Did Jesus actually descend into hell between His death and resurrection — and why does the Apostles' Creed say He did?

• R_

  Ravi _x1mo ago

  My grandmother used to say 'He went to hell so you wouldn't have to.' She wasn't a theologian. She just believed it with her whole chest. I find that harder to dismiss than most commentary I've read.

  156Reply
• R

  Riley1mo ago

  This one drives me crazy because we just recite the creed on autopilot and nobody ever stops to actually THINK about what we're saying. He descended into hell. That's in there. You don't get to skip it because it's theologically inconvenient.

  143Reply
• T

  Taylor1mo ago

  I think the descent narrative taps into something deeply human and honestly beautiful — the idea that there is nowhere so low, so dark, so dead that Christ has not gone before you. Even if you reject the literal reading, the theological truth it points to is staggering. He is Lord of the living and the dead. Full stop.

  139Reply
• D

  Diego1mo ago

  1 Peter 3:18-20 is RIGHT THERE. Jesus preached to 'spirits in prison.' That passage is not talking about dead people's ghosts getting a second chance at salvation, it's talking about something cosmic and victorious that happened between the cross and the empty tomb. I genuinely don't understand why evangelical commentators tie themselves in knots to avoid the plain reading.

  121Reply
• L

  Leo1mo ago

  Hot take: the reason most evangelical churches skip this is not because they've thought carefully about the exegesis. It's because 'Jesus went to hell' sounds weird and scary to unchurched visitors and they don't want to explain it. We've let seeker-sensitivity quietly gut our creedal confession and called it discernment.

  118Reply
• JB

  Jordan B.1mo ago

  The simplest and most defensible reading is that 'descended into hell' simply means He died and went to the place of the dead — Sheol in Hebrew, Hades in Greek. It's not a separate event after death, it's a description of His death itself. This is what the Reformed tradition has generally held and it's textually sound.

  112Reply
• EM

  Elena M.1mo ago

  Then you've defined faith as philosophy and I think you've lost something essential. Some truths are bigger than our ability to systematize them. The early church didn't have Wayne Grudem and they seemed to manage just fine.

  107Reply
• J

  Jordan1mo ago

  It matters because it touches the nature of what happened at the cross. Was Christ's suffering finished when He died, or did it continue? Did He go there in triumph or in torment? Your answer shapes how you understand what atonement actually cost. So yeah. It matters.

  104Reply
• O

  Omar1mo ago

  If it just means 'he died' then why not just say 'he was buried' — which the creed ALSO says, right before it? Why add a redundant line? That argument has always felt like motivated reasoning to me.

  98Reply
• A9

  Alex 921mo ago

  Maybe — hear me out — the point isn't for us to solve it with a neat systematic answer. Maybe Peter is saying something cosmic and strange and triumphant and the early church just nodded because they had categories we've lost. Maybe the creed preserved something true that we can no longer fully unpack. I'm okay sitting in that tension.

  95Reply
• O_

  Omar _x1mo ago

  Exegesis without wonder produces Pharisees. Just saying.

  93Reply
• R9

  Riley 921mo ago

  Wayne Grudem also single-handedly tried to argue the descent clause shouldn't be in the creed at all, which feels like him forcing the text to agree with his systematic theology rather than the other way around. Confirmation bias in an oxford collar.

  89Reply
• O

  Omar1mo ago

  Eastern Orthodox here. We have entire liturgical services — the Holy Saturday Matins, the Paschal Canon — built around the descent and its meaning. The harrowing of hell is not a footnote for us, it is the hinge of Holy Week. Christ descends and blasts the gates of Hades off their hinges. I understand why Western Christianity is confused by this; you've been pruning your liturgy for centuries.

  88Reply
• E

  Elena1mo ago

  My church literally changed the words to 'he descended to the dead' and acted like that was totally fine. When I asked why, the pastor said it avoided 'confusion.' What confusion? Maybe the confusion is that we've spent 1700 years not explaining what we actually believe.

  87Reply
• AK

  Avery K.1mo ago

  So if Jesus proclaimed victory to the spirits in prison — who were they? Fallen angels? The dead from Noah's time? Random sinners? And what exactly was being 'proclaimed'? Salvation? Judgment? Because each answer leads to a completely different theology and some of them lead places most Christians really don't want to go, like universal salvation or second-chance theology after death.

