In our
discussion of the fourth Article of the Creed we noted that the Creed speaks
only to the what of the Son of God’s
suffering, crucifixion, death, and burial for us, and not the question of how this accomplished our
salvation. We looked at the
controversies that arose over this question long after the period which gave us
the Apostles’ and Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creeds. I mentioned that the late Eastern Orthodox
Metropolitan Kallistos Ware had offered a number of helpful questions for
evaluating the different theories or models proposed to answer this question
and applied the first of those questions, “does in envision a change in God or
us?” to the Anselmic model of satisfaction and subsequent models derived from
Anselm’s such as the Reformation model of penal substitution and observed that
the Metropolitan’s question shows us how far to take the language of analogy
employed by these models. Metropolitan
Ware’s third question was “does it isolate the Cross from the Incarnation and
the Resurrection?” It is a weakness in the model if it does this
and so it is good to observe again that in the Greek and Latin original texts
of both Creeds the third, fourth, and fifth Articles are part of the same
sentence.
That the
Cross should not be isolated from the Resurrection is of particular importance
when it comes to the subject of the Victory of the Christ. The Cross should never be thought to have
been a lost battle before a final victory.
In both the Cross and the Resurrection Jesus Christ is Victor. On the Cross Christ’s victory was
accomplished but concealed, in the Resurrection Christ’s victory is openly
revealed.
It is
important to keep this in mind when we consider the fifth Article of the
Creed. In the Nicene-Constantinopolitan
Creed this Article reads καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὰς
γραφάς which is rendered in
the English of the Book of Common Prayer
as “and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures”. The phrase κατὰ τὰς γραφάς or “according to
the Scriptures”, taken from St. Paul’s summary of the Gospel he preached in 1
Corinthians 15 was not present in the original Nicene Creed but was added by
the Council of Constantinople. The
Apostles’ Creed does not include this phrase and it begins with a phrase not
found in the conciliar Creed. The Latin
text of the Apostles’ Creed is descendit
ad inferos, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis which in the English of the Book of Common Prayer is “He descended
into hell. The third day he rose again from the dead.”
While there are some who think that the traditional division
of the Articles is mistaken in assigning descendit
ad inferos to the fifth Article with the Resurrection rather than the
fourth with the suffering, Crucifixion, death and burial, this viewpoint is
wrong. The descent belongs with the
Resurrection as part of the open revelation of the victory of Christ. We shall address this at length
momentarily. First, however, the Modern
controversy over the descent clause and its translation needs to be addressed.
The traditional English translation of descendit ad inferos as we have seen is “He descended into
hell”. Squeamish Moderns dislike this
translation and have suggested such alternatives as “He descended to the
dead”. While this would not be a
mistranslation of the clause taken in isolation from what precedes and follows
it, it is not a good translation of the clause in its context. When, later in the clause “the dead” is
incontrovertibly used to denote those from among whom He rose again, it is a mortuis in Latin, not ab inferorum. This is the ordinary way of saying “the
dead” in Latin. The adjective inferus means “lower” or “below”, and
the masculine plural when used as a substantive as it is in the Creed literally
means “those below”. This was
understood by Latin speakers to mean the souls of the dead who were “those
below” because they were in the underworld.
While it was more common to use the neuter plural to indicate the place
and the masculine plural to indicate its inhabitants the one implied the
other. The traditional translation of
“hell” is better than “the dead” here because following “was crucified, dead,
and buried” and preceding “The third day he rose again from the dead”, “He
descended to the dead” does not really say anything in English that is not
already affirmed in these other clauses.
