2. The Individual Parts of Humiliation and Exaltation.
Humiliation includes all events of Christ's earthly life from conception to burial. The fact that the descent into hell (descensus ad inferos) cannot be counted among the state of humiliation results from the scriptural concept of the descent into hell, which still has to be explained. The entire period of humiliation is dealt with by Scripture under the overall title: at Huépat tS oapkKoc. *3) This is the time in which Christ, in the interest of his ministry — namely in the interest of the performance of the satisfactio vicaria— renounced the appearance in the likeness of God, entered into the likeness of human beings, and did not refuse to suffer and die on the cross. Conception and birth of Christ. * That the incarnation itself or the assumption of a human nature does not fall under the concept of humiliation, if Scripture places humiliation
in opposition to exaltation, has already been explained in detail. °° The humiliation in the Incarnation lies in the mode of the Incarnation. The Son of God did not become man in such a way that he would have connected with himself a fully developed human nature, for instance through a direct act of creation, as it is the case with the creation of Adam. Rather, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments point very emphatically to this special way of incarnation, in that the Son of God "out of a woman" (sk yvvaikdc 0), as the "fruit of the body" of Mary (0 kapndcg Tg KoIAias tis Maptiac)*> and so has become a partaker of the flesh and blood of the children of man, in response to human lowliness and weakness of the flesh and blood. Thus the conception and birth of Christ belong to humiliation in so far as there is a lowly way of becoming human in them. This mode of the Incarnation is also thoroughly official in character. Christ had to begin his work of Redemption early. It was a vicarious representation of a holy human life from the first beginning. That is why the mediator between God and man deals with the general human becoming. The causal nexus of the lowly incarnation with the redemption of humanity is clearly testified when Scripture says that God sent His Son into the world by the way of birth from a woman and with subordination to the Law, with the intention (iva) of ransoming those under the Law (&anéotetrsv). 88° Luther and the Lutheran teachers rightly remind us that miracles are not to be conceived outside of Scripture in the conception and birth of Christ. 8°) However, the explicit teaching of Scripture is the conception by the action of the Holy Spirit and the virgin birth, as already mentioned under "Peculiarities of the human
nostrae gradus venit, ut immundam nostram conceptionem et nativitatem radicitus curaret. [Christ comes through all the stages of our age to root out our impure conception and birth.] (Theol. pos.-pol. IT, 91.)
Scripture is also the opinion of the ab initio [from the beginning] complete training of all members of the body (Basil, Leo the Great, most of the Romans, some Reformed and also some Lutherans, such as Himmelius). about the danger for the faith that is connected with the poetry of miracles cf. Chemnitz, Harm, ev. to Luke 1:57 ff., p. m- 99. nature of Christ"*?®) has been proven. Otherwise, these two terms: to be a virgin and to be a mother are contradictory. With the unique Mother, the most blessed among women, both are a fact. All teachers, old and new, who deny this fact are rightly counted as heretics, because here there is a direct contradiction with Scripture. *°°) If especially newer theologians, such as Theodore Kaftan, for instance, see the virgin birth as "religiously worthless"*, we have to do with a projection of the human ego, which sets aside the authority of Scripture and makes itself the measure of all things. From the virgin birth, as an undoubted doctrine of Scripture, we must distinguish the question whether Mary gave birth to the Son of God clauso utero [closed womb]. The Lutheran teachers rightly leave this to itself, but declare it possible because of the communication of the attributes. °4) Here also the semper virgo is to be discussed, that is, the question whether Mary, after having become the mother of the Savior of the world as a virgo through the action of the Holy Spirit, had now become the mother of other children while still married to Joseph). The old Church answered the question with no. *?) So did Luther **) and the Lutheran teachers. * The more recent theologians
virgine et homo factus est.
peperisse Filium, incertum est.[But the fact that some think that Mary gave birth to the Son with a closed womb is uncertain.] Scherzer, Syst., 179. 181: An virginitas Mariae asserta id postulet, ut Dominus clauso utero exierit, curiose quaeritur. Sufficit prodiisse salva virginitate... Calviniani aperto utero prqdiisse ideo docent, quod clauso ob negatam idiomatum communicationem prodire non potuerit, At nos com. id. adeoque possibilem etiam clauso utero transitum asserimus. [Google] Formula of Concord, 688, 100 [Trig/. 1007, F. C., Sol. Decl., VII, 100]: Hoc modo [ut loco non circumscribatur, da er seinen Raun nimmt noch gibt] creditur de sanctissima virgine Maria natus esse. [This (illocal) mode, according to which He neither occupies nor vacates space, He used, as it is believed, when He was born of His mother, the most holy Virgin Mary. ]
abnormalities. Jerome wrote against the former, Epiphanius against the latter. RE.2 V, 764; I, 451.
after Christ from these words of the evangelist: ‘And [Joseph] knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son.’ Such he wanted to understand, as if she had had more sons after the first son; the coarse fool! To this St. Jerome answered finely."
are divided. **> Otherwise, if Christology is orthodox with a theologian, he will not yet be counted among heretics because he gives Mary other bodily children after the birth of the Son of God. *4° But it is to be firmly rejected when those who advocate bodily brethren vote for a sharpened "exegetical conscience" and look down somewhat disparagingly on those who take the opposite view. Also the Sieffert article in RE. 7, which also appears in RE. 3, also has these manners in it. One can have other reasons for wanting to give Mary other bodily children besides Christ. But a proof from the Scriptures cannot be given for this. Least of all from the a> od, Matt. 1:25, and the mpwtotoKoc, Luke 2:7.°4 But also not from the scriptures, in which "brothers" and "sisters" of Christ are mentioned. **)
Schulze decide for brothers of Christ in the true sense of the word, and for cousins Hofmann, Lichtenstein, Lange. To the latter belong also Hengstenberg and Keil. David Brown (in Commentary Critical and Explanatory on Matt. 13:55) wants to leave the question undecided, while his co-worker Fausset on Gal. 1:19 chooses "cousin". Dummelow tries to weigh up the pros and cons on Matt. 12:46 (Commentary on the Holy Bible).
