"He descended into hell" or "He descended to the dead"?

[Credendum]

The Apostles’ Creed has two different phrases: “He descended into hell” and “He descended to the dead.”
Which is correct?

 

[MarkThompson]

The Apostles’ Creed has two different phrases: “He descended into hell” and “He descended to the dead.”
Which is correct?

“He descended to the dead” is the old translation. “He descended into hell” is the new translation that is coming into force this year.

 

[Neicy1951]

I never heard of either one said quite like that. What I was taught, and still use goes " He descended into hell; the third day He arose again from the dead;" This is a direct quote from The Key of Heaven with Epistles and Gospels, Imprimatur 1926.

 

[Credendum]

I never heard of either one said quite like that. What I was taught, and still use goes " He descended into hell; the third day He arose again from the dead;" This is a direct quote from The Key of Heaven with Epistles and Gospels, Imprimatur 1926.

Yes, that is the entire phrase. I was quoting the first half of it.
… but did Jesus go to hell? Were the dead in hell? That doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[mdgspencer]

When the creed said Christ descended into hell, it did not refer to the hell we think of when we use the word hell. The word used in the original, ancient Greek form of the creed actually meant something closer to the idea of the underworld, where all the dead were. Before Christ, people did not go to heaven–only through Christ were the doors of heaven opened to the just. All the dead had be in another place, of course, the good as well as the evil. This is the place meant when the creed said Christ descended to hell.
Many people are bewildered to hear that Christ descended into hell, because they assume the word hell means what we commonly think it means. I was bewildered about this myself after I became a Catholic fifty years ago. What I presume what happened is that because of
such bewilderment the original Greek word in the original form of the creed is now translated as “dead” rather than “hell.” The translation of the word involved as “hell” is actually a poor translation, since the creed never meant “hell” as we now think of hell.

 

[apfrita]

When we think of hell, we believe it is the place that is meant for the damned. But what is referred in the Apostle’s Creed is the place where the souls of the just dead are kept before redemption through the blood of Jesus. Before Jesus died, there was no way a person could go into heaven. So all the just saints of the Old Testament had to wait till their original and other sins were wiped out by the blood of Jesus. Two things happened when Jesus went into hell : 1) He went there like every human being before him did, suggesting very clearly that he really died a human death and it was not what many heresies in the past have claimed that his death was not real. 2) Jesus’ soul went to hell not to await judgement like the other souls there were awaiting but to preach to them the gospel that they are now saved through his sacrificial death. In this way the gospel was preached not only to the living but to the dead, so that all would have a chance to be saved.

What is meant by 'He descended into hell" does not mean he went to preach the good news to the ones whose souls were damned already because of their mortal un-confessed sin, but that he went to preach to the just souls who for no fault of theirs were born before the Messiah came and suffered and paid the price for their sin. Christ’s death on the cross paid the price not only for the sin of the people during his time and the people who would come in the future but also for the people who died before he came. His innocent suffering and death as a human being (God in the flesh) was essential to satisfy the requirements of both God’s justice and God’s mercy. An act which satisfies God’s justice but not his mercy would be an incomplete act as also the act which satisfies God’s mercy but not his justice. He suffered and died as man for man’s sins, this satisfies God’s justice and by his death, all other men are saved (if only they accept it by their free will); this satisfied God’s mercy.

But one must not concentrate only on this phrase but what comes next, “On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father”. The one who descended was also the one who rose again and ascended into heaven. And he will be the one who will judge both the living and the dead.

 

[pablope]

Yes, that is the entire phrase. I was quoting the first half of it.
… but did Jesus go to hell? Were the dead in hell? That doesn’t make sense to me.

He descended to what the Jews called the Bosom of Abraham, which was where the OT just were prior to the opening of Heaven by Christ.

The unjust where in Gehana.

