Introduction
The
Apostles’ Creed has been called “the Creed of creeds.”[1] J.N.D. Kelly states that Christians have long
understood a creed to be “a fixed formula summarizing the essential articles of
their religion and enjoying the sanction of the ecclesiastical authority.”[2] Besides being useful as summaries of belief,
creeds have had significant functions in baptismal confessions, catechetical
instruction, preaching, and also important use in liturgies.[3] Karl Barth observes, “When the individual says
in the sense of the symbol, credo, he does not do that as an individual, but he
confesses, and that means – he includes himself in the public and responsible
recognition made by the church.”[4] The acceptance and recognition of the Apostles’
Creed is near ubiquitous, being acknowledged in the Greek, Latin, and
Evangelical Protestant churches.[5] Having this widespread, almost unanimous
consent, one might think that the history of the Apostles’ Creed is
straightforward and that the articles used in the formula have been fixed from
antiquity. This however is not the
case. As Swete states, “The present
Apostles’ Creed is a document of composite origin with a long and complicated
history.”[6]
In
this paper, I intend to briefly sketch an overview of this history with
particular attention to the clause “He descended into hell.” In A Legendary History, I will discuss the
early and long lived view that the Apostles themselves composed the creed by
each contributing an article. In the
next section, A Gradual Development, I will seek to chronicle the emergence of
the Apostles’ Creed from the Old Roman Creed and the “rule of faith” to the textus
receptus version found earliest in the eighth century. In Acceptance of the Creed, I will focus on
the recognition and acknowledgement of the creed in the various branches of
Christianity. Finally, in Interpretations of the Descent, I will note the
various explanations and objections to the descent clause in the Apostles’
Creed.
A Legendary History
One
might ask in what sense is the Apostles’ Creed itself apostolic? From very early in the church until the
middle of the seventeenth century the answer among both Catholics and Protestants
was simple. The Apostles themselves
composed the creed.[7] The Apostles’ Creed was said to be composed
by the twelve Apostles on the eve of their dispersal in Jerusalem under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit.[8] Notable figures that promulgated this view
include: Tertullian, Jerome, Ambrose, Leo,[9] Irenaeus,
Rufinus, and others.[10] Over time, the legend or “pious fiction” as
Kelly calls it,[11]
grew to include accounts that each of the twelve Apostles contributed an
article to the creed.[12]
The first questioning of the direct authorship of the Apostles came about in the fifteenth century.[13] Reginald Pecock, bishop of Asaph and later Chichester, denied the apostolic authorship of the creed and rejected the article on the descent into hell.[14] Because of this, he was forced to resign. Later, the apostolic origin of the Creed was called into question by Laurentius, Valla, Erasmus, and Calvin.[15] According to Schaff, since then the theory of apostolic origin “has been so clearly disproved … that it ought never to be seriously asserted again.”[16] Though the apostolic authorship has been set aside, the creed is still seen by many to be apostolic in that it reproduces apostolic doctrine authentically.[17]
A Gradual Development
The
historical development of the Apostles’ Creed is difficult to reconstruct in
all its details. The present form of the
creed did not exist in the earliest days of Christianity.[18] Rather, it grew out of an ancient “rule of
faith”, the Old Roman Creed, and other sources.[19] In the second century, writers were
mentioning the rule of faith which has great similarity to the Apostles’ Creed.[20] Tertullian writes:
The rule of faith … teaches us to believe in one God
almighty, creator of the world, and his son Jesus Christ, born from the virgin
Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, raised on the third day from the dead,
taken up into heaven now sitting on the father’s right hand, destined to come
to judge the living and the dead through the resurrection of the flesh.[21]
Around
the same time, the Old Roman Creed was seen used in Rome as a Trinitarian
baptismal confession of faith.[22] The Old Roman Creeds’ influence upon other
creeds in the west and also in the east was pronounced.[23] The text for the creed in Latin form is given
to us by the Aquileian priest Rufinus writing around 404.[24] The Old Roman Creed bears remarkable
resemblance to our Apostles’ Creed. Some
of the exceptions include the omission of the communion of saints, the word
catholic applied to the holy church, and Christ’s decent into hell.[25] The
descent clause was however included in the Aquileian Creed. Of the various modifications of the Old Roman
Creed, Kelly argues that none are of decisive importance save that of the
descent clause.[26] With reference to that, he states that it has
“involved exegetical difficulties of no mean order”[27]
which we will look at in a subsequent section.
The first creed to give official recognition to the descent clause was
the Arian creed of Sirmium dated in 359, which reads, “was crucified, died, and
descended into hell, and regulated things there, whom the gatekeepers of hell
saw and shuddered, and rose again from the dead on the third day.”[28]
Although
the descent clause was largely absent from the creeds of the early church, many
of the early church fathers included affirmative discussions of Christ’s decent
in their writings. It was expounded upon
by Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others.[29] Cyril of Jerusalem even goes so far as to
include it in his writing on the ten “necessary dogmas.”[30] There seems to be no significant controversy
or objection to the clause during this period.
