4:8 Therefore it says, “When he ascended on high he captured captives; he gave gifts to men.” 4:9 Now what is the meaning of “he ascended,” except that he also descended to the lower regions, namely, the earth? 4:10 He, the very one who descended, is also the one who ascended above all the heavens, in order to fill all things.

The main focus in this passage is the ascension of Christ and its consequences.  However, the apostle also stresses our Lord’s descent ‘to the lower regions’.  But what does this mean?

Various interpretations have been offered:-

1. Traditionally, this verse has been understood to refer to Christ’s death.  Cf. 1 Pet 3:19.  Paul Marston (Death and Hell: What the  New Testament Does and Does Not Teach) notes that this passage refers to a descent to earth, and not to Hades.  However, if Paul’s expression, translated here as ‘descended to the lower regions, namely, the earth’ is better translated as ‘descended to the lower regions of the earth’ (as many older interpreters thought), then this view would make good sense.  Hades, after all, was thought of a being below the earth’s surface.  This would then be understood either

more literally, meaning that Christ descended to the place of the dead in order to bring salvation to, say, the OT saints.  So many older commentators.  Or it could be understood

more figuratively, meaning simply that Christ went to the place of the dead in the sense that he actually died; Hades = the grave.  This is the view of Westcott, Hoehner, Arnold, Thielman and others).

Either way, the verse might link with some form of the doctrine of Christ’s ‘descent into hell’, sometimes referred to as ‘the harrowing of hell’.  But Bray (God Is Love), cautions that this verse:

‘is a commentary on the previous verse, a quotation from Psalm 68:18, which says that when he ascended up on high “he led a host of captives.” Some have interpreted this to mean that, when he descended to the dead, Jesus broke their bonds and set them free, leading them all up to heaven. Suffice it to say that there is no evidence to support such an interpretation, which seems fanciful and contrary to what the rest of the Bible teaches. There is much about Christ’s descent into hell that remains a mystery, but we can be fairly confident that, although it entailed the final defeat of Satan, it was not the prelude to the universal salvation of mankind.’

2. Calvin and Hodge argue (citing Jn 3:13 in support) that the descent simply refers to Christ’s incarnation.  Snodgrass (NIVAC) also inclines to this view, as do Schnackenburg, Bruce, O’Brien, and Talbert.  Thielman notes that this interpretation is consistent with Paul’s conviction that Christ was with God before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4), and that he left that glorious existence to take up a humble existence among human beings (Phil 2:6–8; 2 Cor 8:9).  Such thinking is also reflected in Jn 3:13; 6:33, 41, 50–51, 58, 62.

3. The reference may be to the humiliation of Christ’s sufferings, and in particular those of the cross. So Hendriksen.  On the link between Christ’s sufferings and his ascension see Eph 4:9; Php 2:5-11; Heb 1:3; 2:9; 12:2; Rev 5:6.  Stott:

‘What is in Paul’s mind…is not so much descent and ascent in spatial terms, but rather humiliation and exaltation, the latter bringing Christ universal authority and power, as a result of which he bestowed on the church he rules both, the Spirit himself to indwell it and the gifts of the Spirit to edify it or bring it to maturity.’

4. Still others regard this as a reference to Christ’s coming, after his ascension, by his Spirit.  So Foulkes (tentatively), Caird, and Lincoln.  One of the problems with this interpretation, according to Thielman, is that Paul is here concerned to say that it was precisely the same Christ who ascended and descended (and not Christ who ascended and the Spirit who descended).

It may be that Paul’s teaching here incorporates elements of some or all of these.