This “descended into hell” is in fact, attested to by St. Peter in 1 Peter 3:19…
1 Peter 3:19

19 in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison,

 

[puzzleannie]

The Apostles’ Creed has two different phrases: “He descended into hell” and “He descended to the dead.”
Which is correct?

according to the new translation of the Roman Missal
he descended into hell;
on the third day he rose again from the dead

the word in Latin retains the earlier meaning of hell as the “limbo of the fathers” or the “bosom of Abraham”, not the final destination of the damned. This was the understood meaning in English until recent generations so will required good catechesis.

 

[ProVobis]

descendit ad inferna; tertia die resurrexit a mortuis;

inferna (neuter, plural) - the lower world

Unfortunately this has become confused in modern English with “inferno.”

 

[bdeller]

But why does it say he “arose again”? Why “again?” When did he arise the first time?

 

[followingtheway]

Were the dead in hell?

Sort of and sort of not. See the “Hell” they were talking about wasn’t the hell of the damned, but referred to another place called “Limbus Patrum (Limbo of the Patriarchs)”. They were both in Sheol (which translates to “Hell” in most Bibles), which was the place of the dead in Jewish Tradition.

Limbus Patrum is mentioned in a parable that Jesus taught called “Lazarus and the Rich man” in which Lazarus goes to “Abraham’s Bosom” and the Rich man goes to Hell. “Abraham’s Bosom” is seen as another word for Limbus Patrum.

According to Catholic tradition, before Jesus died for our sins, good people didn’t go to Heaven (with some exceptions), and they couldn’t go to Hell because they were good men, and the couldn’t go to Purgatory, because they would suffer there. So they went to Limbus Patrum.

In between Jesus’ death and ressurection, He went down to Limbus Patrum to save the souls there and bring them up to Heaven. In Catholic Tradition this is called “the Harrowing of Hell” This belief is supported by scripture (Job 38:17, Psalm 68:18-22; Matthew 12:38-41; Acts 2:22-32; Romans 10:7; Ephesians 4:7-10, 1 Peter 3:18-20, and 1 Peter 4:6.)

 

[ProVobis]

But why does it say he “arose again”? Why “again?” When did he arise the first time?

For a discussion of this:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=299457&highlight=resurrexit

 

[hilde_the_dog]

When I was raised a Calvinist it was “descended into hell”. Also currently the Magnificat says “dead” while the Newadvent website on how to pray the rosary uses “hell” and has for years.

 

[centurionguard]

“He descended to the dead” is the old translation. “He descended into hell” is the new translation that is coming into force this year.

Actually; Descended into Hell is really not New.
Pope Benedict has changed it back to the (“original translation”) before Vatican II

 

[ProVobis]

Actually; Descended into Hell is really not New.
Pope Benedict has changed it back to the (“original translation”) before Vatican II

Yes and no. The Catholic Church had no English in the Mass before Vatican II. In fact, I don’t think the Apostles Creed had been even used in the Mass. But “hell” was used by English Catholics in a private recitation of the Apostles Creed, probably not realizing its ramifications. Certainly, no Catholic really believed Christ was in eternal (or even temporary) damnation.

 

[centurionguard]

Yes and no. The Catholic Church had no English in the Mass before Vatican II. In fact, I don’t think the Apostles Creed had been even used in the Mass. But “hell” was used by English Catholics in a private recitation of the Apostles Creed, probably not realizing its ramifications. Certainly, no Catholic really believed Christ was in eternal (or even temporary) damnation.

Certainly, no Catholic really believed Christ was in eternal (or even temporary) damnation

Well most certainly this is an understandable given.

I don’t think the Apostles Creed had been even used in the Mass.