donec, priusquam, until that etc. do not say anything about whether what did not happen up to that time or what happened afterwards happened or not. Chemnitz proves this on the one hand with Gen. 19:22; Lev. 12:4; Acts 25:16, on the other hand with Gen. 8:7; 1 Kings 15:35; 2 Kings 6:23; Matt. 28:20 etc. The latter series of scripture texts Chemnitz characterizes correctly: ita negat praeteritum, ut non ponat futurum [so he denies the past, so as not to posit the future]. Meyer says the same for instance, but he thinks he can conclude from zpmtétokoc that Mary gave birth to other children afterwards. But Chemnitz is right when he says: De primogenito facilis est responsio. Nam in lege, quando iubentur primogenitos offerri Domino, non est sensus, exspectandum esse, donec post primum nascatur alius. Sed primogenitus vocatur non tantum post quem nati sunt alii, verum etiam ante quem nullus natus est, etiamsi sit unigenitus, hoc est, etsi postea nullos alios habeat fratres, tamen vocatur primogenitus. [Google]
Education, increase in wisdom and visible change on earth. Of course, we cannot address the education (educatio) of the boy Jesus in the sense as if the bad habits of that every word should be taken first in its proper and first meaning is correct. But the same applies to the word "son" in the text: "Is he not the carpenter's son (vidc)? Therefore all Anti-Ebionites, because they understand by vidc in this passage not a natural son but an adopted son, can without all exegetical problems of conscience also include the adjacent ade oi and ddeA@ai as adopted brothers and sisters. In the same way they also understand "father" as an adoptive father in the words Luke 2:48: "Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. If one objects that Scripture itself offers this definition of "son" and "father", it should be pointed out that the same is the case with regard to the "brothers". Gal. 1:19 the apostle James is called "the brother of the Lord", Tax@Bov tov adeA@ov [James the brother]. But the apostle James (minor) is not a son of Joseph but of Alphaeus according to the apostles (Matt. 10:3), Idk@Boc 6 tod AAgaiov. Those who nevertheless want to give bodily brothers to Christ must resort to very dubious "exegetical means". They have to claim that the James mentioned in Gal. 1:19 does not belong to the apostles at all. The words: "I saw not another of the apostles but James the brother of the Lord" are to be interpreted as follows: "I saw not another apostle, but I saw James the brother of the Lord. Fritzsche refers to a "notus Graecismus" (Ev. Matt., p. 482). Meyer rejects this. According to Gal. 1:19, one has to grant James, the "brother of the Lord", the predicate "apostle"; only he was an apostle in a broader sense and therefore not identical with the son of Alphaeus in the list of apostles. But that Meyer himself does not trust this assertion is shown by the fact that he finally falls back on the "firstborn" (Matt. 1:25; Luke 2:7) to prove the bodily brotherhood. — It has been further objected that none of the brothers of the Lord, not even the one mentioned in Gal. 1:19, could have belonged to the twelve apostles, because it says Joh. 7:5: "His brothers did not believe in him either". It also seems to Dummelow to be an "established" fact, "that none of the brethren were included among the twelve apostles". Only Matt. 17:17 Christ also calls the Twelve an "unbelieving and perverse generation", and v. 20 He explicitly attributes "unbelief" (&m10t0c) to them (see Bengel and Meyer). Just as here with the Twelve only relative unbelief is meant, namely weakness of faith with regard to the healing of the lunatic, so also by the context Joh. 7:5 is expressed what the unbelief of the brothers Jesus consisted in, namely in their dissatisfaction with the fact that Christ did not want to go to Jerusalem in a parade of feasts. In short, the safest thing to do is to make the apostle James, called Gal. 1:19, and brother of the Lord, be identical with the apostle James, called Matt. 10:3, and son of Alphaeus. One will have to keep with Chemnitz, who (1. c.) according to Jerome comes to the result: Mariam post partum (Matt. 1:25) aut cum Ioseph concubuisse aut filios ex ipso sustulisse non credimus, quia non legimus [We do not believe that Mary after childbirth (Matthew 1:25) either slept with Joseph or bore children from him, because we do not read]", namely in the Scriptures. 309-310] the flesh, as with other children, were to be restrained, would have been to restrain, since also the boy Jesus was éotoc dKkakos &piavtos KEYMPLOLEVOG Gnd TOV GpLaptwASv [holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners]. *49) The sinlessness of Christ was explained in detail under the "Characteristics of the human nature of Christ". ®° In cases of conflict with the parents, the son was right. °!) However, the boy Jesus learned and not only apparently, but really increased in wisdom ®* according to the natural knowledge of human nature, since in the state of humiliation the divine knowledge rested within human nature, as far as this was officially required. That this "resting", although it could not be grasped and explained "cognitively", but was to be recognized as a fact on the basis of the "historical reality" attested to in the Scriptures, has been presented in detail in the genus maiestaticum and in the description of the essence of humiliation. °° — That Christ presented himself visibly to men is not humiliation in itself, since he will present himself visibly even in the Last Day. * But it belongs to the humiliation that he, who was and remained at the same time the eternal, According to one of the old traditions (cf. Eusebius III, 11 according to Hegesippus): the family relationship of the brothers to Jesus is as follows: Alphaeus (Cleophas) was a brother of Joseph, the foster father of Jesus. Alphaeus died early, and Joseph took the family to himself by adopting the children. Thus the children of Alphaeus became Jesus' adoptive brothers, his brothers par excellence in the legal sense. As Jesus himself is called Matt. 13:55 Joseph's son, although he was admittedly only an adopted son, so are James, Joseph etc. brothers of Jesus, even though they were only adopted brothers. The fact that adopted brothers are called brothers par excellence not only corresponds to the "Jewish usage of language, but is still a common custom in America and elsewhere. There are a number of other points to consider when asking what the "brothers" Jesus are. A summary of the matter can be found in Sieffert, who advocates bodily brothers, RE. 2 and RE. 3 under "James in the N. T.". Under the same title, Lange takes the opposite position in RE.1. Cf. also Hengstenberg on Joh. 2:12. Hengstenberg is fiercely opposed by Kahnis in "Zeugnis von den Grundwahrheiten", 1862, p. 89 f. — I have always advised not to spend much time and energy on the discussion of the question. But as has already been noted, it is to be firmly rejected when those who advocate bodily brothers try to give the impression that they represent the more exact view of history and exegesis. Such behavior lacks justification.
