Is It OK to Confess That Jesus Descended into Hell? - by Justin Dillehay

Found here. Our comments in bold.
---------------------

We are posting just a part of the author's article, which centers on a single phrase from the Apostles' Creed: 

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary, Suffered under Pontius Pilate, Was crucified, dead, and buried. He descended into hell; The third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost; The Holy catholic Church, the Communion of Saints; The Forgiveness of sins; The Resurrection of the body, And the Life everlasting. Amen.

The author is discussing a book by Matthew Emerson, who attempts to explain what happened when Jesus descended. According to the author, there is a problem with the idea that Jesus descended to hell and was punished.

The author enthusiastically acknowledges the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement: ...it is gloriously true that Jesus delivered us from hell by experiencing the hellish torments of God’s wrath on the cross. This is "gloriously true," but then he states that Jesus being punished in hell doesn’t mean that Jesus suffered in hell’s flames.

So on one hand it's ok that the Father punished Jesus on the cross, yet on the other hand it's offensive he was also punished in hell. Why might one be gloriously true and the other is not?

We examined at length the idea that the Father punished Jesus, and have concluded that the Father did not punish Jesus at all. We therefore would assert with consistency that Jesus was neither punished on the cross, nor was He punished in hell. 

This is perhaps controversial, we realize. It is a cherished doctrine in much of Christendom. In fact, many have stated that Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a central doctrine, and to deny it is heresy. These ardent reformists defend the doctrine as critical to being a Christian.

Yet the doctrine was “virtually unattested” to before Calvin. It seems he invented a whole new doctrine, a doctrine that was basically unknown back then but is now is deemed critical. 

If Calvin overthrew 1500 years of doctrinal understanding, one might expect the biblical basis be unassailable. Once again we refer the reader to our analysis of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. We think there is good reason to abandon this doctrine.
-------------------

If your church has ever recited the Apostles’ Creed, you’re probably familiar with that awkward feeling you get when you come to the part that says “he descended into hell.”

(...)

What Christ’s Descent Doesn’t Mean

First, it doesn’t mean that Jesus suffered in hell’s flames. The book’s title alone would go a long way toward easing the concerns of many evangelicals, for whom the words “into hell” immediately conjure up images of Jesus being tormented. Emerson addresses this right out of the gate:

One point requiring absolute clarity is that “descended into hell” did not mean, until Calvin, “descend into the place of torment.” The creedal Latin varies between ad inferna (“descended into hell”) and ad inferos (“descended to the dead [ones]”), but these are synonyms until the Reformation. (16)

I don’t blame anyone for refusing to confess that Jesus went to hell and suffered. But since almost no one in the church held that understanding for the first 1,500 years, it seems a shame for evangelicals today to think they have to choose between violating their consciences and remaining silent. Thus one effect of Emerson’s book, I hope, will be for more churches to remove a needless stumbling block by changing the wording to something like “he descended to the dead” (as many churches already have). Anyone who can confess that Christ rose from the dead should be able to confess that he descended to the dead (cf. 42, 58).

Second, it doesn’t simply mean that Jesus suffered hell’s pains on the cross. This was the view of reformer John Calvin, though it is “virtually unattested” prior to him (99). Emerson agrees with Calvin’s view when considered as a theological statement—it is gloriously true that Jesus delivered us from hell by experiencing the hellish torments of God’s wrath on the cross. But as an explanation of the creed, it fails. Besides being “entirely novel” (100), it also interrupts the narrative structure of the creed, which places the descent after Christ’s crucifixion, death, and burial (107). Indeed, some contemporary Reformed theologians feel the weight of these objections and argue the phrase should simply be deleted.

(...)