Category: Apostle’s Creed

HE DESCENDED TO THE DEAD

The Apostles’ Creed contains a curious line, which is traditionally rendered as saying that Christ “descended into hell” but which modern versions translate (more accurately, in my view) as “he descended to the dead” – what does this mean?

At various point in my life, I have held either (a) the view taught by John Calvin that this was a reference to Christ enduring hell on the cross rather than any descent into the underworld, or else, (b) that the Creed was repeating for emphasis the fact that Jesus really did die as this was a doctrine denied by Gnostics, among others. However, while I would still agree, to some degree, with both of these ideas as being true, I am now much less sure that either of them are the point that the Creed is trying to make here. Indeed, the Greek text, katelthonta eis ta katōtata and the Latin translation, descendit ad inferos, both do seem to mean that Christ descended into the underworld – whatever that means.

In the Old Testament, the spirits of those who died were spoken of as going down into Sheol, the realm of the dead. Not much is said about this shadowy realm, but there is a hope that the Lord will rescue the faithful from it (e.g. Psalm 49:15). Since Christ really died on the cross, according to orthodox Christian theology, his spirit too would have descended into Sheol. However, whereas the spirits of those who died under the Old Covenant were imprisoned by Sheol, the spirit of Christ was not imprisoned but rather liberated those who were there. Indeed, the death of Christ was, in fact, the longed-for rescue by the Lord of his people, for which the psalmist hoped. This idea is often spoken of as the “Harrowing of Hades” and was a popular theme during the Anglo-Saxon era, for instance. It even makes an appearance in C. S. Lewis’ The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

But isn’t this idea refuted by Christ’s words to the penitent thief on the cross, that “today, you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43)? I don’t see how, unless you assume that “paradise” must always refer to the final heaven rather than an intermediate state. For the believer, surely, to be with Christ – even if that means descending with Christ into Sheol to rescue those imprisoned there – is to be in paradise. After all, to argue that the soul of Christ did not descend into Sheol is to argue that Christ’s death was somehow different from other human deaths, up to that point, and that seems to me to raise far more serious theological issues.

Such then is the love of Christ, that he is prepared even to descend to the dead in order that he might lead them, with himself, into eternal life.

(See other posts in this series and check out Edward’s book)

BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY

(See other posts in this series and check out Edward’s book)

The Virgin Mary was the first person to “receive Christ into her life” (as Evangelicals like to say), and she did so in a far more literal manner than any of us will ever be asked to do. If bearing, giving birth to and bringing up to adulthood the incarnate Word of God is not enough to warrant respect, I do not know what is. Mary’s willing obedience to fulfilling the will of God – without which the incarnation would not have happened and none of us would be saved – is even more impressive when you consider what it must have cost her. Mary’s version as to how she became pregnant may not have been widely accepted by the community in which she lived. Even Joseph was suspicious enough to need an angelic visitation to assure him of the miracle (an interesting fact, perhaps, for those who would assume early societies to be, somehow, more intrinsically credulous than our own concerning miracles, or ignorant of the facts of life). Even decades later, there is more than innuendo in the accusation of Jesus’ enemies, “We were not born of fornication!” (John 8.41) Let us not forget also, that Mary was, according to the Scriptures, an eye-witness of Jesus’ crucifixion, and, as such, had to endure the agony of watching her son (many would say her only son) being tortured to death.

This reference to Jesus possibly being Mary’s only son is somewhat controversial, since it implies that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ, a doctrine known as the “perpetual virginity” – not a teaching much held in Evangelical circles today. For most of my Christian life I would have said, had anyone asked, that I didn’t believe in it myself. Not, as I have indicated above, out of any lack of respect for the blessed Theotokos, but rather because it always seemed to me to be unscriptural. Surely, it was contradicted by the “until” in Matthew 1:25 and by the frequent scriptural references to Jesus having brothers and sisters. As a Bible-believing Evangelical, that was enough for me, or so I thought.

However, a nagging doubt remained. The doctrine of the perpetual virginity was held by a number of early Christian writer (including Origen, Athanasius, Jerome and Ambrose of Milan) at least as far back as the third and fourth centuries. It appears in the Creed of Epiphanius of 374 A.D. and moreover is mentioned in the 2nd and 6th canons of the Second Council of Constantinople (553 A.D.) which was the fifth Ecumenical Council of the undivided Church. This means that this teaching was accepted, without much controversy, by the church as a whole for at least thirteen centuries prior to the Reformation (assuming no explicit support prior to the third century). Furthermore, while the doctrine is often seen as Catholic or Orthodox, it does appear to have been held by a number of Reformers, including Luther and Zwingli (and possibly Calvin), as well as by some subsequent Protestants (such as John Wesley).