essential Son of God,®*» did not come out as God-man, but as an ordinary man and let himself be treated accordingly by men. Suffering, death and burial. ‘ The suffering of Christ extends through the whole state of humiliation. The story of Christ's life on earth from birth is a story of suffering. *° For this reason, the accumulated suffering which fell upon him during the last two days of his earthly life, on Thursday and Friday of the week of suffering, has been called the great suffering (passio magna). The great suffering also includes the abandonment of God, which is expressed as a fact in the words: " My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? &) The meaning of abandonment by God is recognized when the substitutionary position of Christ is brought to bear. Christ is certainly not a sinner in his own person. The transfer of our sin to him is a purely juridical divine act: tov tu) yvovta Gpaptiav drép HUdV Gpaptiav éxoinosv. *® But this divine juridical act reached deep into the heart and conscience of Christ. He concluded that Christ felt the sin and guilt of man as his own sin and guilt in his soul. This is expressed when Christ speaks of his own sin and guilt already in the prophecy: O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee. ®°® Therefore Christ also felt the wrath of God, that is, the judgment of condemnation or rejection of God, in his soul as if he himself had committed all the sins of mankind. Therefore, the desertio has been rightly described as sensus irae divinae propter peccata hominum imputata, and Christ's words of abandonment to God express a real fact. Following this, the question has also been discussed as to whether it is permissible to speak of Christ suffering the punishment or plight of hell. ° Bellarmin and other Roman Catholic theologians have expressed horror at this way of speaking. They have stooped to the statement that it is
explendae famis ac sitis causa edit et bibit, lassus dormivit, molestias laborum atque itinerum, pericula, tentationes, tristitiam, egestatem, contumelias etc. pertulit. [Google]
an "outrageous ungodliness to ascribe to Christ a suffering of hell torment. Even weakened Lutherans, like Hornejus, have rejected the expression. This apparent piety has rightly been called ignorance. Just as the punishment of sins is not merely temporal but eternal punishment in hell, and just as Christ took upon himself all the punishment that was to befall mankind, so it is scripturally certain that Christ's suffering is to be called the suffering of hell. Moreover, Scripture explicitly describes the agony of hell as the state in which men are rejected by God's face or abandoned by God. *°* The fact that being forsaken by God in Christ does not last forever is rooted in the sovereignty of the person. That the person who is God was for a short time abandoned by God has the value of the eternal abandonment of all people by God. This is not a "compensation theory" thought up by men, but Scripture teaches this compensation through the sovereignty of the person of Christ wherever it lays its finger on the fact that we human beings are redeemed through the Son of God's actions and suffering. When we ask what it is about the abandonment of Christ, we turn our thoughts to the innermost part of the Redeemer's work 8) of the mediator between God and man. Luther says: "No man can put this matter out in words as frank, short and simple as it is spoken. It does not speak of the bodily suffering of Christ, which is also great and heavy, but of his high spiritual suffering, as he felt in his soul, which suffering far surpasses all bodily suffering.... What this is, no human being on earth understands, no human being can reach or even cross out with words. For being forsaken by God is much worse than death. Those who have tried and experienced a little bit of it may have some time to think about it. But safe, raw, untried and inexperienced people know and understand nothing about it..... From the example of Job one can understand quite a bit what it is to be forsaken by God.... Christ was also in truth forsaken by God, not that the Godhead was separated from mankind, but that the Godhead had withdrawn and hidden himself.... Must the just and innocent man therefore tremble and fear as a poor, damned sinner and in his tender, innocent heart
feel God's wrath and judgment against sin, taste eternal death and damnation for us and suffer, in summa all that a damned sinner deserves and must suffer forever.... He has to dampen and extinguish in his soul the high temptation, which is called being forsaken by God and the devil's fiery arrows, hellish fire and fear and everything that we have earned with our sins. In this way we have acquired the Kingdom of Heaven, eternal life and happiness, as Isaiah also says in Ch. 53: "He shall see of the travail of His soul and shall be satisfied".®°’ It would be quite improper, however, to speak of a despair (desperatio) of Christ. Desperation is godlessness and would contradict the sinlessness of Christ as witnessed by Scripture. Moreover, Scripture explicitly testifies that Christ, in his forsakenness from God, held fast the trust in God. 8 In the midst of abandonment he still calls upon God as his God. It goes without saying that in Christ's forsakenness the word "This is my dear Son, in whom I am well pleased. °°) Precisely because Christ takes upon himself the abandonment of God in place of human beings, he does the will of God and, under the wrath of God, remains at the same time the object of the highest love. Therefore doth My Father love Me, because I lay down My life, that I might take it again
take it again." °° — The death of Christ was a true death, because in the death of Christ took place that in which the essence of death consists, namely the separation of soul and body. All evangelists report this separation: Matt. 27:50: done to mvebua; Mark. 16:37 and Luke 23:46: &énvevosv; Joh. 19:30: napédKe to avevpna, Admittedly, because the death of Christ is the death of the Son of God, so not only the separated soul but also the body lying in the grave remained in personal union with the Son of God, the possibility of death with Christ is beyond the limits of human knowledge. But the fact of death is to be believed on the basis of Scripture. All those who speak of a suspended death of Christ—so not only gross rationalists, but also veil-makers *°°’—have their place outside Christianity. Quenstedt rightly calls the question whether Christ was a true man even in death a questio curiosa. The scholastics have raised the question, and some old Lutheran theologians have also strangely expressed doubts about the humanity of Christ in death. °°?) The confusion was caused by starting from the definition: "Man is a living being (animal, ens vivum)" and then denying the dead man's humanity either directly or indirectly (the latter by the distinction of humanity materialiter et formaliter). It must be said that although death did not originally lie in the destiny of human beings, but came about as a terrible judgment of God as a result of sin, Scripture nevertheless speaks of the dead as persons: The hour is coming, in the which all that are in
11, says: Neque tamen innuimus Deum fuisse unquam illi (Christo) vel adversarium vel iratum Quomodo enim dilecto Filio, in quo animus eius acquievit, irasceretur? (We do not, however, insinuate that God was ever hostile to him or angry with him. How could he be angry with the beloved Son, with whom his soul was well pleased? (Is. 42:1)] Here Calvin suddenly forgot again the substitution of Christ, which he wanted to teach before and after the quote.
