The Harrowing of Hell

What the Bible Actually Teaches About Christ’s Descent

For millennia, Christians have recited the Apostles’ Creed, affirming that Jesus “was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to the dead.” But what exactly does it mean that Christ “descended”? Did He go to hell? Did He liberate souls from limbo? Was there a cosmic battle raging in the underworld in the time between the cross and the resurrection?

In artistic imagination and historical interpretation (especially in medieval theology), Jesus drops in like the Doomguy, storms the gates of hell, defeats demonic powers, and sets the captives free.

It’s a powerful image. But is it what the Bible actually teaches?

What Is the Harrowing of Hell?

The Harrowing of Hell is the interpretation that between His crucifixion and resurrection, Christ descended into the underworld—often called Hades, Sheol, or “hell”—to proclaim victory, defeat demonic powers, and liberate the righteous dead. This view was popularized in the early centuries of the Church, expanded in medieval theology, and has been deeply embedded into Christian thought for centuries.

At its core, the Harrowing doctrine holds that:

• Christ entered the realm of the dead after His crucifixion.

• He proclaimed victory to those imprisoned there—whether humans, demons, or both.

• He liberated the righteous, often thought to include figures such as Adam, Abraham, and David, among others, from the Old Testament.

• His descent was active, not passive: a mission of conquest and deliverance.

This interpretation draws on the imagery of Christ as Victor over death, descending to the very gates of the realm of the dead itself to shatter its power from within. Some versions even describe Christ smashing the gates of Hades, binding the devil, and leading the faithful into heaven.

However, while the theological motive behind this view is often noble—a desire to emphasize Christ’s cosmic victory and compassion for the saints of old—the biblical support isn’t as strong as some believe. In fact, many of the claims associated with the Harrowing are rooted more in speculative theology than in actual contextual study of Scripture.

Sources that helped develop and popularize this view include:

• The Gospel of Nicodemus (apocryphal, 4th century) offers a vivid narrative of Jesus storming hell and rescuing Adam.

• Irenaeus and Origen speculate about Christ’s postmortem activity.

• Later theologians, such as Gregory the Great and Thomas Aquinas, as well as various liturgical traditions that developed between the 4th and 13th centuries.

While the Harrowing remains a part of several theological systems and liturgical practices today, it’s far from a settled doctrine. Its biblical foundation is highly debated, and its theological implications—especially concerning the sufficiency of the cross and the nature of death—deserve careful scrutiny.

While I do not personally subscribe to this interpretation, I think it’s important to consider the historical roots and understand how the Harrowing is interpreted in Scripture. The key arguments, as I understand them (and not exhaustive), are as follows.

Biblical Interpretation of the Harrowing

1 Peter 3:18–20 – “He went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison…”

This passage is considered the primary passage that is believed to refer to the Harrowing of Hell. The standard interpretation is that Christ descended to Hades after His death to proclaim victory to disobedient spirits or to preach the gospel to the righteous dead. The phrase “spirits in prison” is taken literally, and the act of proclamation is understood as either judgment (for demons) or redemption (for people).

1 Peter 4:6 – “The gospel was preached even to the dead…”

Connected to 1 Peter 3, this verse is often cited to support the idea that Christ offered salvation to the dead during the Harrowing, particularly to those who died before hearing the gospel.

Ephesians 4:8–10 – “He descended into the lower parts of the earth…”

This is again often read as a literal descent into the realm of the dead. “Lower parts” is taken to mean Hades, where Christ is believed to have descended before ascending.

Acts 2:27, 31 / Psalm 16 – “You will not abandon my soul to Hades…”

Peter cited David’s words to describe Jesus’ death and descent into Hades, affirming that He was not left there.

Matthew 12:40 – “Three days and three nights in the heart of the earth…”

Jesus’ words here are taken to indicate His literal, active presence in the realm of the dead, paralleling Jonah’s time in the fish as a foreshadowing of his descent into Hades/Sheol.

Revelation 1:18 – “I hold the keys of Death and Hades.”

Jesus’ words are taken here as evidence that He conquered these domains by entering them during the Harrowing and emerging victorious.

Matthew 27:52–53 – “The tombs also were opened…”

Some argue that this dramatic event supports the idea that Christ’s death and descent triggered the release of righteous souls awaiting resurrection back into their physical bodies as Jesus carried out the Harrowing in real time.

