Pulse
2 June 2025
For churches that include the recitation of the ancient creeds in their order of worship or liturgy, the most commonly used is surely the Apostles’ Creed (Symbol of the Apostles). Originating in the 4th or 5th century, the creed is used in the Latin liturgical rites because of its orthodoxy even though it was not composed by the apostles themselves.
The Apostles’ Creed is a succinct summary of the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith. It is much shorter than the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, and, because of the absence of reference to the filioque, it is deemed by some as having more ecumenical appeal.
However, most versions of the Apostles’ Creed include an article that is not found in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, and which some theologians and churches have found to be problematic. The article in question is: ‘he descended into hell.’
This article has been subjected to numerous different interpretations in the history of Western Christianity. Even the term ‘hell’ (Latin: inferos) has become a focal point of dispute, with some interpreting it as the place for the condemned while others regarding it as the abode of the righteous.
Some theologians have pointed out that this article is not found in earlier versions of the Apostles’ Creed, and suggest that perhaps its inclusion is not entirely necessary. Some churches have therefore elected to excise the article from the Apostles’ Creed altogether.
There are different theories about when the article was inserted into the Apostles’ Creed. In his study of the ancient creeds, Nicholas Ayo points out that the article was not present in the Old Roman Creed, of which the Apostles’ Creed is a descendant. Berard Marthaler traces its origins thus:
[the article was] introduced into the creed relatively late, during the height of the Arian controversy. It first appeared in the Fourth Formula of Sirmium in 359 (also known as the Dated Creed of 359), then gradually found its place in some Spanish Creeds of the sixth century and later was introduced into the Gallican creeds of the seventh and eighth centuries.
The reasons for the inclusion of the article are also subject to considerable debate and discussion. As the eminent scholar of early Christian thought, J.N.D. Kelly, explains:
… the motives for its introduction … are obscure, although one conclusion that seems certain is that the old suggestion that its intention was anti-Apollinarian [Apollinarius held that Jesus had no rational soul] has no solid basis. It is perhaps significant that the fourth-century theologians tended to see in the descent the occasion of the vanquishing of death and the release by Christ of the saints held in its power.
As alluded to above, the article about Christ’s descent into hell has been subjected to many different (and sometimes conflicting) interpretations in the history of the Church. It is impossible to discuss all of them in detail in this short article.
What follows is a brief survey of how the church and her theologians have understood this article.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION
A brief survey of the development of the ideas surrounding the article about Jesus’ descent into hell is instructive before turning our attention to the views of the Roman Catholic Church and the Reformers.
In the first 300 years of history of the Church, the broad consensus is that Jesus’ descent (descensus ad inferos – literally ‘descent to the lower places’) was interpreted as a descent to the dead. Numerous patristic writers – such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Tertullian – refer to Jesus’ descent in this way. The statement about Jesus’ descent into Hades / Sheol therefore was regarded simply as the logical implication of his death and burial.
However, as theological reflection on Jesus’ descent developed, it led to a view that is commonly called the ‘harrowing of Hell’. Fundamentally, the harrowing of Hell refers to the idea that at his resurrection and ascension into heaven, Christ brought with him the saints of the old covenant who had been in Sheol.
Catherine Laufer explains in her book, Hell’s Destruction: An Exploration of Christ’s Descent to the Dead, that
… while in Hades, Christ announced his earthly coming to the patriarchs and prophets, assuring them that the events they had looked forward to had now been fulfilled.
In his Fourteenth Catechetical Lecture, Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386) presented a developed understanding of Jesus’ harrowing of hell:
Jesus, who descended into Hell alone, but ascended thence with a great company; for he went down to death, and many bodies of the saints which slept rose through him. Death was struck with dismay on beholding a new visitant descend into Hades, not bound by the chains of that place.
The ‘saints’ mentioned by Cyril and others are not only the righteous of the old covenant, but included those who were made righteous by responding to the lights they were given. This aligns with the patristic teaching that God has revealed himself both to Israel and Gentiles, though the revelation to Israel was regarded as superior.
Thus, the idea of Jesus’ harrowing of Hell includes the preaching of the Gospel to those in Hades. This is clearly taught by Clement of Alexandria in his Sixth Stromata:
For to those who were righteous according to the law, faith was wanting. Wherefore also the Lord, in healing them, said, ‘Your faith has saved you’. But to those that were righteous according to philosophy, not only faith in the Lord, but also the abandonment of idolatry, were necessary. Straightway, on the revelation of the truth, they also repented of their previous conduct.
The theologians who taught Jesus’ descent as the harrowing of Hell appeal to the difficult passage from Peter’s first epistle – 1 Peter 3:18-20 – although their interpretations differ.
Scholars argue that in the medieval period scholastics such as Thomas Aquinas merely developed the basic idea of the harrowing of Hell which they inherited from the early fathers of the Church. Laufer summarises the medieval teaching thus:
… the descent was seen exclusively as the harrowing of Hell and was an integral part of Christ’s salvific work. The discourse focused on who was released from Hades and how Christ actually descended and released them.
ROMAN CATHOLIC TEACHING
The Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on Jesus’ descent into hell can be found in two authoritative texts: The Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992). Both texts follow the interpretation of the Patristic theologians and Aquinas and present Jesus’ descent primarily as the harrowing of Hell.
