Christian dopers -- Jesus descended into hell?

[glilly]

Being a heathen from a heathen family, I did very little church-going in my life. Now married to a christian, I've gone to Lutheran church services a few times.

Listening to the standard prayers, one caught me off-guard. After his crucifixion, they prayer went, Jesus descended into hell, and on the third day rose into heaven...or something along those lines.

Why did he descend into hell? My wife didn't know, and she was a little surprised at herself for not knowing, especially since it's said prominently in each week's service.

So I ask a few other christians, but none know. All seemed a little surprised that they didn't know.

One person said it was a final testing of Jesus's resove against temptation. I think he was guessing, though, especially because hell isn't supposed to be a tempting place, is it? Earth is where the temptations are, and hell is the resulting prison.

Does the Bible say a) why Jesus went to hell and b) what he did whilst there? If the Bible doesn't go into detail, is there a standard explanation as to the answers?

[Spudo]

It is my understanding he went down to Hell to collect people who were there but who should be in heaven. Mainly people who were important but lived before Jesus, like Abraham.
This, of course, could be totally wrong.

[gypsymoth3]

i always heard that everyone's sins were put on Him soemtime before His crucifixion. so, i guess He had to lock tehm up in hell or something.

[BuckleberryFerry]

Originally posted by Spudo
It is my understanding he went down to Hell to collect people who were there but who should be in heaven. Mainly people who were important but lived before Jesus, like Abraham.
This, of course, could be totally wrong.

I went to a Catholic school, and this is what I was taught. He went to Hell to free the souls there, as this was the first time Heaven was being opened--with his Crucifiction and Ascension. Not sure about the specifics (i.e. Abraham), but I was taught he descended into Hell to gather the souls, and on the third day, rose again.

[glilly]

Originally posted by BuckleberryFerry
I went to a Catholic school, and this is what I was taught. He went to Hell to free the souls there, as this was the first time Heaven was being opened--with his Crucifiction and Ascension. Not sure about the specifics (i.e. Abraham), but I was taught he descended into Hell to gather the souls, and on the third day, rose again.

Is this confirmed in the Bible, or is it just part of Catholic teachings?

Why would the collection take three days?

[badchad]

glilly:

Does the Bible say a) why Jesus went to hell and b) what he did whilst there? If the Bible doesn't go into detail, is there a standard explanation as to the answers?

As I recall, it doesn't say he went to hell at all, and in fact when Jesus was dying on the cross he told the theif next to him that they would be in heaven together later that same day, which sure hurts the 3 days in hell theory.

[TWDuke]

The "Harrowing of Hell" is not exclusively a Roman Catholic tradition, but sects vary in how much faith they put into it and how much importance they place on it. It does provide a nice answer to one troubling questions for believers: If Christ is the only way to the Kingdom of Heaven, what happened to the souls of those who were faithful to God but lived and died before His incarnation.

By the way, you don't have to be a Christian to know a little about this, as it was a very popular theme in medieval art and drama.

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BR/bswbbr1903f2.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07143d.htm
http://www.orthodox.co.uk/harrowin.htm

[wolfstu]

Contrary to what some others learned at Catholic school, I've never heard of this story of going to hell with a shopping bag for souls. (I too went to Catholic school)

"... was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again." From the Apostle's Creed.

Actually, as I see here (http://www.elca.org/co/creeds/creedap.html), there exists a version of the creed that says he descended to hell. How about that? I've never heard that version anywhere.

Here's what I can find of it from the vatican website:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a5p1.htm

It says pretty clearly that he descended into hell, but doesn't make clear whether he was filling up his handbasket for the trip home. Apparently he went there as a final element of his messianic duty: to preach the gospel to the dead. You might interpret that to mean he was going to bring believers back with him.

[Thylacinewas taken]

In our Lutheran books it says "descended into hell", but it has an apostrophe and underneath says "Or into death".
The Bible says that he was dead for three day, and then he rose and began appearing, but I don't remember ever reading about Jesus going into hell in the Bible (and it's something a person remembers!).

[asterion]

Originally posted by wolfstu

"... was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again." From the Apostle's Creed.

Actually, as I see here (http://www.elca.org/co/creeds/creedap.html), there exists a version of the creed that says he descended to hell. How about that? I've never heard that version anywhere.


