RC Sproul taught that from a historical perspective that verse is missing from the earliest manuscripts.
From a biblical perspective that Peter’s reference to Jesus ministering spirits doesn’t offer any place or time references and therefore would be a stretch to use as proof text that he did not ascend to paradise after his death.
And that theologically the reformed position has been that he suffered hell on the cross. Jesus declared it is finished from the cross.
Jesus descent would best be ascribed to his own testimony that he descended from Heaven (John 3:13). Hell was the cup the Father sent him to drink.
This seems the simplest explanation, and the one that offers me the most hope.
The question of the earliest creeds not having the clause is greatly misunderstood by those who argue against it. Did you also know that the clauses “maker of heaven and earth” and “communion of saints’ were also absent. It’s not enough to assert that since any earlier version didn’t contain wording that the concept was not held earlier or was an innovation. All creeds we have are further developments of the faith given once for all time. The Nicene Creed for example was updated at Chalcedon to address further heresies. The Athenasius Creed also was produced to further speak truthfully on Christiology and interestingly enough it too contains a clause on the descent to hell. And again the word order in the creed matters. The problem with Calvin’s view is that it doesn’t match the word order. It’s also a weird hermeneutic to take a phrase of a creed and invest it with whatever meaning you want it to have rather than working to consider what it actually meant.
It’s one thing to take what it meant at its writing and understanding for most of the church and further develops that with biblical data and reform the teaching. It’s another to take a reader’s right to invest meaning almost postmodern take on it. We would not accept this hermeneutic of the Bible but why for our creeds and confessions.
Very simply, the Bible is inspired and without error, the hermeneutic necessitates this fact. Not so with the early creeds. They are helpful and even faithful, but we still must reconcile them with what God actually said. The hermeneutic therefore must be different.
P.s.
Consider this also. Q. 44. Why is there added, “he [descended] into hell”?
A. 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,a but especially on the cross, has delivered me from the anguish and torments of hell.b
The Heidelberg catechism attaches it to his suffering on the cross, not to a suffering after his death.
Yes the Bible is unique and yes it is the supreme judge of all controversies of religion. This however does not mean that one should use a dishonest hermeneutic when interpreting other documents. Is it not this same reader response view that makes other governing documents useless. What use is a creed if it can be reinterpreted to mean what ever you want. What good would the Westminster Confession of faith be if we could disregard authorial intent. Wouldn’t it be much more intellectual honest to say you disagree with the document and produce another one that better fits your view.
It’s not that Calvin is wrong in saying Christ experienced hell on the cross but rather he is wrong that the creed ever meant to teach that Jesus suffered hell. It’s not the meaning of the creed to say Jesus suffered in hell that is the place of torment. It is demonstrable false and a straw man of the creed.
So if you intended to say that Jesus celebrated hell on the cross you would put that clause after his burial?
Would you consider it honest for someone to say they are in agreement with you because they use a creed while meaning something completely different than what it’s authors and you mean?
Imagine if I said I affirmed the Westminster on justification but then redefined the words to mean something completely foreign to its meaning but said see I agree with you.
Well, I think we need some idea of “He descended to the grave” (the wording of the Nicene creed I am familiar with ), to explain puzzles like 1 Peter 3:19. In this discussion, Matthew 27:52-53 is worth noting in passing as well.
I know we don’t talk overmuch about Holy Saturday, but it is worth thinking about.
I had for some time uncritically accepted I Peter 3:19 as the proof text for the “he descended into hell” creedal statement. I forget where I learned that from.
But that understanding of the creed opens up a bigger can of worms.
I’ve never heard Hell used in any sense that didn’t include pain and suffering.
So if you think it means close to the opposite of that I think you should not have the church people recite the creed using that word, but should update it appropriately to a word that actually specifies what you claim it means. “Underworld” might be good.
I’d be interested in knowing what book you are talking about above, as “a baptist” doesn’t really help narrow it down much.
I’ve certainly seen that, as well, Ben. And there’s definitely a need to figure out what that verse means in relation to the creed, no matter your interpretation.