Christ, Harm. ev., c. 202.
Aquino, Summa II, qu. 50 (by Quenstedt IJ, 597): In illo triduo mortis corpus Christi non fuit vivum, ergo non fuit homo. Thomas even adds: Cum Christum vere fuisse mortuum sit articulus fidei, eum in triduo mortis fuisse hominem asserere haereticum est. [Google] the graves shall hear his [the Son of God’s] voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. ® In addition, Scripture expressly mentions Christ, precisely in so far as he has given himself into death as mediator between God and man, and so precisely also in death, dvOpamoc.
The descent into hell * (descensus ad inferos). The doctrine of the descent into hell that we confess in the Apostles Creed is based on Petr. 3:18 ff. Here, however, it is so clearly expressed that it has rightly found a place in the Apostles Creed. According to 1 Petr. 3, Christ went after his quickening (Cmonom sic) thus according to soul and body,* to that place (mopevOsic) where the souls of such people who remained unbelievers here on earth (Gme18jouvtéc mots) are in prison (év mvAakt). What Christ did in prison is indicated by éxnpvéev. Knpvooevw does not mean "salvation" or "proclaiming the gospel", as the newer ones take for granted, but is a vox media and means shouting out loud, proclaiming, acting as a herald in general. 8) The word is used in the New Testament not only by the concio evangelical,® but also by the concio legalis *©: Which content the proclamation designated by knpvooevv has, must
594 sqq. Dannhauer turns in particular against the otherwise excellent Liitkemann, Hodos. Phaep. VIII, 316 sqq.
Symbolum cf. Miiller, Die Symb. Biicher, Introduction, p. 44 f.; Giider, RE.2 VI, 193 f.
2]: We simply believe that the entire Person, God and Man, after the burial descended into hell. Quenstedt II, 535, writes about the succession of acts: Descensus temporis articulus est iuxta catenam actuum Petrinam momentum illud, quod intercessit inter Coonotnow et Gvaotaow Christi stricte sic dictam [Google] (the eradication as an apparition from earth). It goes without saying what Hollaz says about the mode of mopev& sic: Quamvis descensus... fuerit verus et realis, non tamen physicus aut localis, sed supematuralis motus fuit. [Despite the descent.. it was true and real, yet it was not a physical or local, but a supernatural movement. ] (Examination, De exalt., qu. 137.)
result each time from the context. Here the context decides in several ways against the preaching of the gospel and for the proclamation of judgment. The text does not speak of people who have not had the opportunity to hear the word of God here on earth, but the knpvooew takes place in front of those to whom the word of God has been preached here on earth in abundance and persistently, and also under outwardly admonishing circumstances (building of the ark), but who rejected the word in unbelief and so perished in the Flood. Surely we have no right to forget that Scripture presents to us the generation that perished in the Flood as a type of generation that will be condemned in the judgment of the Last Day: "But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.8) But not only the closer connection, namely the description of the object in front of which the knpvbocew took place, but also the further connection only points to a judicial act. The Christians are admonished to patiently accept suffering and blasphemy on the part of the unbelieving world here in earthly life (oapxi), in expectation of the just judgment of God, which will be pronounced on all unbelievers and blasphemers in his congregation on the last day, chapters 3:14-4:7. This exhortation to patient suffering is emphasized by the example of Christ, for whom also the earthly life was a time of suffering, but who immediately after his coming to life has already presented himself to the spirits in prison as judge and will appear at the end of the world as judge over the living and the dead. Thomasius presents the further context well: "Our whole place is surrounded and permeated by thoughts of judgment. The apostle speaks of the suffering of the church. It stands, a small flock, in the midst of a world of unbelief and disobedience, exposed to the mockery, blasphemy and persecution of a crowd that reviled its good deeds in Christ, vv. 14 ff. Then Peter points
them to the example of Christ, who also went the same way of suffering and contempt; but it was a unique suffering that went out in victory and glory, which turned for him into triumph over his enemies, who will now soon see him as judge over the living and the dead.. For the end of all things is near, ch. 4:7, which the faithful should consider and persevere in patience and suffering. If in the context of these thoughts there is a mention of those wicked men who in the days of Noah mocked God's admonition and the preaching that came to them through this herald (kjpvé) in word and deed (2 Pet. 2:5), how can there be a place for the thought of saving sinners from destruction, for offering salvation to those separated spirits who in their former behavior serve as an example to the blasphemers of the present day? I think the whole context points to a judgmental self-evidence; the Apostle desires to show by an analogous case, on the one hand, how the Lord knows how to preserve His saints in their whole trial in the flesh and how, on the other, the unbelievers will in yonder world experience nothing but the judgment of destruction."°®) The following erroneous thoughts about Christ's descent into hell are to be rejected: 1) Christ preached salvation or the gospel in hell, be it to all godless * or to all godless including the devils *®° or to people who have not had the opportunity to hear the gospel here on earth. °°! For the latter thought one has referred to 1 Petr. 4:6: vexpoic evnyyedio'6n. But the very sentence "that they might be judged according to men in the flesh" (capki) makes us think only of a sermon of the Gospel which the dead heard in their former lives on earth. 88?) — 2. Christ
d. Prot. Theol.,, UH, 707; Dorner, Gesch.