The version used depends on the individual church and (probably) the denomination in general. The Lutheran Book of Worship (LBW or just the "green book", at least at my church and used offically by the ELCA, but not by the Missouri or Wisconsin synods) has "He descended into hell" as the printed version with a little footnote marker at the bottom saying "or 'he descended to the dead'". There are problems with the LBW, but then there are with every liturgical book, and it's not important in this case.

Honestly, I never gave the wording all that much thought. Personally, I think that the best interpretation is none of this "saving good people that died before Christ" but instead that all it means is that Jesus died. If you look at the fairly universal concept of the world, with the sky as a dome and various types of precipitation funneling out of containers, then earth, and finally the underworld where we all go when dead, it makes sense to me.

[Shodan]

asterion has the same explanation that I heard.

The "hell" part is a translation of the word "Sheol", the Jewish word for the world of the dead.

What the Creed (this phrase appears in the Nicene, Apostle's, and Athanasian Creeds) is saying is that Jesus was dead. Really, honest, for-sure dead - not only in appearance, but in reality.

The part about the Harrowing of Hell is mostly a Roman Catholic tradition. There are Biblical references to other, pre-Christian figures who are in Heaven long before the Resurrection - Abraham (Jesus refers to Paradise in the parable of Lazarus and the poor man as "in the bosom of Abraham" - hence the lyrics of the old spiritual), Elijah was taken up to heaven, and Enoch as well.

By tradition, the third day was when the body of a dead person began to decay. Again, a reference to the idea that Jesus was really, really dead.

Regards,
Shodan

[BuckleberryFerry]

Originally posted by glilly
Is this confirmed in the Bible, or is it just part of Catholic teachings?

Why would the collection take three days?

In the Bible, I cannot tell you off the top of my head; the best I can do is search Bible.com. (pause) Having done so, I cannot find New Testament evidence that He actually descended, but it is in the Apostle's Creed that "...He descended into Hell / the third day He rose again from the dead..." (from here (http://www.reformed.org/documents/apostles_creed.html))

Upon preview, I see I am not the only one to come across this reference.

[chorpler]

I always heard that, in Christian tradition, he went down to free the heaven-bound folk (Adam, Eve, Old Testament prophets and other worthy souls who died in the BC era) that were waiting for his atonement and resurrection to open the gates of heaven before they could get into heaven. And in true dramatic fashion, he may have toppled a few pillars and rent a few gates to show his power over Hell and symbolize that he had forever broken the hold Lucifer had over mankind.

The Mormon theology I was raised with taught something very similar, that Jesus spent the three days he was dead in Spirit Prison, where everybody who had died before him was waiting anxiously for him, and organized missionary work among the faithful, to preach to those who had died without the opportunity to hear the gospel and thus grant them eternal salvation. Then when he was resurrected and ascended into heaven and re-assumed the mantle of godhood and whatnot, he left his missionary organization to continue preaching to those who died without knowing about Christianity.

And then there are some Christian denominations that teach that the dead are not currently conscious, and won't exist in a conscious form until God recreates them at the resurrection, shortly before the final judgment, so I'm not sure what those denominations think Jesus was doing during the interval between his death and his resurrection.

Anyway ... if I've made any errors, I'm sure somebody will point them out.

[yBeayf]

In Orthodox tradition, we do not say that Christ descended into hell, but rather to hades (or sheol, if you prefer), that is, the state of death. Christ took on our nature fully, including the experience of death, so that He might restore it to what it originally was: incorrupt and deathless. Christ took death upon Himself, and by His resurrection He destroyed it.

In Orthodox belief, heaven and hell do not yet exist in their fullness, as the general resurection has not yet happened. Those who die enter into an imperfect communion with God, which is either blissful or tortuous, depending on the state of one's soul. After the general resurrection, everyone's souls will be rejoined with their bodies, and individuals will enter into full interaction with God's energies, which again will be either pleasant or unpleasant depending on whether one has purified oneself or not.

[Ranchoth]

So, in other words, it was a jailbreak?

Now that's the kind of divine act I can get behind! ;)

[moriah]

The simplest explanation of 'descended into hell' is to say that the formulation simply affirms that Jesus died.