However, the point at which my opposition to the doctrine really started falling to pieces came from within the Bible itself, namely, from John 19:27. According to this verse, Jesus gave his disciple John responsibility for caring for his mother, which is significant because the expectation of Jewish custom (and, obliquely, the Mosaic Law – see Leviticus 22:13 for the case of a widow who “has no child”) would be for Mary’s surviving children (if she had any) to care for her. To teach that Mary had other children seemed to me, in light of this, to imply that Christ was departing from the Law in his command to John, a serious issue indeed.

But what about the many references in the New Testament of Jesus having brothers and sisters?

The traditional answer given to this objection is that these were half-brothers and half-sisters of Jesus from an earlier marriage by Joseph (see, for instance, the Protoevangelium of James, chapter 9), or else cousins. This is consistent with Biblical usage of the words “adelphos” and “adelphē” and so doesn’t, by itself, prove the doctrine false.

But doesn’t the use of the word “until” in Matthew 1:25 contradict the idea?

I used to think so too (in fact this was my standard objection), however, the words translated “until” in Matthew 1:25 (“heōs ou”) are used elsewhere in the New Testament in contexts where no change in status is implied, e.g. Matthew 28:20 (Christ is with us UNTIL the end of the age – but surely this doesn’t mean that he won’t be with us in eternity?) and 1 Timothy 4:13 (the church is to devote itself to the public reading of Scripture, exhortation and teaching UNTIL Paul arrives – but surely this doesn’t mean that their devotion is to come to an end as soon as he turns up?). So, again, the use of the “until” in Matthew 1:25 doesn’t, by itself, refute the doctrine, (especially when one bears in mind how many of the early Church fathers were native Greek speakers).

But doesn’t the doctrine of the perpetual virginity mean that Joseph disobeyed the angels’ commandment to “take Mary as his wife” (Matthew 1:20) whereas Scripture confirms that he obeyed it (see v 24)?

This is one of the best Scriptural arguments that I’ve heard. The Greek, “mē phobēthēs paralabein Marian tēn gynaika sou” is probably best translated, in context, as “don’t be afraid to take Mary [as] your wife” (with all that that implies) although again “paralambanō” seems to have a wide enough range of meanings as to not rule out the doctrine in question. I don’t know how the angel’s words would have been expressed in Aramaic.

But isn’t the idea of a man not sleeping with his wife absurd?

Presumably being told by an angel that his fiancée was going to give birth to the incarnate Son of God might have indicated to Joseph that this was not going to be a normal marital arrangement! It would also appear to be the case that Joseph was a much older man, which may have some bearing on the question. Catholic and Orthodox theologians at this point in the discussion would probably also point to the idea of Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant, which makes her untouchable (see 2 Samuel 6:5-7) or would interpret Ezekiel 44:1-2 as referring to Mary – although, I admit, that such arguments sound odd to Protestant ears.

In terms of other Marian doctrines, I certainly believe that Mary is the Theotokos or “God-bearer” (as declared by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD) although this is, strictly speaking, Christology rather than Mariology, since it concerns the incarnation. I am currently somewhat agnostic about the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption (both of which are controversial in the East as well as among Protestants) and I remain very wary of any idea of Mary being a “co-mediatrix” of redemption, although it could be that this involves a misunderstanding of the term on my part.

See other posts in this series on the Apostle’s Creed and for more great teaching on church history check out Edward’s book.

WHO WAS CONCEIVED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT

In the previous post, I wrote in support of the eternal divinity of Christ. In this one, I wish to talk about his becoming genuinely a human being, what Christians refer to as the incarnation, and which God did in order to rescue us from the power of sin and death.