Theological Motifs

At the heart of the Harrowing of Hell doctrine lies a compelling theological instinct: the desire to emphasize Christ’s complete and cosmic victory. Proponents of the Harrowing frequently appeal to the Christus Victor framework, which sees Jesus not only as the suffering servant who bears sin on the cross but also as the conquering King who defeats the powers of sin, death, and the devil. Within this framework, Christ’s descent into Hades is not a detour between Good Friday and Easter Sunday; it is the continuation of His triumph. He does not merely suffer death; He invades it, overruns its gates, and emerges holding its keys.

Closely connected to this is the conviction that Christ’s redemption must extend to all realms of human existence, including the realm of the dead. If Jesus truly came to “seek and save the lost,” then it seems fitting to some that His saving work would extend not only to those alive during His ministry but also to those who died before hearing the gospel. The Harrowing presents a compelling solution to the enduring question of what became of the righteous who died before the Incarnation. Rather than leaving the saints of old in limbo, this view pictures Christ entering Sheol/Hades to liberate Abraham, David, and other faithful figures, bringing them fully into the blessing of the new covenant.

Creedal affirmation also plays a significant role in bolstering the doctrine’s legitimacy. The Apostles’ Creed, one of the most widely accepted summaries of Christian belief, explicitly states that Christ “descended to the dead.” While the phrase itself is open to interpretation, many throughout church history have taken it to imply more than simple mortality. The wording suggests action: an intentional movement into death’s domain. Rather than reading it as a poetic affirmation of Jesus’ death, proponents of the Harrowing argue that the creed reflects a genuine theological claim grounded in the earliest Christian proclamation.

Beyond the text of creeds and Scriptures, the doctrine has been richly reinforced by liturgical, artistic, and devotional traditions. Especially in Eastern Orthodoxy and certain strands of Catholicism, the Harrowing of Hell is a vivid and cherished element of Holy Saturday theology. Icons of the Resurrection often depict Christ breaking down the gates of Hades, lifting Adam and Eve out of their tombs, and trampling the powers of death underfoot. These visual and liturgical expressions are so pervasive that they shape the imagination of Christian worshipers, reinforcing the belief that Jesus entered the deepest darkness to bring light.

Taken together, these motifs form a strong theological foundation for the Harrowing view. Christ is not only victorious over sin and death; He is victorious everywhere, even in the realm of the dead. He leaves no corner of creation untouched by His redeeming presence. For those who hold this view, the Harrowing of Hell is not just a satisfying solution to interpretive puzzles; it is a necessary dimension of Christ’s redemptive mission.

The Weak Scriptural Case

While the Harrowing of Hell draws on strong theological imaginations and historical traditions, its biblical foundation is somewhat fragile. The passages most frequently cited in support of this view—though evocative—do not clearly or necessarily teach the idea of Christ descending to liberate souls from Hades or to engage in spiritual combat during the time between His death and resurrection. A closer look at these texts reveals just how uncertain (and in some cases, implausible) the Harrowing interpretation really is.

The most commonly cited passage is 1 Peter 3:18–20, which speaks of Christ “being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison.” On the surface, this appears to support the idea that Christ preached to the dead and offered them salvation. However, careful exegesis suggests otherwise. The “spirits in prison” are more naturally understood as either the disobedient people in Noah’s time (now dead) or rebellious angelic beings (as supported by 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6, more on this later). The proclamation is not described as evangelistic—it is not euangelizō (to preach good news) but kērussō (to proclaim), a word often used in particular for declarations of judgment. In either interpretation—whether a pre-incarnate proclamation through Noah¹ or a post-resurrection announcement to fallen angels²—there is no proper support for Christ offering salvation to the dead.

In 1 Peter 4:6, the same letter, we read that “the gospel was preached even to the dead.” This verse is likewise ambiguous. While it is sometimes interpreted as evidence of Christ’s postmortem evangelism, the context supports a more pastoral reading. The “dead” in this passage most likely refers to believers who heard the gospel while alive and have since died. Peter’s point is one of comfort: even though they died physically (judged in the flesh), they live spiritually in the presence of God.³ There is no indication of a posthumous conversion opportunity or redemptive descent in this text.