{'Hell' in this case is a translation from the Greek 'hades' which is the translation for the Hebrew 'sheol.' IOW, not the medieval hell of Dante}

The trouble comes when we ask questions like...

Where was Jesus' soul during the three days of death?

What was his soul doing during that time?

How does the saving events of Jesus' death & resurrection apply to those who lived before the events?

Adding into this mess, we have a Jewish milieu with competing eschatologies (namely: no afterlife v. a shadowy afterlife in 'sheol,' the under- or netherworld v. resurrection to a heavenly paradise). The New Testament writers are equally contradictory with regard to these issues.

And then, on top of all this, we have ancient writers operating out of a materialistic worldview (heaven is up, the netherworld is below) trying to apply a space-time worldview onto the extra-dimensional and extra-temporal world of the afterlife (where timelines are meaningless) and not realizing this.

And so, even from Biblical times, we have Jesus hanging out with the dead in the land of the dead (sheol, hades, hell) preaching and saving them, too. Of course, these are the dead which are redeemable, the just and righteous and the lost who lived before Christ's time.

Here's the Biblical evidence:

1 Peter 3:18-20 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1peter/1peter3.htm#v18) For Christ also suffered 5 for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit. In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, 6 who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. {See link for footnotes, they're helpful} 1 Peter 4:6 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1peter/1peter4.htm#v6) For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead2 that, though condemned in the flesh in human estimation, they might live in the spirit in the estimation of God. Ephesians 4:8-10 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/ephesians/ephesians4.htm#v8) Therefore, it says: "He ascended3 on high and took prisoners captive; he gave gifts to men." What does "he ascended" mean except that he also descended into the lower (regions) of the earth? The one who descended is also the one who ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things. Revelation 1:17-18 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/revelation/revelation1.htm#v17) When I caught sight of him, I fell down at his feet as though dead.16 He touched me with his right hand and said, "Do not be afraid. I am the first and the last, the one who lives. Once I was dead, but now I am alive forever and ever. I hold the keys to death and the netherworld. 17

17 [18] Netherworld: Greek Hades, Hebrew Sheol, the abode of the dead; cf Rev 20:13-14; Numbers 16:33.
Pillipians 2:10 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/philippians/philippians2.htm#v10) that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, 8 of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth...

So, this idea of Jesus going to the land of the dead is not a post-biblical Catholic invention (as some Protestants would have you believe, although, there are many Protestants who are quite taken up with this whole 'harrowing of hell' thing).

For the relevant explanation in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, see here. (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a5p1.htm#631)
Now... this being said, I can bore you {too late for that!} with the scripture quotes that contradict the above (like the previously mentioned, "this day you will be with me in paradise" quote). But that's another thread.

Peace.

[Horseflesh]

Former Lutheran that also read that he decended into hell. Never heard about the soul jailbreak. I had always inferred that he went there on the invitation of Satan just so he could resist the temptation that he was given (becoming the ruler of Hell as long as he called Satan his master). Kind of a pointless exercise considering who his Dad was and where he was going in the next three days. Not sure why it took three days, maybe he was seriously considering the offer?

[QuasiQubit]

When Jesus was crucified, he took responsabilty for everyone's sin (everyone that lets him). So though he was without blame, he had to go to hell to pay for everyone else's sins. But then he "defeated death" and asscended to heaven. Thus is the basis for Christianity: Jesus dieing for our sin so that we can go to heaven

[Polycarp]

To avoid getting into a long-winded Michelin Guide to Post-Death Destinations, let's note that "Hell" translates several different concepts:

1. The place to which the Devil, his angels, and unrepentant sinners are supposed to be cast into at the Last Judgment -- Hell in the strict evangelical-Christian fire-and-brimstone sermon sense.

2. Sheol, the destination of the dead in Jewish thought of the time. (An Orthodox Jew can discuss in more detail what today's-Judaism's understanding is if he/she so chooses.)

3. Hades, the Greek and Hellenistic-Disaspora concept closely similar to (2).

4. A temporary destination for Repentance, found in Jewish thought (whether orthodox or not I cannot say) and related to the Roman Catholic concept of Purgatory.