the divine intention, this makes the listeners objects of the wrath of God in the Last Judgment. (V. 5.) descended to hell in order to suffer there. 88) The words knpvocew tots sv ev MvAAKH TvEevpaov certainly do not point to a suffering of Christ. Likewise, any suffering after death is excluded per se, because according to the account of the Scriptures, when the Spirit of Christ separated from the body, it was in the hands of the heavenly Father ***) and in Paradise °*) Acts 2:24 refers to Christ not according to the soul, but according to the body, which is personified and therefore thought to be bound or suffering by the state of death. — 3 The Reformed figuratively describe the journey to hell. They identify the descent into hell with the whole state of Christ's humiliation or suffering, especially with his severe suffering in Gethsemane and on the cross, or with Christ's death and burial. *°° The things mentioned are, of course, all scriptural teachings. But the Reformed position becomes contrary to Scripture when these things are to take the place of the 1 Petr. 3:18-20 taught descent into hell. Likewise, the scriptural passage does not provide any occasion for the Roman Catholic teaching that Christ, by his descent into hell, is supposed to have freed the patriarchs and the saints of the Old Testament from the limbus patrum. (Catech. rom., § 100 105.) — 4. impossible is also the relationship of our Peter passage to the "sermon on Noah". As certain as it is that the Spirit of Christ was also in Noah and through Noah preached to mankind before the Flood,®* it is also certain that this sermon cannot be remembered in our Peter passage, since here the subject of exypvéev is expressly referred to as "the historical Christ",
Cf. Frank, Theol. d. F. C_. Wl, 408 ff.; RE. 3 I, 228.
44: "Why does the creed add, ‘He descended to hell’"? Answer: To assure me in times of personal crisis and temptation that Christ my Lord, by suffering unspeakable anguish, pain, and terror of soul, especially on the cross but also earlier, has delivered me from the anguish and torment of hell. Detailed quotations from Reformed writings in Heppe, Ref. Dogmatik, p. 357 ff. Correctly Quenstedt says in reference to the Reformed Quicunque CwonoinOeic, vivificatus, descendit in carcerem infernalem, ille nec ante mortem nec in ipso mortis articulo nec etiam statim post mortem descendit ad inferos. Atqui Christ CwoxonOeic etc. [Google] (II, 537.)
namely as Savatw0eic tev capKi, CwonomPsic de TH mvevpatt. 88%)
(Dogmatik, p. 265 f.) is a compilation of Scripture passages that deal with different things: "Jesus state of death Matt. 12:40: ti xapdia tic yti¢; Acts 2:24 f.: @dwEc Tov Oavatov; Rom. 10:7: Hades; Eph. 4:9: ta katotepa Lépy Hg yNs¢. But also Luke 23:43: Paradise. Cf. the signs that accompanied his death: Joh. 19:34 f.; Matt. 27:53. — To be distinguished from this is 1 Petr. 3:19, according to Augustin, Gerhard, Hofmann to be understood from the sermon of Noah; according to the common and from the more recent interpreters justified explanation of a sermon of Christ in Hades, but in different versions. — About "Hades" Thomasius says: "I think it is now the right thing to say: Hades is the general state of death; hell (Geenna) and paradise are the two areas in one or the other of which the isolated souls are located. Luke 16:19" (Dogmatik II, 257) — In the Peter passage the datives of the relationship oapki — mvevuati (Winer, Gr. 6, p. 193), killed according to the flesh, made alive according to the Spirit, are interpreted differently and have almost become a kind of crux theologorum. Most later Lutheran theologians hold "for the flesh": for human nature and "for the Spirit": for divine nature. Luther, on the other hand, grasps here "flesh" as used in Hebr. 5:17, where "the days of the flesh" of Christ describe the way of being in earthly life. "According to the flesh" is thus so much to him as "according to the earthly life", to which being killed belonged. Christ is, says Luther, killed according to the life "which is flesh and blood; as a man on earth, living, walking, standing, eating, drinking, sleeping, watching, seeing, hearing, grasping, and feeling in flesh and blood, and recently what the body does, which is transitory, to the same Christ died". With mvevpati, "according to the Spirit," Luther then finds the spiritual or supernatural life to which the CaonomP@sic, being made alive, belonged. The parallel for this use of mvetpo. is found in Luther 1 Cor. 15:44-45. He says: "To such life" ("which is flesh and blood") "Christ died, so that it has ceased with him, and he is now set into another life. Therefore he says that he was made alive according to the Spirit, that is, he entered into a spiritual and supernatural life, which understands with itself the life that Christ now has in soul and body, so that he no longer has a carnal body, but a spiritual body.... And so we shall be also; for he is the first fruits of the spiritual life, that is, he is the first who has risen and is coming into a spiritual life. So Christ now lives according to the Spirit, that is, he is truly man, but has a spiritual body. So also of more recent Thomasius and Hofmann. Thomasius says (Dogmatik I, 262): "According to the flesh of the earthly-sensual form of existence, killed, made alive according to the spirit, transfigured to a pneumatic way of existence — thus, in the power of his life taken from death, he went to preach to the spirits in prison. That is the purpose of our passage." Luther's version deserves to be preferred, because in it the datives capki and mvevuott, which are in contrast to each other and therefore must correspond to each other, are held in the same relationship: killed according The resurrection of Christ. * With regard to the causa efficiens of the resurrection, Scripture says, on the one hand, that God the Father raised Christ to the fleshly, earthly life, made alive according to the spiritual, supernatural life, while in the version: "killed according to human nature, made alive according to divine nature" one must change the relationship. Christ was not made alive according to divine nature as he was killed according to human nature, but both, killing and quickening, happened to him according to human nature. In order to gain a bearable meaning, one must hold to the version "according to the divine nature" mvevpati as dativus causae efficientis: "by the action of the divine nature". But this unique change in the relationship is not enough. Ivevpatt has the closer relative determination ev —> nopsvteic éxnpvéev with it: "in which mvebpa went and preached". In the version mvebpo == divine nature, this would give rise to the thought that the journey to hell had taken place in the divine nature, while CoomomPeic shows that human nature was also present. So one must surely accept Luther's view as the textual one, since it retains the same relationship with the corresponding datives of the relationship, and also ev @ can be connected to mvevpati without changing the relationship again: "killed according to the earthly, carnal life, made alive according to the spiritual, supernatural life, in which spiritual, supernatural life he also went" etc. Of course, oapki presupposes human nature and mvevuati divine nature. Christ could not be killed after the earthly life if he had not had a true human nature. That is why the statement BavatwOsic oapki is rightly used in the genus idiomaticum to prove that Scripture attributes suffering to the Son of God not according to divine nature, but according to human nature. Similarly, at tvevuati the divine nature is presupposed, because the spiritual, supernatural life or the transfiguration of Christ is not "aliunde et ab extra", as Chemnitz speaks, but comes through personal union, that is, from the whole fullness of the Godhead who dwelt in him c@patikec. Finally, Luther's version is also given by the wider context. The oapxi in "killed in the flesh" is excluded again from chapter 4:1 in the words: "Because now Christ in the flesh, oapki, has suffered for us, arm yourselves also with the same mind. The apostle does not want to insist that Christ had a human nature and suffered according to it— this is presupposed—but he wants to exhort Christians to be patient in suffering by reminding them that the time of earthly life is a time of suffering. As it was the case with Christ in his life on earth, so also Christians should send themselves to suffer in the earthly life. Luther (to ch. 4:1): "St. Peter still remains on one path. Just as he had previously admonished us in general that we should suffer, if it is God's will, and had made Christ an example of us, he now confirms this further and brings it again; if he wants to say: "Since Christ suffered in the flesh, who is our Commander and Head, and set before us all an example of how he redeemed us through his suffering, we should follow him, and so equip ourselves and put on such armor. [Sz L. IX, 1242 ff] from the dead,*® and, on the other hand, that Christ raised himself or rose from the dead in his own power. *° Both scriptural statements are to be left standing equally. The scriptural statements, according to which God the Father raised Christ from the dead, refer to Christ as the mediator between God and man, on whom God laid the sins of mankind,®° and whom he had iven away to death for the sins of mankind.