Ephesians 4:8–10 is another frequently cited passage in which Paul states that Christ “descended into the lower parts of the earth.” This phrase is often interpreted as a reference to Christ’s descent into Hades; however, Greek scholars widely agree that the language is better understood as referring either to Christ’s incarnation⁴—His descent from heaven to earth—or to His burial in the grave.⁵ The immediate context focuses on Christ’s exaltation and authority over all things rather than a mission to rescue souls from the underworld. The descent language supports the idea of humility and lowliness, not postmortem activity.

Acts 2:27, 31, quoting Psalm 16, is often cited to likewise demonstrate that Christ descended to Hades. Peter says that David spoke of the Messiah, “You will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor let your Holy One experience corruption.” But this passage is not about what Christ did in Hades; it is about what God did not allow to happen. Namely, He did not permit Christ to remain in the grave. The focus is resurrection, not activity within death.⁶ “Hades” here simply refers to the realm of the dead, not a specific location of torment or limbo.

Matthew 12:40, where Jesus says He will be “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth,” is better read as a Semitic idiom referring to burial.⁷ It parallels Jonah’s time in the belly of the fish and speaks to the certainty of Jesus’ death and entombment.⁸ There is no indication that this language means Christ traveled to a spiritual underworld. Likewise, Matthew 27:52–53, which describes the opening of tombs and the resurrection of many saints, is presented as a miraculous sign associated with Jesus’ own resurrection, not evidence that He descended and released them from captivity.⁹

Even Revelation 1:18, where Christ says He holds “the keys of Death and Hades,” is better understood as symbolic (which is true for all of Revelation). These keys represent authority, not literal entry. Christ has conquered death, but the means of that conquest is His resurrection, not a literal descent into a prison to unlock its gates.¹⁰

Ultimately, while the Harrowing of Hell strings together various passages to create a vivid narrative, none of the individual texts interpreted in their proper context necessitate such a conclusion. Even taken together, they fail to construct a coherent scriptural case. What remains is a doctrine that is built more on theological imagination, tradition, and heavy eisegesis rather than on the clear teaching of the biblical authors. That doesn’t necessarily make it heretical, but it does make it exegetically suspect.

Theological Inconsistencies

Even if the Harrowing of Hell could be made plausible on textual grounds, it encounters significant problems when considered within the broader theological framework of the New Testament. Beyond its weak exegetical foundation, the doctrine introduces tensions that call into question core gospel truths—particularly regarding the sufficiency of the cross, the nature of Christ’s death, and the finality of salvation.

First, the Harrowing view risks undermining the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning death. On the cross, Jesus declared with certainty, “It is finished” (John 19:30). His death was not the prelude to victory; it is the victory. By insisting that something more needed to occur between His death and resurrection (such as preaching, liberating souls, or defeating Satan in his own domain), the Harrowing narrative can inadvertently imply that the cross was not enough. This not only complicates the simplicity of the gospel message but also places weight on a hidden, postmortem act that the New Testament never emphasizes, let alone directly acknowledges.

Second, the doctrine obscures the real human nature of Christ’s death. Scripture is emphatic that Jesus truly died. He did not merely appear to die or use death as a gateway into spiritual activity. He tasted death on behalf of all (Hebrews 2:9), laid in the tomb (Matthew 27:59–60), and entrusted His spirit to the Father (Luke 23:46). The Harrowing, however, depicts Jesus as fully active during the time He is said to be dead; preaching, liberating, and conquering. This creates a theological contradiction: if Christ is truly dead, then He should not be “doing” anything. If He is still active, then in what sense did He die? The Harrowing blurs the lines between Christ’s mortality and divinity in a way that risks devolving into docetism and undermining the incarnation itself.

Third, the Harrowing view opens the door to speculative and dangerous soteriological implications. If Christ preached the gospel to the dead and offered salvation to those who had already died, then what prevents this logic from extending further? Could postmortem salvation be available today? Are those who never heard the gospel in life given a second chance in death? While few proponents of the Harrowing would openly affirm universalism or LDS doctrine of postmortem salvation and baptism-by-proxy for the dead, the structure of the doctrine lends itself naturally to these conclusions. At the very least, it invites further theological constructions that Scripture does not support.