Under traditional Christian belief, nobody had any right to go to Heaven -- that was the place for God and His angels, and "all men have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

Hence, all men went to Sheol. The evil went to an area called Torments (name being self-explanatory), the righteous to an area of reward for which I've forgotten the Jewish term, but which Jesus described as being "Abraham's bosom" in one parable.

Under this concept, the Atonement of Jesus for sins at the Crucifixion paid the debt for the sins of the righteous who had faith in God, and therefore, following His death on the Cross, Jesus went to the "place of the righteous" in Sheol and freed those who were waiting there, who were then admitted to Heaven "under His ticket," so to speak.

Jesus did not promise the repentant thief that he would be with Him "this day" in Heaven, but rather in Paradise. The distinction is important to this discussion, because the "paradise" referred to is yet another name for the "abode of the righteous" in Sheol.

[Shodan]

Jesus did not promise the repentant thief that he would be with Him "this day" in Heaven, but rather in Paradise. The distinction is important to this discussion, because the "paradise" referred to is yet another name for the "abode of the righteous" in Sheol.
Never heard that one before.

If I get a moment, perhaps I can check Strong's for the terms "Paradise" vs. "Heaven".

Anyway, welcome back, Polycarp.

Regards,
Shodan

[FriendRob]

I think it's interesting that many Greek heroes descended into Hell, too. Orpheus went there to get his sweetheart back (and failed), Ulysses went there in the Odyssey, Aeneas went there in the Aeneid. I don't know if a case can be made that the stories of Jesus's descent derive from these older myths, but it doesn't seem impossible.

[Mycroft H.]

Another person of Protestant background chiming in. It’s been a long time since Sunday School, but what I recall was that Jesus had to wait around somewhere over Saturday so as to not break the Sabbath by doing work on that day. (Remember that He and His followers were observant Jews.) There was a concern about getting Him down and into the tomb before sunset on Friday.

The statement of 3 days is also misleading and I think about it at times when I recite the Apostles Creed. It is not 3 days x 24 hours = 72 hours but instead “on the third day.” If you think it through, death may have occurred about 6 pm. That allows 6 hours on Friday and 24 on Saturday. The women went to the tomb early on Sunday and (for Christians) found it empty. Is 7 am a reasonable time to consider? 6 + 24 + 7 = 37 hours (give or take a few), not what I would generally consider three days, but still meets the statement of “on the third day.” I seem to recall being taught that Jesus going to hell for a while was an exercise in humility and “punishment” for the “sins of the world” which Christ took onto Himself and for doubting God. (“Why hast Thou forsaken Me?”) Part of this is what QuasiQubit said earlier. That, and the need to hang out somewhere on the Sabbath.

Could he have waited in heaven? Yes, (except for the humility and sins part) but that would have involved coming back to earth after being in heaven. I admit that I do not remember if these teachings were only from the layperson teaching the Sunday School class, from the pastor, or officially from our branch of the church. I never heard the possibility of bringing deserving souls from hell to heaven, but it makes as much sense as anything else.

[badchad]

Shodan:

quote polycarp:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus did not promise the repentant thief that he would be with Him "this day" in Heaven, but rather in Paradise. The distinction is important to this discussion, because the "paradise" referred to is yet another name for the "abode of the righteous" in Sheol.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Never heard that one before.
That’s what nearly 5 months of post hoc rationalization gets you:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=194603

[Shodan]

Originally posted by badchad
Shodan:

quote polycarp:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus did not promise the repentant thief that he would be with Him "this day" in Heaven, but rather in Paradise. The distinction is important to this discussion, because the "paradise" referred to is yet another name for the "abode of the righteous" in Sheol.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That’s what nearly 5 months of post hoc rationalization gets you:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=194603 Huh?

If this is supposed to be a dig at me, you are going to have to be clearer - I don't know what you are talking about.

If this is post #422 in the ongoing "I have a hard-on for religion in general and Polycarp in particular" pattern, I will point out that Artemius in the linked thread seemed to have many of the same issues. And look at what happened to him.

IANAMod, but this is GQ. Not Great Debates, and not the Pit.

Regards,
Shodan

[Velma]

I grew up in a Reformed Church, based on the Heidelberg Catechism. Here is a link (http://www.prca.org/sermons/ld16.html) to a sermon that summarizes its stance on Jesus' descension into hell. It also mentions the Lutheran and Catholic views on the subject.

