as it were in sport to undergo death. Herein was a true proof of boundless mercy, that he shunned not the death he so greatly dreaded. And there can be no doubt that, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apostle means to teach the same thing, when he says that he "was heard in that he feared," (Heb. 5:7). Some instead of "feared," use a term meaning reverence or piety, but how inappropriately, is apparent both from the nature of the thing and the form of expression. Christ then praying in a loud voice, and with tears, is heard in that he feared, not so as to be exempted from death, but so as not to be swallowed up of it like a sinner, though standing as our representative. And certainly no abyss can be imagined more dreadful than to feel that you are abandoned and forsaken of God, and not heard when you invoke him, just as if he had conspired your destruction. To such a degree was Christ dejected, that in the depth of his agony he was forced to exclaim, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
The view taken by some, that he here expressed the opinion of others rather than his own conviction, is most improbable; for it is evident that the expression was wrung from the anguish of his inmost soul. We do not, however, insinuate that God was ever hostile to him or angry with him. How could he be angry with the beloved Son, with whom his soul was well pleased? or how could he have appeased the Father by his intercession for others if He were hostile to himself? But this we say, that he bore the weight of the divine anger, that, smitten and afflicted, he experienced all the signs of an angry and avenging God. Hence Hilary argues, that TO THIS DESCENT WE OWE OUR EXEMPTION FROM DEATH. Nor does he dissent from this view in other passages, as when he says, "The cross, death, hell, are our life." And again, "The Son of God is in hell, but man is brought back to heaven." And why do I quote the testimony of a private writer, when an Apostle asserts the same thing, stating it as one fruit of his victory that he delivered "them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage?" (Heb. 2:15). He behoved therefore, to conquer the fear which incessantly vexes and agitates the breasts of all mortals; and this he could not do without a contest. Moreover it will shortly appear with greater clearness that his was no common sorrow, was not the result of a trivial cause. Thus by engaging with the power of the devil, the fear of death, and the pains of hell, he gained the victory, and achieved a triumph, so that we now fear not in death those things which our Prince has destroyed.
12. ... Hence it appears that these triflers, with whom I am disputing, presume to talk of what they know not, never having seriously considered what is meant and implied by ransoming us from the justice of God. It is of consequence to understand aright how much our salvation cost the Son of God. If any one now ask, Did Christ descend to hell at the time when he deprecated death? I answer, that this was the commencement, and that from it we may infer how dire and dreadful were the tortures which he endured when he felt himself standing at the bar of God as a criminal in our stead. And although the divine power of the Spirit veiled itself for a moment, that it might give place to the infirmity of the flesh, we must understand that the trial arising from feelings of grief and fear was such as not to be at variance with faith. And in this was fulfilled what is said in Peter's sermon as to having been loosed from the pains of death, because "it was not possible he could be holden of it," (Acts 2:24)...
I find Calvin's interpretation of the Creedal article makes a lot of sense. I don't think it is very different from Rufinus' or my view. I believe both interpretations should be combined: it is an emphasis that Jesus died and that death is not only real and complete but it was terribly painful.
I hope this has been helpful to all reading.
Christopher