He went through Hell

Long Live the Apostle’s Creed:

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 and born of the virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to hell. The third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty. From there 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.

We should not neglect or omit the juicy part: Christ was crucified died and was buried; he descended into hell.

Note that the language does not demand, as commonly assumed, that Christ descended into hell (whatever that might entail) after he (in his humanity) was dead. The hell clause could simply constitute further elaboration of how he suffered while on the cross (i.e., his soul suffered in hell--or as if in hell-- while his body suffered the crucifixion) rather than subsequent suffering after his body was entombed. It’s not clear. But in any case it is evident that at some point the early church taught that Christ suffered hell.

Let's turn to Calvin. (All Calvin quotes in this post are from here. All emphasis is added.) Calvin is adamant that the church should not forget this teaching:

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.

Calvin makes a bold claim: much of the benefit of Christ’s death is dependent upon the truth of the creed’s statement of descent. Calvin, being Calvin, will not neglect an attempt to support his position. He begins by dismissing other explanations:

Others interpret it differently: that Christ descended to the souls of the patriarchs who had died under the law, to announce redemption as accomplished and to free them from the prison where they were confined. To back up this interpretation, they wrongly adduce evidence from a psalm: "He shatters the doors of bronze and the bars of iron" [Psalm 107:16]. Likewise, from Zechariah: "He will redeem the captives from the waterless pit" [Zechariah 9:11]. But the psalm foretells the liberation of those who are cast into bondage in far-off countries; Zechariah, moreover, compares the Babylonian disaster, into which the people had been cast, to a deep, dry pit or abyss, and at the same time teaches that the salvation of the whole church is a release from the nether depths. Thus, it has happened in some way or other that later generations thought it to be a place under the earth, to which they gave the name "Limbo." But this story, although it is repeated by great authors, and even today is earnestly defended as true by many persons, still is nothing but a story. It is childish to enclose the souls of the dead in a prison. What need, then, for Christ’s soul to go down there to release them?

Calvin then explains why he views this doctrine as important:

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 God’s 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. A little while ago we referred to the prophet’s statement that "the chastisement of our peace was laid upon him," "he was wounded for our transgressions" by the Father, "he was bruised for our infirmities" [Isaiah 53:5]. By these words he means that Christ was put in place of evildoers as surety and pledge — submitting himself even as the accused — to bear and suffer all the punishments that they ought to have sustained. All — with this one exception: "He could not be held by the pangs of death" [Acts 2:24]. No wonder, then, if he is said to have descended into hell, for he suffered the death that, God in his wrath had inflicted upon the wicked! 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.

Calvin may be wrong, but his logic is not easily refuted. The just punishment for our sin is not a death on the cross—it is hell itself. Calvin also makes an argument similar to Luther, who stated that no man ever feared death as much as Jesus. It seems unlikely (even to the point of the blasphemy of insulting our Lord's character) to argue that Jesus had such anxiety as he exhibited in Gethsemane because of the knowledge of his impending bodily sufferings on the cross, horrible as that must have been. Normal men have faced worse physical deaths with great aplomb. However if Jesus knew he would endure hell, then his anguish becomes rather obvious. Calvin writes:

Here certain untutored wretches, impelled more by malice than by ignorance, cry out that I am doing a frightful injustice to Christ. For they hold it incongruous for him to fear for the salvation of his soul. Then they stir up a harsher slander: that I attribute to the Son of God a despair contrary to faith. First, these men wickedly raise a controversy over Christ’s fear and dread, which the Evangelists so openly relate. For before the hour of death approached, "he was troubled in spirit" [ John 13:21] and stricken with grief, and when it came upon him, he, began to tremble more intensely with fear [cf. Matthew 26:37]. To say that he was pretending — as they do — is a foul evasion. We must with assurance, therefore, confess Christ’s sorrow, as Ambrose rightly teaches, unless we are ashamed of the cross. And surely, unless his soul shared in the punishment, he would have been the Redeemer of bodies alone. 

Having said all this, by using language like "No wonder, then, if he is said to have descended into hell," Calvin does not go so far as to say that either Christ's body or his soul was spatially removed to the location of hell. Calvin is only arguing that Christ's soul suffered the anguish of being in hell. (Whether he was adamant that there was no spatial visitation or whether he viewed such a question as unanswerable and unprofitable, I don't know.)

In crude terms, Calvin is saying: The hell clause is important and should be retained. Jesus may not have literally visited hell, but he "went through hell," a hell with suffering that was way beyond the physical pain, and that hell he experienced is a crucial ingredient of our redemption.

Amen.

Calvin's view, I believe, is the same as you find in the Heidelberg Catechism:

Q. Why does the creed add, “He descended to hell”? 

A. To assure me during attacks of deepest dread and temptation that Christ my Lord, by suffering unspeakable anguish, pain, and terror of soul, on the cross but also earlier,has delivered me from hellish anguish and torment.

The quotes from Calvin presented in this post are an abridged version of his arguments. You can see the totality here.   Although I call myself a Calvinist it is not a fait accompli that I agree with him on all matters. In this case I find his arguments persuasive, and no longer “cringe” at the creed’s description that Christ descended into hell. I am relieved at feeling an unease at the unsatisfying arguments as to how either the creed was wrong (although like all creeds and confessions and catechisms it surely could be) or that it doesn't mean what it plainly says.