Loading...Someone on the blog recently asked me about the idea that after Jesus’ death, and before his resurrection, he “descended into hell.” This is an affirmation found in the Apostle’s Creed, and so continues to be recited by millions of Christians still today. But what does it mean?
Throughout the history of the church it has usually been thought – by those who thought and/or affirmed such things — that Jesus descended to the realm of the dead to provide salvation to some (all?) of the people there, to liberate them from their condemnation (which was impossible *before* then because salvation can only come when Christ died – in this view – and so not before. So when he died he went down to save some (or all) of those who were there, taking them from Hades to heaven. This notion has traditionally been called “The Harrowing of Hell.”
But how did it work, exactly? And were did the idea come from?
As it turns out, I devoted a chapter to the question in my book Journeys to Heaven and Hell (Yale University Press, 2022) and I thought it might be interesting to give a bit of it here. Some of the book is written in a fairly heavy scholarly mode, but this bit ain’t bad. I’ll do this over a couple of posts.
******************************
The idea that Christ descended to hell after his death to liberate its captives almost certainly originated from deductions based on widespread beliefs and assumptions at the heart of Christian theology: Christ brought salvation to the world through his death and resurrection and he did not simply cease to exist in the interim between these two salvific events; since he was himself “fully human,” he experienced the fate of all others by going to Hades; but while there he must, in some way, have continued the work he had done on earth above.
The earliest references to Christ’s death and resurrection give
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Of greater importance for later speculation was that most intriguing and perplexing of passages, 1 Peter 3:18-21:
For Christ died for sins once and for all… having been put to death in the flesh but being made alive in the spirit, in which also, having gone to the spirits who were in prison, he preached to those who were formerly disobedient, when God’s patience waited during the days when Noah was preparing the ark.
The passage was often read, naturally enough, with the equally enigmatic statement of the following chapter, which is nearly as difficult to translate as to interpret: “For to this end, proclamation was made to the dead, that they might be judged in the flesh like humans but live in the spirit like God” (1 Peter 4:6). These texts, separately or together, have exercised interpreters for as long as there have been interpreters and have proved more fruitful for speculation than helpful for guidance, down to the present time, as both textual emendations and exegetical monographs attest. In early times, a variety of views emerged to explain Christ’s activities immediately after his death. These views did not develop in a linear fashion: newer views never supplanted older ones and different views could be held by different people at the same time or even simultaneously by the same person.
An obvious conclusion drawn from the passages in 1 Peter was that Christ descended to Hades precisely to proclaim his message of salvation there as he had done in the world above. At first the idea was simply expressed with no specifics about whom Christ addressed or what effect he had. In the narrative of the Gospel of Peter (also falsely attributed), when Christ and his cross emerge from the tomb, the voice from heaven asks “Have you preached to those who are asleep?” and the cross replies “Yes.” Strictly speaking, it is the cross that has preached to the residents of the world below, but presumably it is a metonymy. [Note to blog members: break out your dictionary!]
Soon, however, the tradition begins to specify an audience for Jesus’ underworld proclamation. Most often it is the righteous of Israel, beginning with (or sometimes only) the Patriarchs and the Prophets. This is the view, for example, of Justin, Irenaeus, and other second-century sources. The popularity of the view is evidenced by the fact that the second-century pagan critic Celsus mocked it, asking if anyone could really believe that Christ tried to make converts in the world below. Origen, naturally, rebuked his opponent and argued that this is precisely what did happen (Origen, Contra Celsum, 2.42).
An intriguing variation on the theme, attesting again to its wide acceptance, is found in Marcion, at least according to Irenaeus. Consistent with Marcion’s distinctive perspective, Christ went to Hades to preach salvation not to the righteous Israelites but to Cain, the Sodomites, the Egyptians, “and all the pagans.” These are the ones who were then taken to the heavenly realm; Abel, Enoch, Noah, and all the patriarchs and prophets were left behind to be punished in Hades (Irenaeus, Adv.haer.. 1. 27,3).
Still in the second century an alternative explanation of Christ’s descent arose, that he went to Hades not to preach salvation but to manifest his power. This idea may be suggested already in the Ascension of Isaiah, which speaks of Christ having “plundered the angel of death” (9.14) A clearer reference comes nearer the end of the century in the Paschal Homily of Melito of Sardis, where Christ identifies himself by affirming his display of power in the world below:
I am he who destroys death,
and triumphs over the enemy,
and crushes Hades
and binds the strong man
and bears humanity off to the heavenly heights. (Pasch. 102-03)
A similar conceit appears in Gregory Thaumaturgus, On All the Saints: “Hades and the devil have been despoiled and stripped of their ancient armor, and cast out of their peculiar power. And even as Goliath has his head cut off with his own sword, so also is the devil, who has been the father of death, put to rout through death.” Eventually, this became a standard view, as seen, much later for example, in comment of Ambrosiaster, “After he despoiled hell by the power of the Father and arose after conquering Death, he ascended to Heaven with the souls he had snatched away. For all those who had seen the Savior in hell hoped for salvation from him and were set free, as the apostle Peter testifies” (in Epist ad Rom, 10).
