First, there is no dispute that "He descended into hell" (descensus ad inferos) is not original. It is not found in either the earliest known form of the creed in 215 AD (Creed of Hippolytus), or in its next form in 340 AD (Creed of Marcellus). The earliest appearance of it is 404 AD (the Creed of Rufinus Aquileia). Any standard text book will expand on these undisputed facts. Here is a typical summary: "The Apostles' Creed, in its original form, read as follows: "Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead, and buried; the third day He rose again from the dead". This is also the form in the two creeds of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381): a certain proof that these great ecumenical councils did not regard the Descensus as one of the articles of the catholic faith. The first appearance of the clause, "He descended into Hades", is in the latter half of the fourth century, in the creed of the church of Aquileia". (WGT Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, vol. 2, pages 604-605). A close study of the history and transmission of the Apostles' Creed shows that it did not exist in its present form until 710-724 at the earliest. Shedd's conclusion seems undeniable: "If, then, the text of the Apostles' creed shall be subjected, like that of the New Testament, to a revision in accordance with the text of the first four centuries, the Descensus ad inferos must be rejected as an interpolation". Is that clause original and authentic? No.

Second, what does it mean anyway? Ask 20 educated Christians and you'll get 20 different answers. For example, J.I. Packer takes it as a further explanation of the previous clause ("crucified, dead, and buried"), in other words Christ really died! He takes "hell" to mean "Hades" meaning simply the state of death, and "descended" as figurative, the language of burial.

And then there is the quite different view of Calvin and Witsius (the conscious sufferings of Christ on the cross as He died the 'second death' for us). Many Reformed believers hold Calvin's view. The most extensive work on the Apostles' Creed was done by Bishop John Pearson. He proposes a third view: the state of blissful rest of our Lord's human soul until the third day when He arose in His full humanity. Pearson's view at least accords well with the notion that this clause was added to the creed late in order to counter the error of Apollinarianism (denying a true human soul in Christ). So it is historically plausible, but it leaves us with an incredibly forced equation to draw, namely that "he descended into hell" means the same as "today in Paradise". Hardly the first thing that comes to mind! Yet this man is the expert on the Creed!

Sadly, many people think it refers to an actual trip made by Jesus after His death where He delivered some message to the spirits of dead people. There are many variations on this theme but they assume the Creed here is commenting on 1 Peter 3:18-20. However that text is not talking of any such thing, but refers to the Spirit of Christ speaking through Noah the preacher to men on earth before the flood. So what does the Creed mean? It depends who you ask.

Third, should we confess it today? The "descended into hell" clause hinders the usefulness of that creed. Even on pragmatic grounds it fails to do what creeds intend (express common belief). In a typical gathering of 100 or so Christians anywhere in the world, there would be a variety of views confessed when that clause is repeated, all the way from the plausible to the superstitious, so I wonder who are we kidding? In a creed where every other statement appears literal and chronological, it is asking a lot to take this clause as metaphorical or figurative and perhaps parenthetical or explanatory (a la Packer). When such an array of very competent evangelical scholars differ so much, how is the ordinary man in the pew to know what he is confessing or who to believe? Further, regardless of which view you hold, there could hardly be a worse way of saying it than "he descended into hell"! If, for example, Packer is right, why not say "He really died"! Why retain utterly ambiguous and misleading language? Whatever it might have meant 1600 years ago, our culture conveys different ideas by words like "descended" and "hell".

Following a considerable Internet debate on this matter, one Reformed brother concluded that though we will probably never know what the originators of this portion of the Creed meant, yet we do know what it cannot mean as correct orthodoxy, so let's say the Creed in Church! Against this I must protest. We can't resort to 'limiting concepts', effectively making the mental note "I confess this thing, not knowing for sure what it DOES mean, but knowing a lot of possibilities that it MIGHT mean as well as several possibilities that it CANNOT mean". But that is precisely where the Apostle's Creed finds us! Who are we kidding?

If we want to confess orthodox gospel faith to this generation, then let's say what we mean and mean what we say. There is a place for retaining the historic original forms of all our important church documents (constitutions, creeds, declarations). These are to be used for official matters: all debates about meaning have to refer back to them. But let's translate them into good modern idiom, understandable to the culture we live in, and let's do our confessing and testifying to a watching world in language not foreign to them. Let all things be done for edification. We do it with Scripture, why not for lesser documents? Blessed consistency.