Finally, the Harrowing encourages a geographizing of Christ’s victory that distracts from the New Testament emphasis on resurrection. Rather than seeing death as a condition to be undone, the Harrowing imagines it as a territory to be conquered. Nowhere do the apostles describe Jesus “storming the gates of hell” to rescue the souls of those who had died before the gospel could be proclaimed. Instead, they proclaim that He died and was raised. By inserting an imaginative act between these two realities, the Harrowing draws attention away from what the New Testament presents as the central event of Christian hope.

In short, the Harrowing of Hell is not merely theologically unnecessary; it’s theologically problematic. It creates ambiguity regarding the sufficiency of the cross, the meaning of Christ’s death, the finality of divine judgment, and the simplicity of the gospel proclamation. Even if its intentions are noble, its implications are costly. If Scripture never clearly teaches it, one must ask: why build an entire branch of theology around what Scripture intentionally leaves out?

Descent-as-Death

In contrast to the Harrowing view, a more coherent and textually grounded interpretation of Christ’s “descent” is what we may call the Descent-as-Death view. This interpretation affirms what the earliest Christians consistently proclaimed: Jesus truly died. He entered the realm of the dead, not as a conquering hero on a hidden mission, but as a suffering servant who bore the full weight of human mortality. His descent is not an additional redemptive act; it is the culmination of His obedience and the prelude to His resurrection.

Biblical Support

This interpretation finds strong support in the scriptural texts often misused to support the Harrowing. Take 1 Peter 3:18–20, for example. One natural reading is that Christ, in the Spirit, preached through Noah to the disobedient generation that was destroyed during the flood. They rejected the message of salvation and are now "in prison.” This aligns with Peter’s recurring theme of patient witness in the face of suffering and does not read any postmortem activity into the text. It also finds internal textual support in 2 Peter 2:5, where Noah is explicitly called a “herald of righteousness.” In this view, it was Christ speaking through Noah by the Spirit who proclaimed God’s righteousness to a wicked generation. Their current status as “spirits in prison” refers to their judgment and death, not to the location of Christ’s proclamation. Some scholars note that the verb kērussō (“to proclaim”) used in 1 Peter 3:19 does not imply gospel preaching (euangelizō) and that the timeframe involved is better located during Noah’s life than between Christ’s death and resurrection. The emphasis is not on a dramatic underworld mission but on the continuity of God’s prophetic voice throughout history, even when it is rejected.

Another viable reading—advanced by Michael Heiser and others—is that this passage reflects an Enochic worldview in which Christ, after His resurrection, made a declarative announcement to the imprisoned rebellious angels of Genesis 6. According to 1 Enoch (which arguably deeply influenced Jewish thought in Peter’s day), the “sons of God” who corrupted humanity before the flood were bound and held in prison awaiting judgment. Peter’s terminology aligns closely with that background, as well as with 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6, both of which describe angels imprisoned in gloomy darkness. In this interpretation, Christ’s “proclamation” is one of cosmic judgment: He announces that their defeat is sealed. This reading is not about the salvation of human souls; instead, it focuses on Christ’s superiority over all spiritual powers.

1 Peter 4:6 also fits more naturally with the Descent-as-Death view. Peter writes, “the gospel was preached even to the dead,” which some have taken to imply a postmortem opportunity for salvation. But the better reading is that the “dead” refers to Christians who heard the gospel while alive but have since died. Peter’s encouragement is that physical death is not the final word, and those who have died in Christ still live in the Spirit. This aligns with Peter’s pastoral concern throughout the letter and avoids introducing speculative doctrines about evangelism beyond the grave.

The same clarity emerges in Ephesians 4:8–10, where Paul writes that Christ “descended into the lower parts of the earth.” This phrase, long thought to refer to Hades, is better understood as a reference to either Christ’s incarnation or His burial. The phrase fits within the broader Christological pattern of descent and ascent; Christ descended in humility (Philippians 2), taking on flesh and subjecting Himself to death, and then ascended in glory. The passage celebrates Christ’s authority over all things after having been brought to the lowest point, namely, death itself.