The 1566 Catechism teaches that the word ‘Hell’ refers to three kinds of abodes. The first abode is ‘that most loathsome and dark prison in which the souls of the damned are tormented with the unclean spirits in eternal and inextinguishable fire.’
The second is purgatory, where ‘the souls of just men are cleansed by a temporary punishment, in order to be admitted into their eternal country, into which nothing defiled entereth.’
The last abode is ‘that into which the souls of the just before the coming of Christ the Lord, were received, and where, without experiencing any sort of pain, but supported by the blessed hope of redemption, they enjoy peaceful repose.’
It is to this third ‘hell’ that Christ descended: ‘To liberate these holy souls, who, in the bosom of Abraham were expecting the Saviour, Christ the Lord descended into hell.’
The Catechism then goes on to describe that Jesus did it in ‘an admirable and most august manner; for his august presence at once shed a celestial lustre upon the captives and filled them with inconceivable joy and delight.’
The 1992 Catechism echoes the teaching of Trent about the significance and purpose of Jesus’ descent into hell. It makes clear that Jesus descended to the abode of the righteous, repeating almost verbatim the words of the earlier Catechism: ‘It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Saviour in Abraham’s boson, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell’ (633).
The 1992 Catechism stresses that Jesus did not descend to the abode of the damned: ‘Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him’ (633). The Catechism thus rejects post-mortem salvation and universalism.
The 1992 Catechism regarded Jesus’ descent into hell as part of his saving mission, thus making the article in the Apostles’ Creed an indispensable affirmation:
The Gospel was preached even to the dead. The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfilment. This is the last phase of Jesus’ messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ’s redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption (634).
THE REFORMERS
While some variations can indeed be found among Roman Catholic theologians on the significance of Christ’s descent into hell (e.g., Hans Urs von Balthasar), there is broad agreement and consensus. The same cannot be said of the teachings of the Reformers.
In his famous sermon at Torgan of 1533, Martin Luther, specifically addressed the issue of Christ’s descent into hell. Warning against excessive speculation, Luther emphasises that Christ’s descent into hell signals his decisive victory over the kingdom of the devil. He writes:
… through Christ, hell has been torn to pieces and the devil’s kingdom and power have been utterly destroyed. That was the purpose for which he died, was buried, and descended that hell should no longer harm or overwhelm us.
Echoing this teaching – and referencing Luther’s 1533 sermon – the Formula of Concord declares that:
… we simply believe that the entire person, God and man, after the burial descended into hell, conquered the devil, destroyed the power of hell, and took from the devil all his might.
While Luther insisted that Christ’s descent into hell has to do with declaring his victory, John Calvin understood the descent metaphorically to stress that the Saviour suffered the fullest extent of God’s wrath. In Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin writes:
Apart from the creed, we must seek 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.
In a similar vein, the Heidelberg Catechism states that Jesus’ descent into hell points to the full torment and anguish he suffered for our sakes. Thus:
Question 44. Why is there added, ‘he descended into hell?’
Answer: That in my greatest temptations, I may be assured, and wholly comfort myself in this, that my Lord Jesus Christ, by his inexpressible anguish, pains, terrors, and hellish agonies, in which he was plunged during all his sufferings, but especially on the cross, hath delivered me from the anguish and torments of hell.
The difference between Luther’s and Calvin’s interpretations could hardly be more stark. While Luther understands Jesus’ descent as signifying his exaltation, his victory, Calvin sees it as bringing to expression the depth of his humiliation.
Unlike Luther and Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli was of the view that the best interpretation is the earliest one, namely, that the article simply underscores the fact that Jesus really died.
THE WAY FORWARD
What should the church do with this problematic article? Should we remove it from the Apostles’ Creed because it is deemed to be too vague or even unbiblical – as Wayne Grudem has argued?
In my view, churches should not arbitrarily remove an article from a historic Christian creed just because it finds it problematic. I think this is a bad practice which may result in a theologically reckless precedent.
Instead of arbitrarily removing the article from the Apostles’ Creed, churches should seek to teach it, drawing resources from the tradition to which they belong. For example, Reformed or Presbyterian churches could draw from the works of John Calvin or the Reformed Catechisms.
I believe that there is a place here for a generous orthodoxy. While churches should focus on the teachings of their own traditions, they should also be open and humbly receptive to that of others.
The phrase ‘He descended into hell’ is not a vestige of outdated theology that can be tossed aside. It is found in the writings of the Church fathers and the liturgies of the Church, and is therefore part of the witness of the Church concerning the work of Christ.
Despite the differences in interpretation, we can say that the article broadly points to the fullness of the redemptive work of Christ – his suffering, death, and victory. Including Jesus’ descent into hell in the creeds, catechisms and liturgies of the Church is therefore important for maintaining the fullness of the Christian gospel.
<hr />
<a href=”https://ethosinstitute.sg/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Dr-Roland-Chia-updated-photo-2023_edited4.jpg”><img class=” wp-image-8979 alignleft” src=”https://ethosinstitute.sg/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Dr-Roland-Chia-updated-photo-2023_edited4.jpg” alt=”” width=”108″ height=”113″ /></a><a href=”#_ftnref1″ name=”_ftn1″></a><em>Dr Roland Chia is Chew Hock Hin Professor at Trinity Theological College (Singapore) and Theological and Research Advisor of the Ethos Institute for Public Christianity.</em>