I was about to go buy Heaven and Hell (2020) today but i was wondering if Journeys to Heaven and Hell (2022) might be better. Is one more scholarly and comprehensive (i.e. Forgery and Counterforgery, vs Forged)?
YEs, Journeys is more scholarly, but they are actually focused on different things (the Forged books were more or less o the same thing at different levels)
My understanding here is that some people in the 2nd century thought that “Abel, Enoch, Noah, and all the patriarchs and prophets were left behind to be punished in Hades”.
Why these people think that Noah is in hell (i.e. Hades), and what are the things they said that Noah have done to deserve punishment?
All these people were in Hades because Christ had not come yet to save them. They were not necessarily being tormented though.
I believe that the 1 Peter scriptures in question, as well as the emerging refinements of the root idea, were a response to the general understanding that at physical death, a soul was either destined for eternal reward or eternal torment. In other words, death was an artificial finish line, as it were. Many Christians today misuse the first part of Hebrews 9:27 to “prove” the death/finish line correlation. But if people continue to “be” in the afterlife, would not their ability to learn, change, grow, also “be”? And if that was the case, and salvation was rooted in God’s love, would God’s love cease at the point of one’s physical death?
It opens a whole new can of worms for simple or common thinking.
Sorry, this isn’t on the above topic, but since this is the Christmas season, I’ve been reading about the establishment of the date December 25 and the virgin birth. Which made my wondering mind ask… did the Apostles know/talk about Jesus being born from a virgin, and how did “they” treat Mary? Any evidence?
Happy Holidays 🙂
Nope, they didn’t. And we don’t know how they treated her sin e they didn’t leave us any writings (on this or anything else!). OUr earliest piece of evidence is Mark’s Gospel, where, in chapter 2, she and Jesus’ brothers come to take Jesus out of the public light because they think he has gone out of his mind. (!)
Which season do you think Jesus was born?
Unfortunately we have no clue!
I wonder what your take is on the translation of Pslam 16 you give above: “For you did not abandon my soul to Hades, nor did you allow your Holy One to see corruption.” This seems to me “Grecofied” in a way that deeply changes the meaning of the passage. The NRSV renders it as “For you did not give me up to Sheol, or let your faithful one see the pit.” That sounds much more Jewish, and profoundly different in implication, because Sheol can just mean the grave, but Hades is distinctly an afterlife for the soul. What do you think?
Yes, I think it is a big mistake to think of Sheol as “hell” in teh modern sense or as “Hades” in the Greek sense. These translations were early attempts to make sense of the passages in light of what translators themselves thought. I talk about that a bit in my book Heaven and Hell.
You will probably come onto this but dont 1 and 2 Peter have direct parallels with the Book of Enoch which may explain what the author means in 1 Peter 3:18-20? The disobedient spirits Christ preaches to could be the fallen Angel’s from the book of Enoch, especially as they are explicitly mentioned in 2Peter?
It may suggest knowledge of a similar tradition; it doesn’t suggest that the author of 1 Peter necessarily knew the iteration of that tradition in 1 Enoch though.
I’m still stuck with a sinners’ Hell.
Christian doctrine states that Jesus died for each and every member of Humankind’s sins.It does not add a contingency -neither does Jesus himself add any-, ie, it does” not” say that “Jesus died for all sinners but only for those who repent”, a contradiction, but one that would justify a Hell for those unsaved unrepentant sinners.
First question then is how does the most arguably Christian virtue, forgiveness, seem to disappear in the reality of Hell, since we are all sinners? Is forgiveness then conditional and Christ’s salvific death is conditional as well?
BTW,any NT version translating Hades for Hell incorrectly cites Greek heathen mythology.Speaking Aramaeic,as one can see in the Hebrew of the Psalms, Jesus would have referred to Death,not Hell,if Psalm 16 is to be placed in its proper cultural context.In the Psalm,we long to be saved ” from the grave” or ” the realm of the Dead”.In short, immortality is the aim. ” You will not abandon my soul to Sheol”
Neither in Hades nor in Sheol were the dead tortured.They were just … bored.
Are ” The fires of Gehenna” , ” the Lake of Fire” ,a Christian creation,then? The Tanakh and Talmud don’t mention Gehenna.
I’d say Christian doctrine definitely says that CHrist died for all sinner but that it requires an act of faith on the part of the person for that salvation to take effect. And yup, Hades is not necessarily a place of torture, though in parts of the Greek and Roman tradtion (think Virgil, for starters) Tartarus was part of it, and that very much was a place of torture. I don’t think, though, that Sheol was the Jewish equivalent of Greek Hades. It was instead, as you indicate, a poet synonym for “death” “grave” or “pit” — note the use of synonymous parallelism in Psalms. (I.e., peopel weren’t bored; they were just dead) (I deal with this in my book Heaven adn Hell)
How did exegetes who believed in the Harrowing of Hell reconcile that with Christ’s words to the penitent thief in Luke 23 that he would “be with [him] in paradise today “? Doesn’t that suggest that Jesus believed he would be returning immediately to the heavenly realm (at least in spirit)?
Some argued that “paradise” was a part of “Hades” before Christ harrowed it!
