Christ's descent to hell

At the Anglican church I attend, we confess the Apostle's Creed frequently. I love the way it summarizes the faith, but I'm saddened by the way the leaders have adopted the popular alteration of "descended to hell" to "descended to the dead". If we simply confess that, "He was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead," we have hardly touched Christ's wrath-bearing sacrifice. Our penalty is far greater than physical death - it is spiritual death. In a day when penal substitution is being called into question, it seems like confessing Christ's descent to hell (and teaching the congregation what it means!) would be a great way to protect the flock from heresy.

Here are Calvin's responses to those that want to remove the phrase

Question: Should we remove the phrase?

If any persons have scruples about admitting this article into the Creed, it will soon be made plain how important it is to the sum of our redemption: if it is left out, much of the benefit of Christ's death will be lost. [II.16.8]

Objection: But the phrase isn't original!

...in setting forth a summary of doctrine a place must be given to it, as it contains the useful and not-to-be-despised mystery of a most important matter. At least some of the old writers do not leave it out. From this we may conjecture that it was inserted after a time, and did not become customary in the churches at once, but gradually. This much is certain: that it reflected the common belief of all the godly; for there is no one of the fathers who does not mention in his writings Christ's descent into hell, through their interpretations vary. But 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; and containing nothing in it except what has been derived from the pure Word of God. [II.16.8]

Objection: It's unimportant, because it just repeats the idea of burial.

I grant that what they put forward concerning the meaning of the word is true: "hell" is frequently to be understood as "grave." But two reasons militate against their opinion, and readily persuade me to disagree with them. How careless it would have been, when something not at all difficult in itself has been stated with clear and easy words, to indicate it again in words that obscure rather than clarify it! ...Secondly, it is not likely that a useless repetition of this sort could have crept into this summary, in which the chief points of our faith are aptly noted in the fewest possible words. [II.16.8]

Question: OK, so what does "descended to hell" mean?

The explanation given to us in God's Word is not only holy and pious, but also full of wonderful consolation. If Christ had died only a bodily death, it would have been ineffectual. No - it was expedient at the same time for him to undergo the severity of Gods' vengeance, to appease his wrath and satisfy his just judgment. For this reason, he must also grapple hand to hand with the armies of hell and the dread of everlasting death. [II.16.10]

Calvin's biblical justification for this phrase is simply the fact that Christ bore God's wrath. Christ's death was not a merely physical thing ['crucified, died, and was buried"] but included the anger of God, which is His descent into hell.

Objection: But why is "descended to hell" recorded after "burial" if it actually preceded it?

Those who - on the ground that it is absurd to put after his burial what preceded it - say that the order is reversed in this way are making a very trifling and ridiculous objection. The point is that the Creed sets forth what Christ suffered in the sight of men, and then appositely speaks of that invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he underwent in the sight of God in order that we might know not only that Christ's body was given as the price of our redemption, but that he paid a greater and more excellent price in suffering in his soul the terrible torments of a condemned and forsaken man.

If you're interested in thinking about this further, then pick up a copy of Daniel Hyde's "In Defense of the Descent". It was just released and looks like a brilliant book. I've read the manuscript that he wrote prior to the book and found it to be very helpful. I can't wait to pick it up myself.