Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 64

Did Christ Descend into Hell?

My son is memorizing the Apostles' Creed and asked me about the phrase, "He descended into hell." Did Jesus really go to hell? I didn't think he did, so I checked Wayne Grudem's excellent Systematic Theology for an answer.

I discovered the Apostles’ Creed was not written by a single person or approved by a church council at a specific time. It gradually took form between 200 A.D. and 750 A.D. The first version, by St. Irenaeus, didn’t include the phrase, “He descended into hell.” Rather, Rufinus first inserted it in 390 A.D.

Rufinus, however, did not intend the phrase to mean that Christ descended into hell. He simply meant that Christ was “buried.” It was a literary device to emphasize that Christ actually died. Rufinus meant Jesus “descended into the grave.”

There were at least five more versions of the Creed after Rufinus, but none of them contained his expression. It wasn’t until 650 A.D. that someone inserted it again. Then, people didn’t seem to know Rufinus’ intended meaning of the phrase. They began to speculate as to how to harmonize the claim that Christ went to hell with the rest of Scripture. Some said Christ went to hades or the netherworld. Others said He actually went to hell. Of course, many today still try other ways to explain the phrase.

The bottom line is that the Apostles’ Creed didn’t originally include the phrase “He descended into hell.” Even when Rufinus inserted it, he never intended it to mean that Christ actually went to hell. This is besides the fact that there is no biblical justification for such a claim.

There seems to be at least three options for Christians today. One, they can recite the creed in its current form and simply remember in their mind that the phrase “He descended into hell” is a figure of speech for Christ descending into the grave. Two, they can recite the creed by changing the words to “He descended into the grave.” And three, they can simply omit the phrase.

Personally, I lean towards omitting the phrase when I recite the creed. Option two, however, is nice because you can keep speaking along with everyone else if you're saying it in a group.

Grudem has an extended article on this question that was published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. You can read it here.

When Do You Give up on Talking to Mormons?

Brett explains when you should give up on talking to Mormons about Christianity. 

Have Grace for Fellow Christians on the Age of the Earth

The age of the earth is not a topic we discuss much on our website. We have an article by Greg on why he believes in an old earth, but not every employee we’ve had has agreed with that, and it’s not something we take a hard stance on as an organization. (We do, however, affirm the primacy of Scripture and a historical Adam and Eve, and we’ve argued against theistic evolution). We think Christians can take different positions on the age of the earth and still be orthodox—that the difference is often one of biblical interpretation rather than one of biblical rejection, and that the real fight on our hands when it comes to creation is not with our fellow believers, but with the naturalists.

But while the controversy over the age of the earth is not an area of my expertise, I have a great interest in promoting grace among Christians on this issue. I receive letters from time to time from people who are angry about what Greg has said about this and are convinced the old earth position is rooted in a low view of the Bible that will tear down the faith. 

I don’t think this is necessarily true of old-earthers (though it may be true for some), and it shouldn’t be assumed. A few years ago, I posted a video of R.C. Sproul (who holds to a literal six-day creation) exhibiting grace on this issue, and I think he models well the grace we need to have for each other.

To that same end of promoting grace, you ought to read a post by Justin Taylor titled “Biblical Reasons to Doubt the Creation Days Were 24-Hour Periods.” An excerpt to get you started:

I want to suggest there are some good, textual reasons—in the creation account itself—for questioning the exegesis that insists on the days as strict 24 hour periods. Am I as certain of this as I am of the resurrection of Christ? Definitely not. But in some segments of the church, I fear that we’ve built an exegetical “fence around the Torah,” fearful that if we question any aspect of young-earth dogmatics we have opened the gate to liberalism. The defenders of inerrancy above show that this is not the case. And a passion for sola Scriptura provides us with the humility and willingness to go back to the text again to see if these things are so. 

Old-earthers, respect the admirable passion of young-earthers to honor the Word of God. Young-earthers, understand that many old-earthers share that passion and do not see a contradiction between an old earth and the Word of God. You will likely still disagree with each other on the age of the earth after reading Taylor’s article, and I'm not saying you shouldn't continue to debate it, but my hope is that grace will increase.

Why the Gospel of Luke Should Be Dated Earlier than AD 67

Here’s an argument from Glenn Peoples for an early date for the Gospel of Luke:

There’s widespread consensus that Mark was written early, but not such consensus for the others. But here’s a thought: St Paul, while he was writing his Epistles, appears to have known what was written in the Gospel of Luke….

Here is why this appears to be the case. This is an excerpt from Paul’s first letter to Timothy (1 Timothy 5:17–18): 

Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in preaching and teaching; for the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and, “The labourer deserves to be paid.”