Some evangelical teachers have rejected this clause and the
doctrine of the Descent into Hell for reasons other than the Modern
squeamishness referred to in the previous paragraph. Wayne Grudem, past president of the
Evangelical Theological Society and the author of a very popular one-volume Systematic Theology, has said that this
clause should be removed from the Apostles’ Creed. John
Piper has said that he omits the phrase when reciting the Creed. Both claim that the doctrine lacks Scriptural
attestation, a position that can only be taken by those who assert that “Hell”
can only refer to the punishment of those who finally reject their redemption
in Jesus Christ and should not be used of the Hebrew שְׁאוֹל (Sheol) or the Greek Ἅιδης (Hades), i.e.,
the underworld, the land of the dead. This
is an untenable and absurd position for many reasons. For one thing, in Old English the word Hell
had the same meaning as its Danish, Germanic, and Norse cognates which all
derived it from their common proto-Germanic root, and that meaning was identical
to that of the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades. For another, it retained this meaning after
it came to be also used for what the Book of Revelation calls the Lake of Fire,
and continues to have both meanings in the general culture to this day. Finally, the concepts of Hades and the Lake
of Fire while distinct are not so unrelated that a common term cannot serve for
both. Hades is the realm of the dead
and death throughout the Scriptures is the punishment for sin (Gen. 2:17, Ez.
18:20, Rom. 6:23). After the Book of
Revelation describes Death and Hades as being cast into the Lake of Fire it
says that the Lake of Fire is the Second Death. That Jesus was in Hades between His death
and Resurrection is a fact found in the very first Gospel sermon preached by
St. Peter after the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles on Pentecost (Acts
2:24-31).
Grudem and Piper are both Reformed in their theology, that
is to say, adherents of the version of Protestant theology enshrined in the
canons of the Synod of Dort. This type
of theology is often called Calvinist, although it arguably owes more to
Theodore Beza’s interpretation of John Calvin than to John Calvin himself. Beza was an early proponent of excising the
Descent clause from the Apostles’ Creed.
Calvin was not himself in favour of this, but his interpretation of the
clause was very different from the traditional understanding. He understood the Descent into Hell to refer
to Christ’s suffering the penalty for sin as man’s substitute. Interpreted in this manner, it must either
a) refer to Christ’s sufferings on the Cross up to and including but completed
by His death or b) mean that the payment for man’s sin was not complete when
Jesus died and had to be completed in Hell.
The second of these is so obviously unacceptable that the only person I
can think of who actually taught it was a very heretical televangelist. Calvin understood it the first way. If this is what “He descended into hell”
means, however, then it is rather conspicuous for being the only item in a long
list of otherwise consecutive events not to chronologically follow what
preceded it. Calvin’s fundamental error
here was that he, with his lawyer’s mind, focused solely on Hell as a legal
penalty for sin and so read the Descent into Hell as part of Christ’s Passion,
His voluntary submission to suffering and death for us. In a long tradition going back to the
Fathers, however, the ancient Churches – including the ones that do not make
liturgical use of the Apostles’ Creed – have understood it to be the first step
in Christ’s Exaltation rather than the last in His Humiliation, as part of His
Resurrection rather than His Passion.
To understand the traditional view of the Descent, it is
best to personalize death, that is to say, to think of Death as a person. Since
St. Paul does this in 1 Corinthians 15 (vv. 26 and 55) and St. John does this
in the Apocalypse (6:8) there should be no objections to this on Scriptural
grounds. Then think of Hell – in the
sense of Hades, the underworld, as Death’s kingdom. To be more precise, think of Hell as one of
Death’s two kingdoms, the other being the Grave. In the Grave Death holds the bodies of men
captive, in Hell he holds captive their souls.
God decreed to man in his Innocence that if he disobeyed God he would
die. Thus Death has a claim on the bodies
and souls of all who sin. Adam sinned
and passed sin on to his descendants so that Death claimed them all (Rom. 5:12ff
– another passage in which Death is personalized). Then the Son of God became Incarnate as a
man. Born of a Virgin, He was the
promised Seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15), Who inherited human nature but not Adam’s
sin, nor did He, although He endured Temptation (Matt. 4:1-11, Lk. 4:1-13, Mk.