Consider how Acts 2:27, 31, which quotes Psalm 16, is often cited in support of Christ's descent into Hades. But Peter’s emphasis is not on Christ’s activity in death but on the fact that He was not left there. The entire thrust of the passage is resurrection: Christ died, but unlike David, His body did not see decay, and He was raised to life. The same is true of Matthew 12:40, which states that the Son of Man would be “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” This is a poetic and prophetic way of saying that Jesus would be buried in a tomb. Other passages follow the same pattern. The mysterious resurrection scene in Matthew 27:52–53 describes a miraculous sign accompanying Christ’s own resurrection. There is no mention of Jesus releasing these saints from bondage, nor any hint that their souls were ejected from Hades and back into their bodies. Instead, it is a foretaste of resurrection life breaking into the world. And Revelation 1:18, where Christ declares, “I have the keys of Death and Hades,” speaks of authority, not travel.

When viewed collectively, these passages present a unified picture: Christ actually died. He truly, fully, and mortally died. He entered the realm of the dead as all mortals do, experienced what it means to surrender to death, and then rose again in triumphant life. His victory is not found in a harrowing mission but in His obedient death and resurrection from the grave.

Theological Synthesis

Having examined the primary texts, the theological challenges of the Harrowing view, and the strength of the Descent-as-Death reading, we are now in a position to synthesize what this means for Christology, the gospel, and Christian hope. Far from being a semantic issue or harmless tradition, how we interpret Christ’s “descent” touches on the core of what we believe about His death, the nature of salvation, and the meaning of resurrection.

At its core, the Descent-as-Death view affirms the true humanity and full mortality of Christ. Jesus did not simulate death or pass through it as a mere formality: He really and truly died. He entered the condition of death fully and completely. As Hebrews 2:9 declares, “He tasted death for everyone.” His descent was not into a rescue mission into an underworld prison but into the grave itself, the same death that claims all human life. By dying, Jesus entered the human experience at its deepest point. There is no valley so dark, no grave so final, that Christ has not passed through it before us.

This reading also protects the sufficiency and finality of the cross. “It is finished,” He declared. Not “It has begun.” Christ’s atoning work was completed through His obedient suffering and sacrificial death. Resurrection did not add victory; it revealed the victory already won. By contrast, the Harrowing view implies that something more was required—an unspoken epilogue to Good Friday before Resurrection Sunday. But Scripture proclaims that the cross and the empty tomb are the full image of redemption. Nothing needs to be added or imagined between them.

The Descent-as-Death view reflects the biblical pattern of downward humility followed by upward exaltation. As Philippians 2:8–9 teaches, Jesus “humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him.” The descent, in this sense, is God becoming incarnate in mortal flesh. He descended from heaven to earth, from glory to shame, from life to death. Then, and only then, did He rise and ascend. This pattern grounds our own discipleship: we follow the One who descended into death so we might be raised with Him.

This view also provides pastoral comfort rooted not in mythical imagery but in theological reality. For those who grieve, it offers assurance that Christ has sanctified the grave and that those who die in Christ still live by the Spirit. For those who fear death, it affirms that He has gone before us and emerged victorious.

Finally, this interpretation gives a clear and consistent reading of the Apostles’ Creed itself. When we say that Christ “descended to the dead,” it's not to draw images of Jesus leading armies of angelic beings to storm the gates of hell. We affirm what Christians have always believed: Jesus truly died. If you want a more theological interpretation, Christ "descended to the dead," to us who were dead in our sins and trespasses, and with Him, He brought light and life.

Ultimately, the Descent-as-Death view safeguards the gospel by grounding it in the visible, historical, and completed work of Christ. It avoids theological speculation, honors the biblical text, and centers our hope where it belongs—not in a descent we cannot see and only imagine but in a cross and an empty tomb that we can proclaim with complete confidence.

1. Wayne Grudem, 1 Peter, Tyndale New Testament Commentary (IVP, 1988)

2. Michael S. Heiser, Demons: What the Bible Really Says About the Powers of Darkness (Lexham Press, 2020)

3. Karen Jobes, 1 Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Baker Academic, 2005)

4. Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, Word Biblical Commentary (Thomas Nelson, 1990)

5. Frank Thielman, Ephesians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Baker Academic, 2010)

6. F.F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Eerdmans, 1988)

7. Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Eerdmans, 2009)

8. R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, Tyndale New Testament Commentary (IVP, 1985)

9. Ben Witherington III, Matthew, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Smyth & Helwys, 2006)

10. G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Eerdmans, 1999)