The descent into hell was included in St. Priminius’ version of the
Apostles’ Creed (c. 725) which is for all purposes identical to the version we
have today.[31]
Acceptance of the Creed
The
Apostles’ Creed, as found in St. Priminius, was considered the authoritative
version of the creed in the west during the eleventh and twelfth centuries.[32] Pope Innocent III, St. Thomas Aquinas, and
St. Ivo of Chartres all wrote works on the Apostles’ Creed based on this
version.[33]
The acceptance was notably different
however in the Eastern Church. In an
attempt to bring together the churches of the east and west, a council was held
at Florence in 1438-45.[34] Early on, the Latin representatives appealed
to the Apostles’ Creed. The Greek
Metropolitan of Ephesus, Marcus Eugenicus, rejected the appeal declaring, “We
do not possess and have never seen this creed of the Apostles. If it had ever existed, the book of Acts
would have spoken of it.”[35] In the Orthodox churches, the Apostles’ Creed
has never been included among the theological standards and is not found in the
liturgy.[36]
However, the suspicion they once had
about it has been abandoned for quite some time.[37]
During
the Reformation, with the exception of the Anabaptists,[38] the
creed enjoyed widespread recognition as the fundamental confession of the
Christian faith.[39] It was supported by Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, and
Cranmer.[40] The creed has a significant place in the Book
of Common Prayer as seen in its catechism, baptismal service, and the daily
offices.[41] Despite the widespread recognition and
reverent esteem for the creed, the editor of Calvin’s Institutes notes
that there were a few incidents of concern and rejection of the descent clause
by Christopher Carlisle at Cambridge in 1552 and Robert Parks in 1607.[42] In 1785, the Protestant Episcopal Church
struck out the descended clause from the Apostles’ Creed despite the Archbishop
of Canterbury urging them to keep the clause.[43]
In
the nineteenth century serious doubts were articulated whether any creed
whatsoever could have existed in the New Testament period.[44] Kelly, Swete, and others argue strongly
against the idea showing that there are manifold evidences in the Scriptures
themselves of creedal like summaries of the faith.[45] One may point to the “Shema” in Deuteronomy
6, or to Paul “delivering” what he had “received” in I Corinthians 11:23-29,
and also in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8.[46] Further, one can point to creedal like
statements in Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian.[47]
Interpretations of the Descent
The
interpretations of Christ’s decent into hell are various and manifold. One may divide the interpretations into four
categories: the descent into hell simply means the same as buried, Christ made
a literal descent down into hell or hades, Christ descended into hell on the
cross, and finally that there was no descent into hell at all.
A
minority view is that the words “he descended into hell” simply mean the same
thing as dead or buried. Kelly points
out, “If it secured admittance first in a Syrian speaking locality, it was no
doubt regarded initially as no more than a colorful equivalent of dead and
buried.”[48] The Greek form of the word hades can be
interpreted as grave.[49] Rufinus, who compared the Old Roman Creed to
the Aquileian Creed in 404, understood the clause to mean simply that Christ
was buried.[50]
Calvin disagrees with this interpretation by arguing that it is not fitting to
have clear words followed by obscure.[51] Calvin further states, “It is not likely that
a useless repetition of this sort could have crept into this summary.”[52]
A
second school of interpretation, which has significant adherents, is that
Christ made a literal descent down into hell or the place of the dead. Such notables include Ignatius, Polycarp,
Irenaeus, and Aquinas.[53] Aquinas had no less than three reasons for
Christ’s decent.[54] First, that Christ might “shoulder the full
punishment of sin, and expiate all of its guilt”.[55] Second, that He might totally triumph over
Satan.[56] He states, “Someone perfectly triumphs over
another when they not only conquer them in the open field, but also snatch them
from the heart of their own kingdom and home.”[57] The third reason Aquinas gives is for Jesus
to free the saints who were in hell.[58] For Aquinas, one practical implication of
Christ’s descent is that we should support those in purgatory.[59]
A
third view is that Christ descended into hell on the cross. Calvin rejects the notion of Christ
descending to the patriarchs, calling it “nothing but a story” and states that
“it is childish to enclose the souls of the dead in a prison.”[60] Though he rejects this interpretation and
further acknowledges that the clause was not in the early versions of the
creed, he insists that we should not omit it.[61] Calvin argues, “It matters little by whom or
at what time this clause was inserted.