1:13), sin Himself (Heb. 4:15). Death,
therefore, had no claim on Him. He,
however, Who was without sin, allowed the sins of the world to be placed upon
Him (2 Cor. 5:21, I Peter. 2:24) and voluntarily submitted to arrest, trial,
scourging, crucifixion, and death. That
His submission was voluntary is stressed in the Scriptures – the Prophet Isaiah
declaring in prophecy that He would be led like a Lamb to the slaughter and
open not His mouth (Isaiah 53:7) and He Himself told St. Peter in Gethsemane that
He could call upon His Father to send more than twelve legions of angels to His
rescue (Matt. 26:53). This is important
because, again, the Passion of the Christ was not a temporary defeat before the
final victory, although it had that outer appearance. The Passion was Christ’s Victory. By voluntarily submitting to all this
injustice He forced Death to claim the body and soul of Someone over Whom Death
had no claim – and Who, being God as well as Man, Death could not possibly keep
captive. When Death claimed Him, he
forfeited his claim on anybody else. So
when Christ entered Hell, Death’s kingdom, it was not as captive but Conqueror. He had already defeated Death, and was now
revealing that victory, first of all to those whom Death had held captive in
Hell and whose liberty He had just secured.
This is the understanding of this event that can be found
throughout the pages of the Patristic writings and in artistic depictions in
Church buildings around the world. The
typical portrayal of the “Harrowing of Hell” in art features the Gates of Hell
smashed to pieces, on top of a figure who may be either the personalized Death
or the devil, with Christ, often standing on the smashed Gates, extending His
arms to a procession of the captives He has liberated, led by Adam and Eve.
The next step in the revelation of Christ’s Victory was the
Resurrection itself, linked with the Descent into Hell in the Apostles’ Creed,
and the sole event mentioned in the fifth Article of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan
Creed. Unlike the Descent, historically
controversy over the Resurrection had been between believers and unbelievers,
over whether or not the event took place, rather than between believers over
the interpretation of the event. In the
last century or so liberals have re-interpreted the Resurrection by saying that
it meant that Jesus lived on in the hearts of His followers while His body remained
in the Tomb but this too is a controversy between believers and unbelievers,
since such liberals are not believers, but unbelievers trying to disguise their
unbelief as faith. If you do not believe
that after Jesus literally died on the Cross, and was buried in the Tomb of
Joseph of Arimathea, on the third day His spirit and body were re-united, His
body was restored to life, and He left the Tomb empty of all but His grave
clothes, you do not believe in the Resurrection.
In the Resurrection, Jesus was raised from the dead in His
body, but not merely to the same state in which He was prior to His death. His body also underwent a
transformation. The same will be true
of everybody else in the Final Resurrection on the Last Day. St. Paul in the fifteenth chapter of 1
Corinthians explains this in terms of the analogy of a grain planted as a
seed. The grain “dies” when it is
planted, and springs to new life as a plant.
The Scriptures do not spell out all the details of the difference
between pre-death and post-Resurrection life.
In His encounters with His followers after the Resurrection Jesus was
recognizable, although in some instances, such as with Mary Magdalene in the
garden outside the Tomb (Jn. 20:14-16) and the disciples on the road to Emmaus
(Lk. 24:13-31) the recognition was not immediate. This could indicate that His outward appearance
was altered in some way, although the nail prints in His hands and the spear
wound in His side remained (Jn. 20:27).
The most important difference is that prior to His death His body was mortal,
after His Resurrection it was incorruptible, no longer subject to disease,
decay and death.
Like the Creation of the world, the Resurrection is
represented in Scripture as an act in which the entire Trinity was
involved. While most often the
Scriptures speak of God the Father as the Agent Who raised Jesus His Son from
the dead, Jesus did speak of actively raising Himself from the dead (most
obviously John 10:17-18 but this is also the import of His saying that He would
raise the Temple in three days), and St. Peter speaks of the Holy Spirit as the
Agent in the Resurrection (1 Pet. 3:18).