Therefore Scripture also says that the object of the justifying and saving faith is God, who raised Christ from the dead, Rom 4:24: tov éysipavta Inootv tov Kbptov nL@v &k vexp@v. Also Rom. 10:9: Blessed is he who believes 6t1 0 Osdc adtov [Iynooiv]
1:20; Acts 2:24; 3:15; 4:10 etc.
ompatos avtov. Joh. 10:17-18: sSovciav sym - TéAW AaPBEtv aviv, namely tThv Woy Lov.
weakening of the words 614 51a tiv Hyép9n Hudv, if one wants to relate them to the subjective justification carried out by faith. According to Gerhard, Calov is right when he says about the relationship of the raising of Christ from the dead to our justification: "Christ's raising from the dead has happened respectu actualis a peccato absolutionis. Ut punivit Deus peccata nostra in Christo, quae ipsi ut sponsori nostro erant imposita atque imputata, ita quoque excitando eum a mortuis ipso facto absolvit eum a nostris peccatis ipsi imputatis, ac proinde etiam nos in ipso absolvit. (Bibl. Illust. z. St.) Tyyelpev Ek vexp@v [because God raised him (Jesus) from the dead.]. — The scriptural statements, according to which Christ rose from the dead in his own power, are a tremendous proof of the divinity of Christ. Christ, like the entire fullness of the Godhead, ® is also specifically granted one omnipotence (una numero omnipotentia) with the Father. *>) Scripture also tells us that Christ rose from the dead in the same body that He took from the Virgin Mary and subjected to suffering. This is already in the concept of resurrection, because "that which has fallen down shall rise again". Moreover, Christ still transforms his disciples from the identity of the dead and resurrected body through sensual perception: "He showed them his hands and his side". ®°® But one and the same body had different characteristics before and after the resurrection. The body of the flesh, which was subject to earthly living conditions such as eating and drinking and suffering, had become a spiritual body and a body of glory. The eating of Christ after the resurrection is not for nourishment, but to establish the identity of the resurrected body with the killed body. — Furthermore, it is certain that, just as Christ clausa ianua came to the disciples, so he also rose clauso sepulcro. Scripture reports no other purpose for the removal of the stone from the tomb door than to show the empty tomb to the women and to convince them of the fact that Christ is risen. 8° If the Reformed refer to the resurrection of Christ as the purpose of removing the stone, this is also recorded in Scripture as if they were seeking an opening in the closed doors, Jn 20:19. These entries in the Scriptures are based on the fundamental Christological error that the Body of Christ can only ever have the visible and local mode of being.
dum ab ostio sepulcri revoluto per angelum lapide. Quod probamus hoc argumento: Si Christus resurrexit ante adventum angeli, ergo resurrexit sepulcro adhuc clauso et lapide obsignato. Nam angelus demum post suum adventum devolvit lapidem ab ostio sepulcri, Matt. 28:2 Atqui prius est verum, Matt. 28:6 Ergo et posterius. Hinc Augustine: "Corpus Domini lapide clauso surrexit et ianuis clausis intravit." Revolutus est lapis ab angelo, sed ad resurrectionis iam factae demonstrationem. [Google] UII, 542 sq.) The forty days between resurrection and ascension. In this period Christ says two things of Himself: 1. that He is no longer with the disciples, Luke 24:44: "These are the words I said to you while I was still with you"; 2. that He is still with the disciples, Luke 24:39-40: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet." Christ is no longer with the disciples in the manner of an earthly, visible body. He comes to the disciples invisibly and unspatially, tov bvpdv d@avtos KekAeiopévov. °° In the same un-spatial way he goes from them, &@avtos éyéveto an’ avtov. °°) Christ’s eating in this period has not the purpose of nourishment but of identification. °° According to the explicit declaration of Scripture, Christ is still with the disciples, and he still consorts with them through apparitions, datavousvoc avtoic, Acts 1:3; E—avepH9n Incods toic paOntoic, Joh. 21:14. The purpose of this communication is to reassure the disciples about the fact of his resurrection and to teach them about the kingdom of God. Both come to the statement in Acts 1:3: mapéotnosv Eavtov COvta Weta TO TAVEiv HdTOV Ev TOAAOTC tekpnptoic,°» dv HuEspOv tecospakovta OMTAVOLLEVOS AdTOIC Kai A€y@v TH MEpt Thc Bactreias tod OEod. Particularity is mentioned as the object of the instruction the interpretation of the Old Testament Scripture that was said by him. °°) The ascension of Christ. The resurrection of Christ had no witnesses and needed no witnesses, because the risen Christ ev moAAoic texpnpiots (Acts 1:3) presented himself alive. But the Christ who ascended to heaven will no longer present himself in a bodily visible way to his people on earth until the Second Coming at the end of the world. For this reason, the Ascension, in contrast to the Resurrection, takes place visibly before the eyes of the disciples, BAsmévtmv avtov, so that the truth of the Resurrection may also be historically established for the disciples and the Church. It must also be said that the Ascension of Christ took place in local upward movement