Rather, the noteworthy point about the creed is this: we have in it a summary of our faith, full
and complete in all details; containing nothing in it except what has been
derived from the pure word of God.”[62] For Calvin, it was necessary that Christ’s
soul suffer punishment as well as His body,[63]
which Barth citing Calvin calls “the misery of an ordeal” referring to Christ’s
cry “My God, My God, why has Thou forsaken Me?"[64] Calvin notes that this cry “was
unquestionably drawn from him by intensity of sorrow. And certainly this was
his chief conflict, and harder than all the other tortures.”[65]
The final view to survey is that
Christ did not descend into hell and therefore the descent clause should be
omitted from the Apostles’ Creed. In his
Systematic Theology, Grudem argues against the inclusion of the descent
clause stating that it has no support from the first six centuries, has no
claim to being apostolic, and has no warrant from Scripture.[66] He remarks that various interpretations of
the clause are “an unconvincing attempt to salvage some theologically
acceptable sense out of them.”[67] His arguments include that the origins of the
clause are “far from praiseworthy,” the clause was not written or approved by a
single church council at one time, and that the clause was not found in any of
the early versions of the creed until 390, then not included again in any
version until 650.[68] He states that the placement of the clause
after “was crucified, dead, and buried” makes non literal descent views “an
artificial and unconvincing interpretation.”[69]
Conclusion
As
we have seen, the history of the Apostles’ Creed is a dynamic rather than
stagnant one. Although there have been
some disputes, the Apostles’ Creed along with the Nicene and Athanasian creeds hold
an important place in the theology and history of the Roman, Orthodox, and
Protestant churches. According to
Schaff, creeds “keep alive sectarian strifes and antagonisms, but they reveal
also the underlying agreement, and foreshadow the possibility of future harmony.”[70]
[1] Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (New York: Harper, 1977), 14.
[2] J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (New York: D. McKay Co., 1972), 1.
[3] Kelly, Early Creeds,
13-14.
[4] Karl Barth, Credo
(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1962), 3-4.
[5] Schaff, Creeds, 12.
[6] H.B. Swete, The Apostles' Creed; Its
Relation to Primitive Christianity (Oxford:
University Press, 1905), 15.
[7] Schaff, Creeds, 22.
[8] Henri de Lubac, The Christian Faith:
An Essay on the Structure of the Apostles' Creed (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986), 19.
[9] Lubac, Christian Faith, 20-23.
[10] Kelly, Early Creeds, 2.
[11] Kelly, Early Creeds, 29.
[12] Sydney Barr, From the Apostles’ Faith to the Apostles’ Creed (London: Oxford
University Press, 1964), 7.
[13] Kelly, Early Creeds, 4.
[14] Kelly, Early Creeds, 5.
[15] Schaff, Creeds, 23.
[16] Schaff, Creeds, 23.
[17] Kelly, Early Creeds, 5.
[18] Lubac, Christian Faith, 19.
[19] Swete, Apostle’s Creed, 15-17, 56-61.
[20] Lubac, Christian Faith, 20.
[21] Quoted in Kelly, Early Creeds, 86. (C.C.L. 2, 1209)
[22] Barr, Apostle’s faith, 6.
[23] Kelly, Early Creeds, 101.
[24] Kelly, Early Creeds, 101.
[25] Swete, Apostle’s Creed, 17.
[26] Kelly, Early Creeds, 378.
[27] Kelly, Early Creeds, 378.
[28] Kelly, Early Creeds, 289-290.
[29] Kelly, Early Creeds, 379.
[30] Swete, Apostle’s
Creed, 57.
[31] Kelly, Early Creeds, 398.
[32] Kelly, Early Creeds,
427.
[33] Kelly, Early Creeds,
427.
[34] Kelly, Early Creeds,
4.
[35] Kelly, Early Creeds,
4.
[36] Kelly, Early Creeds,
368.
[37] Kelly, Early Creeds,
368.
[38] Kelly, Early Creeds,
368.
[39] Barth, Credo, 1.
[40] Kelly, Early Creeds,
368.
[41] Swete, Apostle’s Creed, 9.
[42] John Calvin, Institutes of the
Christian Religion 2.16.12,
LCC, 2 vols., trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1960), 518.
[43] Schaff, Creeds, 42.
[44] Kelly, Early Creeds, 5.
[45] Kelly, Early Creeds, 8-22. Swete, Apostle’s Creed, 20-28.
[46] Kelly, Early Creeds, 17-22.
[47] Kelly, Early Creeds, 70-86.
[48] Kelly, Early Creeds, 383.
[49] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An
Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2000), 650.
[50] Schaff, Creeds, 21
[51] Calvin, Institutes, 2.16.8.
[52] Calvin, Institutes, 2.16.8.
[53] Barr, Apostle’s faith, 137.
[54] Thomas Aquinas, The Sermon-Conferences
of St. Thomas Aquinas on the Apostles' Creed, trans. Nicholas Ayo (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame
Press, 1988), 79.
[55] Aquinas,
Sermon-Conferences, 79.
[56] Aquinas,
Sermon-Conferences, 81.
[57] Aquinas,
Sermon-Conferences, 81.
[58] Aquinas,
Sermon-Conferences, 81.
[59] Aquinas,
Sermon-Conferences, 83.
[60] Calvin, Institutes, 2.16.9.
[61] Calvin, Institutes, 2.16.8.
[62] Calvin, Institutes, 2.16.8.
[63] Calvin, Institutes, 2.16.12.
[64] Barth, Credo, 88.
[65] Jean Calvin, Commentary on the Harmony of the Gospels in Calvin’s Commentaries (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1999),
111.
[66] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 594.
[67] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 587.
[68] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 586-587.
[69] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 587.
[70] Schaff, Creeds, 4.
No comments:
Post a Comment