I’m not so sure this is entirely true. The Apostles Creed was drafted at the Council of Trent.

newadvent.org/cathen/01629a.htm

**The old Roman creed

The Catechism of the Council of Trent apparently assumes the Apostolic origin of our existing Creed, but such a pronouncement has no dogmatic force and leaves opinion free. Modern apologists, in defending the claim to apostolicity, extend it only to the old Roman form (R), and are somewhat hampered by the objection that if R had been really held to be the inspired utterance of the Apostles, it would not have been modified at pleasure by various local churches (Rufinus, for example, testifies to such expansion in the case of the Church of Aquileia), and in particular would never have been entirely supplanted by T, our existing form. The difference between the two will best be seen by printing them side by side (Creeds R and T):
OLD ROMAN. COUNCIL OF TRENT
(1) I believe in God the Father Almighty; (1) I believe in God the Father Almighty Creator of Heaven and earth
(2) And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; (2) And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord;
(3) Who was born of (de) the Holy Ghost and of (ex) the Virgin Mary; (3) Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,
(4) Crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried; (4) Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried;
(5) The third day He rose again from the dead, (5) He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead;
(6) He ascended into Heaven, (6) He ascended into Heaven, sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
(7) Sitteth at the right hand of the Father, (7) From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
(8) Whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. (8) I believe in the Holy Ghost,
(9) And in the Holy Ghost, (9) The Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints
(10) The Holy Church, (10) The forgiveness of sins,
(11) The forgiveness of sins; (11) The resurrection of the body, and
(12) The resurrection of the body. (12) life everlasting.

Neglecting minor points of difference, which indeed for their adequate discussion would require a study of the Latin text, we may note that R does not contain the clauses “Creator of heaven and earth”, “descended into hell”, “the communion of saints”, “life everlasting”, nor the words “conceived”, “suffered”, “died”, and “Catholic”. Many of these additions, but not quite all, were probably known to St. Jerome in Palestine (c. 380.–See Morin in Revue Benedictine, January, 1904) and about the same date to the Dalmatian, Niceta (Burn, Niceta of Remesiana, 1905). Further additions appear in the creeds of southern Gaul at the beginning of the next century, but T probably assumed its final shape in Rome itself some time before A.D. 700 (Burn, Introduction, 239; and Journal of Theol. Studies, July, 1902). We know nothing certain as to the reasons which led to the adoption of T in preference to R. **

Here’s another interesting article worth the read reformed.org/documents/index.html

 

[wisdomseeker]

Yes and no. The Catholic Church had no English in the Mass before Vatican II. In fact, I don’t think the Apostles Creed had been even used in the Mass. But “hell” was used by English Catholics in a private recitation of the Apostles Creed, probably not realizing its ramifications. Certainly, no Catholic really believed Christ was in eternal (or even temporary) damnation.

I dont say hell, ever. In my language we always say, He descended into the mansion of the dead. how can you use hell and then try to justify that it isnt really the hell people go to because they are danmed. It makes no sense.

that is why Latin is so important. translating to different languages is going to give different meaning to the words. even the prayers are waterdown because they dont have the beautiful words of praises used in Latin.

 

[ProVobis]

Let’s look at the source:

crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus,
descendit ad ínferos, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis,

The translator has a problem here if he wants to translate this into its correct theology. He must somehow distinguish between infernos and mortuis but without conveying a meaning of temporary damnation. So I can see why “dead” was chosen for “mortuis” but it baffles me why “hell” was chosen for “infernos.”

FWIW, the problem/question is almost same for the Polish translation:

urzyżowan, umarł i pogrzebion; zstąpił do piekieł, trzeciego dnia zmartwychwstał

piek- is “hell” in common terminology

wisdomseeker, you are right. From now on, it’s Latin only for me.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Let’s look at the source:

The translator has a problem here if he wants to translate this into its correct theology. He must somehow distinguish between infernos and mortuis but without conveying a meaning of temporary damnation. So I can see why “dead” was chosen for “mortuis” but it baffles me why “hell” was chosen for “infernos.”

FWIW, the problem/question is almost same for the Polish translation:

urzyżowan, umarł i pogrzebion; zstąpił do piekieł, trzeciego dnia zmartwychwstał

piek- is “hell” in common terminology

wisdomseeker, you are right. From now on, it’s Latin only for me.

Yes! :byzsoc:

 

[DaComboMan]

In French it stays as “aux enfers” = to the hells.

In Italian it’s “agli inferi” = to the hells again.

It should really be intended as lower regions (limbo, purgatory etc.) but not hell as permanent place.