is valid from the visible ascension. Otherwise Christ could have until a cloud took him up and thereby human looks BAexévt@v adtov énnpOn Kai venéAn dnéAPEv adtOV Ad TOV OPVGALAV adtav. > Scripture does not say that a local upward movement (motus localis) has continued to take place, and so we do not dare to assert this either. In order to understand the Ascension of Christ in all its aspects in accordance with Scripture, the double terminus ad quem of the same must be observed. The terminus ad quem is not only the heaven of the saved, where his own are with him after this life (coelum beatorum) °°» but also the right hand of God (coelum maiestaticum). Scripture expressly links the latter term to the Ascension of Christ, Mark. 16:19: dveAju@8n sic TOV Odpavov Kai ExdOtoEV EK SEELOV Tod sod; Petr. 3:22: dc éottv év deEtG [Tod] Osod mtopsvOsic sic odpavov. But that the right hand of God, to which Christ sat down with the Ascension, are not just a mere place of honor and rest, but the seat of the ruler of Christ, who was exalted according to the humanity, is also expressly stated in Scripture, Eph. 4:10: Christ ascended over all the heavens to fill the universe (ta mavta), and Eph. 1:20-23: God has set the one who was raised from the dead at his right hand in heaven, with the added definition: tzepdvo méons apyis... kal Tavto vmétaEv VIO Tovc 10dac avdtot. This was explained in detail under the genus maiestaticum of the communication of the attributes. °°) Tf we also call the right hand of God coelum maiestaticum, this designation still expressly receives its justification through Hebr. 1:3, where the right hand of God, to which Christ has set himself after the alignment of the work of redemption, are described as the rights of the divine majesty: éxaOioev év deEva tig Meyadwovvyes Ev dynAoic. Peter, too, in his Pentecost speech, teaches us unmistakably disappeared like Luk 24:31 etc. Hollaz: Non per indigentiam naturae, sed per liberam oeconomiam Christus assumsit motum localem et visibilem, qui, si voluisset, in puncto temporis discipulis suis se potuisset subducere et coelum occupare. At placebat Salvatori sensim ferri sursum, ut discipuli de vera ascensione eo luculentius et confidentius testarentur. [Google] (Examination, De exalt., qu. 152.)
209 sq.
that Christ, by his ascension, did not set himself at rest but in the seat of rulership. He says Acts 2:34-36, that the words of the 110th Psalm: "Sit Thou at My right hand until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool" do not refer to David, but to Christ's Ascension, and that it is precisely through the Ascension that God made Jesus, crucified by the Jews, "both Lord and Christ". Correctly Meyer says that Christ is here characterized as the "owner of the kingdom". ° It is all the more astonishing that the Reformed use precisely the Ascension of Christ, through which Christ ascended the throne of world dominion according to his human nature, to exclude him according to his human nature from being in the world and the church and from ruling in the world and the church. Thus the adherence to the human idea of a merely local and visible way of being the human nature of Christ leads to a reinterpretation of the words of the Ascension of Christ into the exact opposite. The Formula of Concord breaks away from the theory of enclosure by saying: "W reject and condemn as false, erroneous, and misleading... when it is taught that because of His ascension into heaven Christ is so enclosed and circumscribed (comprehensus et circumscriptus) with His body in a definite place in heaven that with the same (His body) He cannot and will not be truly present with us in the Supper, which is celebrated according to the institution of Christ upon earth, but that He is as far and remote from it as heaven and earth are from each other". ® At the same time, the Formula of Concord rebukes the change in the text that the Reformed, in order to confirm their theory of inclusion, have made with the words Acts 3:21: dv dei odpavov pév déFac8aut say: "As many sacramentarians have called the text of Act. 3: ‘Oportet Christum coelum accipere’, that is: Christ must take heaven,’ having deliberately and maliciously falsified it to confirm her error, and substituted it in its place: Oportet Christum coelo capi’, that is: Christ must be taken or circumscribed and understood by or in heaven so that he could not or would not be with us on earth
Exaltation, Christ was also Lord and Messiah, but in the form of a servant, and after his departure he became a perfect reality. If the "was" is meant seriously, then the "was" can of course only refer to the entry into the usus plenarius of divine glory.
at all with his human nature." Frank feels he cannot agree to this accusatory judgment of the Formula of Concord. He says: "The Lord's Supper article blames a number of sacramentarians for using the Text Act. 3:21: "Oportet Christum coelum accipere" and that they deliberately and maliciously falsified it to confirm their error and set it instead: "Oportet Christum coelo capi. We cannot appropriate this accusation, even though without a doubt not ovpavov, but dv is the subject of the sentence."?! But Frank overlooked that the accusation of the Formula of Concord is that the text has been falsified, or more precisely: that it has been converted into a passive. Aéyseotat but can only be called capere here, not capi, no matter whether ovpavov or ov is the subject. In the passive version, capi, the words would have to read like this or similarly: ov det vx6 Tov Ovpavod or Ovpava 5éEaoMar.?! Thus, however, the conversion of the capere into capi results in a falsification of the text of Scripture, which is no small matter. And that this conversion of the active into the passive was undertaken with the intention of pressing the scriptural passage into the service of the theory of containment cannot be denied either. ®!) The charges of the Formula of Concord are well-founded. However Beza himself, although he adheres to the inclusion theory, has recognized the first charge as well-founded in that he later dropped the passive translation and used the following: quem oportet quidem coeli capiant.?!>) Incidentally, one can
which one is taken as subject, in the sense: Heaven must exclude him, which after Beza's events still defended Emesti, Kuinoel, Schott, is grammatically not inadmissible, but must therefore be inferior to the others, because it is an unbiblical view, the relationship, as if Heaven were absorbing Christ into itself, as it were, independently, while the latter as Lord and King takes and holds him. One can say this as little as: "The throne embraces the king. No doubt Beza's Reformed viewpoint has led him to this.