St. Paul also speaks of the Holy Spirit in connection with the
Resurrection in Romans and his wording may suggest that the Spirit’s role was instrumental
in a way similar to that of the Son in Creation.
When St. Paul wrote “That if thou shalt confess with thy
mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him
from the dead, thou shalt be saved” (Rom. 10: 9) he summarized the Gospel with
the Resurrection. The Resurrection is
the one Gospel truth that contains all the others. That God raised Jesus from the dead
necessarily means that Jesus had to have died, and for Him to have died means
that He had to have come down from Heaven and become Incarnate as a Man. As well as encapsulating the entire
Christian faith in a single truth, the Resurrection is the evidence of the
truth of the faith. When Jesus was
asked for a sign to prove His claims for Himself and His authority to do the
things He did it was the Resurrection to which He pointed when He spoke of
Himself building up the Temple after three days and the sign of the prophet
Jonah. As the evidence for the truth of
the Christian faith as a whole, the Resurrection remains one of the best
attested facts of history being attested not only by an abundance of evidence
of the legal-historical type – such as the eyewitness testimony summarized by
St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 - but by
nature itself. The Resurrection took
place on the third day after the Crucifixion, and the Crucifixion took place on
the Jewish Passover, which falls on the Ides of the month the Hebrews
originally called Aviv – spring. Spring
is the season in which the trees bud and grow leaves, the flowers bloom and the
grass turns green, the birds come back and animals awake out of hibernation
after winter, the season of coldness, barrenness, death and decay. While rationalistic skeptics have tried to
write the Resurrection off as another myth symbolizing the renewal of life and
fertility in spring after the barrenness of winter, they got this exactly
backwards. The Resurrection of Jesus
Christ is a historical event that occurred at a known time, in a known place,
in a province of the largest empire of the civilized ancient world. Therefore the natural renewal of life in
springtime to which countless pagan myths point must itself have been made by
nature’s Creator, God, to point to the Resurrection of His Son. (1)
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is the basis of our hope as
believers. To the ancient pagans Hell –
the underworld – was the final destiny of all people, the wicked and the just
alike, after death. In Homer’s Odyssey, Ulysses, visiting the
underworld before death, encounters the other Greek heroes of the Trojan War,
including Achilles, the greatest of the Greek heroes, who gloomily tells him
that it is “better to serve on earth than rule in hell”. The hope of the pagans, such as it was with
this gloomy worldview, was to achieve glory that would survive them in this
world. In the Old Testament, Hell –
Sheol –similarly awaits all after death, but there are passages that indicate
that this is only a temporary destination.
Job expresses the hope that he will be raised from the dead, King David
expresses similar hope in several of the Psalms, and Daniel spells out clearly
that at the end of time the dead will be raised to either everlasting joy or
everlasting shame depending on the outcome of the Last Judgement. In Christianity, the Old Testament hope of
resurrection was made solid and certain by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ,
the first fruit of the Final Resurrection.
In the closing chapters of the Apocalypse St. John gives his vision of a
new heaven – the heaven visible to the eye – and a new earth, that will replace
the old heaven and earth, to which the New Jerusalem, the City of God, which is
basically the same thing as the heaven that is invisible to the eye, i.e., the location
of God’s throne, the place of His immediate presence, will descend to the
earth, and so heaven and earth will be one Kingdom of God. The hope of the believer is not bliss in a
disembodied state but to be raised bodily to live in this Kingdom of God on the
New Earth, or, as N. T. Wright puts it, not life after death, but life after
life-after-death. The Resurrection of
Jesus Christ is the pledge to the believer of his certain hope to participate
in this resurrection. Indeed, even in
this life we are told to consider ourselves, who have been baptized into Christ’s
death, to be raised with Him into newness of life, and so His Resurrection is
the basis of the faith in which we walk, as well as of our ultimate hope.
No comments:
Post a Comment