Descended into hell

Listening to Hank Hanegraaff the other day, I again heard him refer to those who believe that Jesus descended into hell as borderline heretics.

I intend with this post to show that it is an eminently reasonable and Scriptural belief, and to believe otherwise diminishes Christ's love and sacrifice.

I will try to be brief and fill in the blanks with replies to rebuttals.

</font>

• The wages of sin is death: We know that this is not mere physical death. As God's wrath is poured out on the sinful soul (many evil men live long, blissful lives and die peaceful, pain-free deaths) the Second Death is also in sight here, and also in the Scripture that states Christ tasted death for all men.</font>
• The argument that Christ did not descend into hell renders Him effeminate. Of what was Christ afraid when He sweat great drops of blood in the Garden? Mere physical torture and death? Not when men of lesser resolve and character bravely faced tortures more exquisite. It was only the fiery indignation and righteous judgment of God that could shake such an One as Christ.</font>
• Denying Christ's descent into hell forces us to focus on Christ's flesh. Sermons on the Cross have become increasingly preoccupied with graphic descriptions of physical torture. Hanegraaf's oft-repeated "ribbons of quivering flesh" description is a prime example. Yet the Holy Spirit's testimony of Christ noticeably omits such weak and useless gimmicks, and focuses on the grief and agony of Christ's soul.</font>

 

I believe I provided a Scripture: Hebrews 2:9, But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Death, as in most places in the Scriptures, includes the idea of the suffering of hell. What death did Christ taste? Physical death? Then why do we still die physically?

When Christ said, "If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death," He was not speaking of mere physical death, as the Pharisees erroneously concluded invoking the account of Abraham's own death. But Christ said plainly that Abraham was very much alive in the spirit, John 8:54-58.

1 Pet. 3:19 has nothing to do with Christ's descent into hell.

[ November 10, 2002, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

And yet, at the utterance of the words "It is finished," Christ was still alive and breathing. So we know that Christ did not mean the work of atonement had been accomplished. If that's what He meant, His subsequent death is then rendered spurious.

 

*Where is "Jesus going to hell" taught in the Bible?

Wherever it is taught that Christ paid the price for our sins.

*Why would "God going to hell" be important in the doctrinal scheme?

How else could he taste death for every man?

*Where is the basis of translating "hell" as anything more than the grave, hades, gehenna, et al?

Please clarify.

*Why does it matter what the Apostle's Creed says to Baptists today?

Where the Apostle's Creed is true, it matters.

 

He certainly could have uttered it after His resurrection. We know that the Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ's suffering and the glory that should follow included His death and resurrection--neither having come to pass at the time that Christ said, "It is finished."

A.J. mentioned this, I think, to imply that since "it was finished," there remained no need for Christ to descend into hell.

If that were the case, then I maintain there was no need for Christ's physical death.

That's what I meant.