capiant, quam interpretationem ideo caeteris praetuli, quum antea vertissem passive, Quem oportet coelo capi, eadem prorsus manente sententia, ut istorum clamores compescam, qui mei ut haeretici perversissimi damnandi occasionem ex eo arripuerunt, quod activam locutionem passiva expresserim. [Google] disputandi causa [for the sake of argument] have the translation: "which one must heaven receive" or even the passive phrase: "which one must be excluded from heaven", without admitting the inclusion of Christ in heaven. One need only note that, according to Scripture, the terminus proprius of the Ascension of Christ is the right hand of God or the heaven of divine majesty. If this is established, then being admitted into heaven does not mean a restriction, but a limitation of Christ according to his humanity.?! Sitting at the right hand of God. Sitting at the right hand of God signifies the permanent relationship of dominion into which Christ entered through the Ascension. The term "right" or "right hand of God" is based on an anthropathy like the expressions "eyes", "ears", "feet" of God, etc. Just as people usually do what they do with their right hand, so, metaphorically speaking, what God does, namely His infinite power or omnipotence, is called God's right hand. To describe God's omnipotence and omnipresent dominion, Scripture says: "The right hand of the Lord doeth valiantly. The right hand of the Lord is exalted; the right hand of the Lord doeth valiantly" and: "If I take the wings of the morning
Terminus ad quem Christus in ascensione sua pervenit, est tum communis, tum proprius. Communis est sedes et domicilium beatorum, ubi Christus beatis se ad faciem conspiciendum praebet. Evectus est Christus in paradisum, in quo cum ipso est conversus latro, Luc. 23, 43, ubi paratae sunt fidelibus mansiones, Ioh. 14, 2, ubi Redemptor gloriosissimus conspectu suo iucundissimo sanctorum animas exhilarabit. Terminus proprius et ultimus est coelum Dei maiestatiQum seu thronus maiestatis divinae. Coelum Dei maiestaticum est super omnes coelos, Eph. 4, 10..., est ipsa dextra Dei, qua coelis excelsior factus est Christus, Hebr. 7, 26, de qua apostolus Hebr. 8, 1: Eiusmodi habemus sacerdotem principem, qui consedit in dextra throni maiestatis in coelis. Per coelum hic non intelligitur coelum naturae aereum vel aethereum, quod cogitare impium est, neque coelum gratiae, quod est ecclesia militans in his terris, cui Christus visibilem praesentiam suam usque ad diem extremi iudicii subtraxit. [Google] On the mode of ascension Hollaz says: Ratione modi ascensio Christi non fuit disparitio, sed motus verus, realis, successive progressivus (Luc. 24, 51: diéoty an' avtev, recessit ab iis; secessus infert successivam loci mutationem) et visibilis usque ad nubem (Act. 1, 9: videntibus illis sublatus est, et nubes suscepit ipsum ab oculis ipsorum). At elevatus a nube modo invisibili ad dextram Dei exaltatus est. Christus coelos penetravit, Hebr. 4, 14; factus coelis sublimior, Hebr. 7, 26. Ergo invisibili ratione supra omnes coelos evectus est. [Google] and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there shall Thy hand lead me, and Thy right hand shall hold me."*!*) If now it is said of Christ with regard to his humanity that he was set at the right hand of God after suffering and death and now sits permanently at the right hand of God, then this is not a seat of honor but a ruler's seat, also not a ruler's seat with less than divine power. °!® but a ruler's seat with unadulterated and unlimited divine power and might is described (xa8ioas év dE adtODd, scil. ToD Beob, Eph. 1:20). The Lutheran Church therefore gives only the definition of Scripture, both of the right hand of God and of sitting at the right of God. Of the right hand of God it says it is Which is no fixed place in heaven, as the Sacramentarians assert without any ground in the Holy Scriptures, but nothing else than the almighty power of God, which fills heaven and earth; and from sitting at the right hand of God it teaches that Christ, after his ascension over all the heavens, reigns presently not only as God, but also as man (has dominion and) rules from sea to sea and to the ends of the earth; as the Prophets predict, Ps. 8:1-6; 93:1 f.; Zech. 9:10, and the Apostles testify, Mark 16:20, that He everywhere wrought with them and confirmed their word with signs following".?' Likewise Luther °!®) and the Lutheran dogmatists. °! The practical interest of the Lutheran Church in the scriptural teaching of Christ's seat at the right hand of God is expressed in the Formula of Concord by the words: We hold... that Christ is present with his church and congregation on earth as mediator, head, king, and high priest, not half or half alone, but the whole person of Christ, to which belong both natures,
apparet: Spiritum Sanctum non usurpare hanc phrasin de Christo: sedet ad dextram Patris, ut significaret, Christum, qua homo est, ita sedere ad dextram Patris, ut aequali potentia et maiestate sibi realiter communicata cum Patre regnen, sed tantum eum regnare ut Patris vicarium, superior omnibus angelis, sed inferiorem tantum Patre. (By Frank II, 348 sqq)
gloriae summus, quo Christus bedv& panos secundum humanam naturam in thronum maiestatis divinae evectus omnia quae sunt in regno potentiae, gratiae et gloriae potentissime praesentissimeque gubernat in nominis sui gloriam et ecclesiae afflictae solatium et salutem divine and human, not only according to his divinity, but also according to and with his assumed human nature, according to which he is our brother, and we are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone. 7°) Chemnitz is particularly vigorously opposed to the Reformed error that the human nature of Christ, although it had its functions in the state of humiliation, was retired in the state of exaltation (otiosam in coelis sedere ac sua tantum gloria perfrui eamque beatis spiritibus ostentare), so that Christ now is and works in the Church only according to his divinity, for example, "justify, quicken, and perform and administer the other saving benefits. °7!) The visible return of Christ to the general final judgment will be dealt with in the doctrine of the last things.