Basically I was taught that 'he descended into hell' does not imply literal hell, rather that Jesus suffered the fullness of death. From the link:
"Jesus suffered the anguish, the pains, the terrors, hellish agonies, in all of His sufferings, but especially on the cross. There is no talk of a literal descent into the place of hell.

The expression, then, as it appears in the Apostles' Creed in the fourth article, is not one of chronological order so much as it is of climactic order. That Jesus, having been crucified, dead, and buried, this was the depths of His suffering: That He also descended into hell, that is, suffered the torments of hell. "

Note that this differs from what your Lutheran friends would probably believe so I can't speak for them, I just thought I would add another point of view.

[badchad]

Shodan:

Huh?

If this is supposed to be a dig at me, you are going to have to be clearer - I don't know what you are talking about.
I'm working right now and don't have time to go into much detail. However it was not a dig at you, the link shows where Poly was quite suprized by the verse I posted and seemed unsure what to do with it. After going back and forth on that thread we now get a quite confident sounding answer from him regarding paradise and heaven being different places. Almost as if his answer were factual.;)

[Shodan]

Well, having had a quick look, ISTM that Polycarp's answer was, indeed, factual.

The word "paradise" in Luke 23:43 seems to refer to a specific part of the Jewish afterworld, reserved for the righteous. It is derived from a Persian concept of a grand enclosure. (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3857) (The Strong number is 3857, if you care.)

This is different from the words used for "heaven". (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/search.cgi?word=heaven)

I still don't see how this is "post-hoc rationalization", as you assert. Perhaps Poly's done some research.

FWIW, ideas of the afterlife seem to have been in flux around Jesus' time. The Pharisees taught that there was an afterlife; the Sadducees said that there was not. See Matthew 22:22-24 (or the same episode described in Mark 12:18 and Luke 20:27) for a description of Jesus' interactions with the Sadducees. Jesus came down pretty firmly on the Pharisee side.

Or, better still, see the delicious passage in Acts 23:6-10, (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=Acts+23%3A6-10&version=NIV) where Paul deliberately starts an argument between the two parties which quickly gets out of hand. And the Roman centurion has to remove Paul from their midst. Think of it as a Great Debate that must be cast into the Pit.

I now think of the Roman centurion in the passage as Lynnus Bodonicus. ;)

Regards,
Shodan

[badchad]

Shodan:

Well, having had a quick look, ISTM that Polycarp's answer was, indeed, factual.

The word "paradise" in Luke 23:43 seems to refer to a specific part of the Jewish afterworld, reserved for the righteous. It is derived from a Persian concept of a grand enclosure. (The Strong number is 3857, if you care.)

This is different from the words used for "heaven".
So are you now making the argument that this paradise and heaven are different places? If so, that sure minimizes the impact of the Resurection, if Jesus was only able to transport the souls of the righteous from the wonderful paradise to the wonderful heaven. I don’t see much difference, and you’ll have to think of one quick since your realization is less than a week old.

I still don't see how this is "post-hoc rationalization", as you assert. Perhaps Poly's done some research.
See my trophy sig line.

FWIW, ideas of the afterlife seem to have been in flux around Jesus' time. The Pharisees taught that there was an afterlife; the Sadducees said that there was not. See Matthew 22:22-24 (or the same episode described in Mark 12:18 and Luke 20:27) for a description of Jesus' interactions with the Sadducees. Jesus came down pretty firmly on the Pharisee side.

Or, better still, see the delicious passage in Acts 23:6-10, where Paul deliberately starts an argument between the two parties which quickly gets out of hand. And the Roman centurion has to remove Paul from their midst. Think of it as a Great Debate that must be cast into the Pit.
I don’t have a problem with what you say regarding these passages but I don’t see how they are particularly relevant regarding Jesus being hell for 3 days rather than heaven/paradise. Besides, who cares, isn’t it fashionable to allow the bible and or mans interpretation to be in error these days?

[moriah]

Originally posted by badchad
Besides, who cares, isn’t it fashionable to allow the bible and or mans interpretation to be in error these days?

Apparently, it's also the fashion to be facetious in GQ.