Paul claims to be quoting from scripture. But which parts of scripture is he quoting from? The first one is easy. “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain” comes from the Torah, in Deuteronomy 25:4. What about the second quote, “the labourer deserves to be paid?” or more literally, “the worker deserves his wages?” (the NRSV from which I quoted often alters the sentence to remove reference to gender). Is it anywhere in the Hebrew Scripture? What about the Septuagint? Nope, nowhere. Was there any Jewish writing at the time that contained this saying and which might have been regarded as scripture? No. So what was he quoting from when he claimed that this is something contained in scripture?

Here’s a quote from something that Christians today regard as Scripture: “Remain in the same house, eating and drinking whatever they provide, for the labourer deserves to be paid.”

And there it is, the elusive phrase. This is from the Gospel of Luke (10:7), where Jesus is giving his disciples instructions before sending them out. So how did Paul know about this saying being in Scripture? Remember that St Paul is believed to have died in AD 67.

So, here is where we are: At some point prior to his death (which is when people tend to write letters) in AD 67 or thereabouts, St Paul quoted from Luke’s Gospel and called it “scripture.” But pretty obviously, you can’t quote from a book unless the book exists. Consequently, the Gospel of Luke must have been written and had time to become recognised by the early Christian community as bearing witness to the life of Jesus prior to AD 67.

So Luke’s Gospel was probably written in the 50s or 60s.

In the rest of his post, he examines and responds to objections (e.g., Paul was referring to oral testimony, Paul didn’t write 1 Timothy, etc.) to this argument. For another post on this topic, see Greg’s “A Short Argument for the Early Dating of the Gospels,” where he takes another path to an early date for Luke.

Challenge Response: Why Say Meaning Is Only Possible in a Theistic World?

Here's my response to this week's challenge:

 

Could “Good” and “Evil” Exist without God?

Reasonable Faith has released another apologetics video, and this one explains the moral argument for the existence of God. (If you missed their kalam cosmological argument video, watch it here.)

 

Links Mentioned on the 1/27/15 Show

The following are links that were either mentioned on this week's show or inspired by it, as posted live on the @STRtweets Twitter feed:

Will Christians Be Allowed to Serve as Judges in California? by Denny Burk


Religious Liberty and the Gay Marriage Endgame by Ross Douthat


The Line in the Sand by Greg Koukl (PDF)


Forcing Doctors to Kill by Wesley J. Smith


Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God by Eric Metaxas


The Nazi Doctors by Robert Jay Lifton


Apologetics Canada Conference 2015 – April 24-25


Subscribe to the podcast


When a Baby Dies by Ronald Nash


Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl

Listen to today's show or download any archived show for free. (Find links from past shows here.)

To follow the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00–7:00 p.m. PT), use the hashtag #STRtalk.

Challenge: Why Say Meaning Is Only Possible in a Theistic World?

This week’s challenge, taken from a blog comment, is about whether or not there can be real meaning in life if God doesn’t exist:

I personally don't understand why a relatively "local" sense of purpose (limited to the scope of what humanity can grasp) is deemed insufficient by theists. I don't understand why it has to be "all or nothing," why our precarious sense of "meaning" – infinitesimal against the magnitude of physical reality – must encompass the whole universe, or else we lack all meaning. That seems incoherent to me.

Can anything be called “meaningful” in a world without God? If not, why not? How would you answer this blog commenter? Give us your thoughts in the comments below, then Brett will post a video with his answer on Thursday.

[Explore past challenges here and here.]

How Can I Be a Good Ambassador When My Job Makes Me Teach Humanism?

Greg shares how you can keep your Christian convictions while working in a secular environment.

All Paths Do Lead to God

A reminder from Kevin DeYoung:

All paths lead to God, but only one path will present you before God without fault and with great joy.

Pick a path, any path—it will take you to God. Trust me: you will stand before Him one day. You will meet your Maker. You will see the face of Christ.

There are many ways up the mountain, but only one will result in life instead of destruction.

Greg on why Jesus is the only way to life instead of destruction: 

Then I asked him, "Have you ever committed any moral crimes?"

"Yes," he said.

"So have I," I responded. "So now we have this difficult situation. We both believe those who commit moral crimes should be punished, and we both believe we've committed moral crimes. Do you know what I call that? Bad news."

I continued, "This is where Jesus comes in. We both know we're guilty, worthy of punishment. God offers a pardon on His terms: Jesus, because He has personally paid the penalty on our behalf. You can either take the pardon and go free, or leave it and pay for your own crimes yourself."

This approach gives an accurate sense of why the cross is important and why Jesus is actually necessary, showing God as merciful, not petty. The biblical message is not if you don't believe in Jesus you go to Hell. Rather the message is, "If you don't receive a pardon for your crimes, you'll be punished as you should be." The former approach confuses the doctor with the disease. If you refuse the doctor's medicine for your disease, the blame belongs to the disease, not the doctor. The obituary doesn't read, "Cause of Death: He didn't go to the doctor."

It's the disease—sin—that kills, not the lack of a doctor. Jesus is the only way because He is the only one that provides the cure for what ails us.