Of course, Christ did not surrender his divinity upon becoming human, as the 16th century Reformer John Calvin says –

“Here is something marvelous: the Son of God descended from heaven in such a way that, without leaving heaven, he willed to be borne in the virgin’s womb, to go about the earth, and to hang upon the cross; yet he continuously filled the world even as he had done from the beginning.” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion. Book II, chapter iii, section 4)

The same point was made in the early centuries of Christianity, by the 4th century Church father, Athanasius of Alexandria, who said –

“The Word was not hedged in by His body, nor did His presence in the body prevent him from being present elsewhere as well. When He moved his body He did not cease also to direct the universe by His Mind and might. No, the marvellous truth is, that, being the Word, so far from being Himself contained by anything, He actually contained all things Himself. In creation He is present everywhere, yet is distinct in being from it; ordering, directing, giving life to all, containing all, yet is He Himself the Uncontained, existing solely in His Father.” (Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation, section 17)

So, the eternal Word of God, the second person of the Trinity, without in any way losing his divinity or his omnipresence, nevertheless assumed humanity, with all its limitations and became a man, with a full set of human emotions, thoughts, will and bodily functions.

So startling is this idea, that it shouldn’t surprise us to discover that it didn’t take long before people appeared within the Christian community who denied it. The Docetists (from the Greek dokein – to appear) thought in terms of spirit = good, matter = evil and couldn’t see how Christ could become one of us without being corrupted. They argued that Christ didn’t really become a human being but merely appeared to do so. A number of books of the New Testament argue against incipient forms of this teaching, most notably 1 John, 2 John and 3 John, Jude and 2 Peter. In 2 John 7, the apostle goes so far as to apply the term “antichrist” to those who deny that Christ is God come in the flesh.

Of course Docetism (based as it is upon a dualism between spirit and matter) has implications which extend far beyond denial of the incarnation, for example, if matter is not essentially evil (as the Docetists and their ilk argued) then God can use it to communicate his grace (e.g. through the fringe of a garment (Mark 6:56, see Mark 5:28-34), or through handkerchiefs and aprons (Acts 19:11), or even through the relics of a dead prophet (1 Kings 13:20-21)). What is more, if this is true, the God is not merely in the business of “saving souls” but saving all of us, and that surely has implications, both for the present and the future. 

See other posts in this series on the Apostle’s Creed. 

I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST, HIS ONLY SON, OUR LORD.

The New Testament and the creeds teach us that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, begotten of the Father. This term “begotten” (or, to put it in more modern English) “fathered” has been understood by some (such as the 4th century Arians) to mean that Christ is less God than the Father, or that he was created, or that there was a time before he came into being. However, it is not so that begetting (or “fathering”) is the same as creating, as C. S. Lewis explains –

“To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is just this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers and a bird begets eggs, which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam, a man makes a wireless set – or he may make something more like himself than a wireless set: say a statue. If he’s a clever enough carver he may make a statue which is very like a man indeed. But of course, it’s not a real man; it only looks like one. It can’t breathe or think. It’s not alive.”

Now that’s the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God, just as what man makes is not man. (C. S. Lewis, “Beyond Personality”, pp. 12-13)

Since God is eternal, then the one who is fathered by God, being God (as Lewis explains above) is also eternal, being eternally fathered by God.

Now, clearly this is a difficult idea to get our heads round, however, I would argue that in speaking in this way, God is using the image of a human father and his son as the clearest way of expressing his eternal relationship to Jesus Christ, the divine Word of God, in language that we can understand.

Edward Rhodes, my friend and teaching colleague on The Internship, has kindly provided a series of guest posts reflecting on the Apostle’s Creed. This coincides with our current series at Emmanuel entitled Creed: Why I Believe. Edward is the author of Rooted: Reconnecting with the History of the Church.

IN GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH

I believe in a God who is utterly transcendent, being self-existent, all-knowing and unbounded by either space or time.

I believe in a God who is sovereign, the creator and sustainer of heaven and earth, and who, as such, has created human beings in his image, with delegated sovereignty and genuine (albeit limited) free-will and decision making ability, which, alas, we have sadly misused to our ruin.

I believe in a God of holiness and love, who desires to relate to us and to rescue us from the ruin into which we have fallen. I believe that this is why the doctrine of the Trinity is so important, since it speaks of a God who eternally exists in loving, self-giving relationship.

I do not, however, believe in a “God of the gaps” – that ever-diminishing divinity, who exists in the things that we don’t yet understand. If human reason is, as I have argued, a reflection of the divine mind, then the fact that we can now scientifically understand how something came into being, and how it works, should surely be a reason to worship God rather than to doubt or diminish him.