  81Reply
• S

  Sam1mo ago

  Nobody in this thread said Jesus suffered in hell lmao. You can believe He descended without believing His suffering continued. He descended in VICTORY. As a triumphant king proclaiming His conquest. Colossians 2:15. Big difference.

  77Reply
• P

  Priya1mo ago

  I grew up Catholic and we always said it meant He went to liberate the righteous souls who died before His coming — the patriarchs, the prophets. Abraham, Moses, David. He went and got them. That actually moved me as a kid. Made the scope of the gospel feel enormous. Still not sure it's wrong.

  76Reply
• DM

  Diego M.1mo ago

  That's a hot take I agree with uncomfortably much.

  72Reply
• H

  Hana1mo ago

  This is the real problem with the passage and I don't think anyone has fully solved it. The 'proclamation to the dead' reading is possible but if it means a post-death second chance then it contradicts Hebrews 9:27. If it means only judgment was proclaimed then what's the point of mentioning it? And if it's angels then why does it matter to the living believers Peter is writing to? Every reading has a problem.

  69Reply
• K

  Kofi1mo ago

  The idea that Jesus suffered in hell is absolutely not in Scripture and borders on Word of Faith heresy. Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copeland taught this — that Jesus had to defeat Satan in hell — and it was rightly condemned. We should be very careful about any descent theology that veers into 'Jesus needed more suffering to complete salvation.' The cross was sufficient. It is finished.

  66Reply
• L

  Leo1mo ago

  This is true and worth knowing but doesn't resolve the underlying question. Even if the line developed over time, the question of what happened between Friday and Sunday morning is still a real theological question we have to answer from Scripture. The creed's history doesn't let us off the hook.

  64Reply
• R

  Riley1mo ago

  If by 'gatekeeping' you mean 'caring whether what we believe is actually true' then yeah, guilty as charged. Sloppy theology has real consequences for real people.

  61Reply
• I_

  Iris _x1mo ago

  The phrase doesn't even appear in some early versions of the creed. It was added later. Historically it wasn't original to the oldest text. If you're going to treat every word of the creed as sacred and binding you should at least know its own textual history.

  57Reply
• I

  Iris1mo ago

  The 1 Peter passage is honestly one of the most contested in the entire New Testament. Wayne Grudem's argument that it refers to Noah preaching through the Spirit to the people of his generation is exegetically plausible, not just motivated by creed-avoidance. Commentators aren't cowards, this is genuinely hard.

  55Reply
• M

  Maya1mo ago

  Okay the Eastern Orthodox liturgical tradition on this IS genuinely beautiful and I say that as a committed Reformed Baptist who disagrees with you on almost everything else.

  53Reply
• AB

  Alex B.1mo ago

  My theology prof in seminary called this passage 'the most theologically dense and least preached three verses in the New Testament' and honestly that tracks. Every pastor I've had just... avoids it.

  48Reply
• CR

  Casey R.1mo ago

  you know what the whole comment section is the exact reason most people quit church. people just want to gatekeep the right way to love Jesus

  44Reply
• J

  Jamie1mo ago

  That's nice poetry but we should build doctrine on exegesis not vibes.

  41Reply
• R

  Riley1mo ago

  With respect to your grandmother, 'he went to hell so you wouldn't have to' isn't what any serious theologian in any tradition actually teaches. The point of the descent — in any reading — isn't substitutionary presence in hell. It's proclamation, liberation, or just the fullness of His death. The folk theology version is sweet but it's not the creed.

  37Reply
• S

  Sam1mo ago

  ok real talk i never even noticed that line until college. grew up in church my whole life and it just kind of washed over me every sunday. now i cant stop thinking about it

  34Reply
• L

  Liam1mo ago

  Does it matter? Genuinely asking. I've been a Christian for 31 years and I'm not sure what practical difference this makes to my faith, my ethics, my community, or my salvation. Honest question.

  29Reply
• A

  Alex1mo ago

  If you can't explain what you believe and why, you don't actually believe it, you're just emoting. That's my hill to die on.

  19Reply

More debates people can't stop arguing about