The church I was a part of (and my wife is still a part of) recites the Apostle’s Creed every Sunday. Interestingly, they omit the line about Jesus descending to hell, and give this reason:
“We have omitted the phrase “he descended into hell” because it does not appear in the earliest versions of the Creed and because its meaning is unclear. For a discussion about this phrase see Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 586-94.”
Since first attending this church in 2017, I had been curious about this omission, and wondered how many churches throughout history omitted it as well. My assumption was very few.
Whoa. THAT’S interesting! (As if every other part of the creed is easily understood!) I’ve never heard of that before. As to the earliest versions of the Creed, I wonder what they have in mind…?
From looking at Grudem’s book, it seems they are referring to this explanation (though he of course elaborates more in the chapter): “A Murky background lies behind much of the history of the phrase itself. Its origins, where they can be found, are far from praiseworthy… Unlike the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedonies Definition, the Apostle’s Creed was not written or approved by a single church council at one specific time. Rather, it gradually took shape from about A.D. 200 to 750.”
And: “It is surprising to find that the phrase ‘he descended into hell’ was not found in any of the early versions of the Creed (in the versions used in Rome, in the rest of Italy, and in Africa) until it appeared in one of two versions from Rufinus in A.D. 390. Then it was not included again in any version of the Creed until A.D. 650. Moreover, Refines, the only person who included it before A.D. 650, did not think that it meant that Christ descended into hell, but understood the phrase simply to mean that Christ was ‘buried.’
I am intrigued to study more on this. Any thoughts on the above?
Interesting. I had forgotten that about the earlier versions lacking it. I’ll need to look into it. I can’t remember when the *oldest* attestation of the *surviving* versions of the “old Roman creed” come from (I thought it was mid 4th century for some reason), and I thought (possibly wrong!) that it also didn’t have other statements that are missing from the Apostles creed. But again — I haven’t looked at the matter for a long time.
Interesting. Well this will be a subject I will begin studying before I speak to the pastor of that church again. Thanks for the feedback!
I think I may have just understood why the Pascal Lamb and salvation only by belief in Christ probably was invented within the apostles thinking before Paul. If they reasoned the Pascal Lamb was the only good reason a messiah would be crucified, then were the then living the only ones entitled to salvation? What about dear departed Mom and Dad, how can we be fair here. Jesus must have gone down and saved them too!
Re: the spirits who were in prison
In his book about the figure of Enoch, James VanderKam seems to think that in context the reference to the “spirits in prison” in 1Pet meant not deceased human sinners but the antediluvian Watchers imprisoned in anticipation of the coming judgement for the crimes recorded in Genesis 6. Agree? Disagree?
Thanks!
It’s hard to say. That’s certainly the focus of 1 Enoch!
When reading some of these topics like heaven and hell it just seems nuts.
Dr. Barth (@BDEhrman), does this not go against the view that early Christians did not believe in the soul existing after death, but only in resurrection?
The earliest Christians didn’t, but Christians came to believe it (or rather, they were gentiles who had believed it all along, who then converted, and continuted to believe it)
Bart, I must contend that you do not discuss the early universalist narratives about the Harrowing in here enough. Having done a section of my upcoming book reviewing and building on your argument in Journeys, I think there is a consistent theme of you devaluing the universalist narratives that taught Jesus saved all people from Hades. This was not a mere heterodox belief among a few (such as the inversion of the narrative from Marcion most certainly was) this was a very common belief in Christianity, especially the East, from the second century up to the fourteenth century in places like Syria; and it is still a popular understanding among certain Orthodox theologians (who are well regarded) like Metropolitan Hilarion today. All in all, I think your statement that there became a focus more on the “power” of Christ rather than a salvation effort does not line up with patristic history and history of apocryphal texts (I only need to mention Gospel of Nichodemus and Questions of Bartholomew; which you discussed, some, but likewise not in enough depth to really dig out the early universalist narrative that later recensions sought to cover up)
I do discuss it both in Journeys and in Heaven and Hell. It was indeed on the margins for most of Xn history, but if it was “common” there isn’t much evidence of it. Virtually all of our surviving authors either reject it outright (think the Origenist Controversy) or speak about it as quite marginal. After Origen and his followers we have very fiew explicit defenses of it in our extensive church writings, let alone in outsiders commenting on Xn views.
There is much evidence for it. The Origenist Controversies, both of them, were not about the Harrowing at all. Surveying the anathemas produced at the Synod of Alexandria (or Nitria) in 400, these refer solely to eschatological positions. Same goes with the revelant anathemas produced around the time Constantinople II took place in 553. In the patristic period, there is only *one* figure who explicitly denounced a universalist view of the Harrowing as heretical, that is Augustine of Hippo. There were many otherwise non universalists figures, such as John Chrysostom who regardless held to a universalist view of the Harrowing.
If you have not checked out the following text (I don’t remember if you cited it in your books), I highly recommend it: Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev’s “An Eastern Orthodox Theology of the Harrowing.” Part One establishes the patristic and apocryphal basis for believing in a universal Harrowing, and cites many more figures that you, perhaps, would be surprised to know that they held to this.