Edward Rhodes, my friend and teaching colleague on The Internship, has kindly provided a series of guest posts reflecting on the Apostle’s Creed. This coincides with our current series at Emmanuel entitled Creed: Why I Believe. Edward is the author of Rooted: Reconnecting with the History of the Church.

I BELIEVE

Having looked briefly at what the creed is, and where it comes from, let us turn to what it is that I actually believe, and why. My “inner Anglican” (as I call him) points me towards three sources of authority for my faith, namely –

(a) Scripture.

By this I mean the books of the Old and New Testaments, properly understood in their historic and literary contexts, as the primary source of religious truth, regarding the 39 books of the Hebrew Bible and the 27 books of the “Athanasian” canon of the New Testament as being canonical, with the deuterocanonical books (the “Apocrypha”) as possessing a real, but secondary authority.

(b) Tradition

Tradition is a difficult word. Scripture sometimes speaks negatively of human traditions (e.g. Matthew 15.1-9). However, as we have seen in the Introduction, there is a tradition of Christianity which comprises the core teachings of the faith, enshrined in the creeds and doctrinal decrees of the undivided Church. Of course, creeds and councils can err, as the Westminster divines noted (somewhat ironically, in a creed drawn up by a council), however, I would argue that, at very least, the burden of proof when interpreting Scripture should lie with the consensus of the early Church rather than our own private interpretations.

(c) Reason

My belief in reason supports, rather than undermines, my faith. After all, if everything (including human thought) is the by-product of random accident, then on what basis can I believe that anyone’s thoughts or observations necessarily correspond to objective reality. Rather, in human reason, I see a reflection (however dim) of the perfect mind of God.

Edward Rhodes, my friend and teaching colleague on The Internship, has kindly provided a series of guest posts reflecting on the Apostle’s Creed. This coincides with our current series at Emmanuel entitled Creed: Why I Believe

This series of blog posts is an attempt to summarise some key points of what I believe as a Christian using the framework of the Apostles’ Creed. It is not primarily intended as a defence (apologia) of the faith, although it may include some apologetic elements.

But first, before we start, it might be a good idea to take a brief look at the Apostles’ Creed itself. What is it and where does it come from?

The Apostles’ Creed is a brief summary of the main tenets of Christian belief, usually read aloud as part of the worship service of churches in the West. A modern translation of this text, used by the Church of England, runs as follows 

“I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again; he ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.”

So where does this come from?

Looking into this issue, I have found three sources for this summary of Christian belief, namely –

(a) the Scriptures,

(b) the “Rule of Faith,” and

(c) the baptismal questions used by the Roman church.

Let us look at each of these in turn.

(a) Scripture

While all the main points of the Creed are taught in, or can be reasonably deduced from, the Scriptures, this is not what I am talking about when I say that the roots of the Creed can be found in Scripture. Rather, I am arguing that the New Testament itself contains brief summaries of Christian belief, from which longer definitions could (and did) flow. One of the clearest examples of this can be found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, which reads:

“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.” (RSV)

(b) The “Rule of Faith”

The 2nd century Christian apologist, Irenaeus of Lyons, also produced a summary of the main teachings of the faith, in his dispute with the Gnostics. This follows a similar format to the Apostles’ Creed, but, interesting gives a much greater focus to the role played by the Holy Spirit.

“The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith:

[She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them.

And in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation.

And in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord.

And [the Holy Spirit proclaimed] His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,” and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all.

[So] that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,” and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.” (Against Heresies, book 1, chapter 1, section 1)

(c) The baptismal questions of the Roman church

Finally, Hippolytus of Rome has helpfully recorded the questions asked of people being baptised in the Christian community in Rome around the beginning of the 3rd century, which also bears a striking resemblance to the creed as we have it today. His description of a baptism reads as follows (note that baptism was by three-fold immersion, in the name of each Person of the Trinity) –

“When each of them to be baptized has gone down into the water, the one baptizing shall lay hands on each of them, asking, “Do you believe in God the Father Almighty?” And the one being baptized shall answer, “I believe.” He shall then baptize each of them once, laying his hand upon each of their heads. Then he shall ask, “Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, died, and rose on the third day living from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Father, the one coming to judge the living and the dead?” When each has answered, “I believe,” he shall baptize a second time. Then he shall ask, “Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the Holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh?” Then each being baptized shall answer, “I believe.” And thus let him baptize the third time.” (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition, chapter 21, verses 12-18)