a. The descent of Christ into hell (descensus ad inferos). The doctrine of Christ’s descent into hell rests upon 1 Pet. 3, 18—20, which describes in detail both its nature and purpose. Additional light is shed upon the doctrine by Col. 2,15. According to 1 Pet. 3, 18 the descensus ad inferos consisted in the glorious act of the quickened Christ (ζωοποιηθείς), by which He, with soul and body (against the papists and modern theologians), according to His human nature, went (πορενθείς) to the prison (φυλακή) of the evil spirits and the damned (άπειθήοασιν) and preached (έκήρνξεν) to them. The Greek verb κηρνσσειν does not necessarily mean to “announce salvation,” but is a vox media, which stands for both Law- and Gospel-preaching; in itself it does not mean more than to proclaim, to announce, to publish. It is used for the preaching of the Law in Matt. 3, 1; Acts 15, 21; Rom. 2, 21; Rev. 5, 2; Luke 12, 3. In 1 Pet. 3, 19, as the context shows, the term manifestly denotes Law-preaching, since Christ here came as a “Herald” (χήρνξ) to bring the proclamation of His victory to such as had heard the divine Word on earth, yet had refused to accept it (άπειθήοασιν). To them Christ therefore appeared as the divine Judge, whose authority they had scorned on earth. That this is the meaning of Christ’s appearance in hell is proved by the very scope of the text; for in the preceding verses the Christians are exhorted to bear suffering at the hand of the ungodly, trusting in the righteous Judge, who will mete out due punishment to all enemies of His Church at His second advent.
The descent of Christ into hell foreshadowed the final judgment of the wicked; and it is for this reason that St. Peter refers to it in this passage.
Hollaz is right when he says: “Christ descended into hell, not for the purpose of suffering any evil from the demons, John 19, 30; Luke 24, 26, but to triumph over the devils, Rev. 1,18; Col. 2,16, and to convince condemned men that they were justly shut up in the infernal prison, 1 Pet. 3,19. The preaching of Christ in hell was not evangelical, but legal, accusatory, terrifying, and that, too, both verbal, by which He convinced them that they had deserved eternal punishments, and real, by which He struck frightful terror into them.” (Doctr . Theol., p. 396.)
In opposition to various errorists we hold that it was not the purpose of Christ in descending to hell —
a) To preach the Gospel to the evil spirits and their captives (Origen, all teachers of a complete restoration, or apokatastasis), or at least to those of the damned who in their earthly life did not have the opportunity to hear the Gospel (Church Fathers, modern theologians). The statement in 1 Pet. 4, 6 that “the Gospel was preached also to them that are dead” does not refer to Christ’s preaching in hell, but to the preaching of the Gospel to men while they were still living on earth. This follows from the clause of purpose, “that they might be judged according to men in the flesh.” At any rate, the passage does not teach a probation after death.
b) To suffer the pangs of hell (Aepinus, Flacius) or to pay to Satan, as the keeper of the prison, a ransom for the redeemed souls (Origen). For neither was Christ’s descent a part of His humiliation, Luke 23, 43—46, nor did Satan have any authority to triumph over man and to hold him captive, 1 John 3, 8; Heb. 2, 14. 15. The passage Acts 2, 24 must not be construed as teaching any suffering of Christ after death; for the expression “pains of death” is equivalent to “power of death,” as the context clearly shows.
Against John Parsimonius, who, on the ground that hell is no locality, held that Christ “descended into hell” only in the sense that during His lifetime He suffered the pains of hell, our dogmaticians declared that Scripture teaches us to believe that our Savior descended into hell truly and really, though not by any local movement, since the quickened Christ was no longer in the form of a servant, but in the form of God, and so constantly employed the divine majesty communicated to His human nature.
As John Parsimonius, so also the Reformed deny Christ’s real descent into hell, some referring the descensus to the entire state of humiliation (Sohnius), others to His burial (Bucer, Beza), and still others to the pains which He suffered in His soul during His great Passion (Calvin). In the Lutheran Church the doctrine of Christ’s descent into hell was definitely fixed on the basis of Scripture by the adoption of Article IX of the Formula of Concord. Hollaz defines the descensus ad inferos thus: “The descent of Christ into the lower world is the true, real, and supernatural movement by which Christ, having been freed from the chains of death and restored to life, in His entire person betook Himself to the lower regions that He might exhibit Himself to the evil spirits and to condemned men as the Conqueror of death.” (Doctr. Theol., p. 379.)
b. The resurrection of Christ. The resurrection of Christ has been defined by Hollaz as “the act of glorious victory by which Christ, the God-man, through the same power as that of God the Father and the Holy Spirit, brought forth His body, reunited with the soul and glorified, and showed it alive to His disciples by various proofs, for the confirmation of our peace, fellowship, joy, and hope in our own future resurrection.” (Doctr. Theol., p. 380.) This definition is both Scriptural and complete.
According to Scripture the resurrection of Christ, on the one hand, was the work of God the Father, who acted as its efficient Cause, Eph. 1, 20; Rom. 6, 4. As such our Savior’s resurrection was the actual absolution, or justification, of the whole world; for by the resurrection, or justification, of the divine Substitute of man God declared all sinners free from sin, Rom. 4, 24. 25; 10, 9. For this reason Christ’s resurrection is the object of justifying faith, 1 Cor. 15, 14.17.21. Calov writes of this: “As God punished our sins in Christ, which were placed upon, and imputed to, Him as our Substitute, so also by raising Him from the dead He absolved Him from our sins imputed to Him and therefore also absolved us in Him.” (Biblia Ittustr., ad Rom. 4, 25.)
On the other hand, Scripture describes also Christ Himself as the efficient Cause (causa efficiens) of His resurrection, John 2, 19; 10, 17. 18, inasmuch as He is true God and in possession of the same divine power (una numero omnipotentia) as the Father and the Holy Ghost, John 5, 19. From this point of view Christ’s resurrection is a most powerful proof for His deity and divine Saviorship, John 2, 18—21.
The body of Christ which, reunited with the soul, came forth from the grave was the same body which the Son of God assumed in the body of Mary and which He subjected to suffering and death, John 20, 27. But the risen body of Christ possessed new properties (idem corpus essentia, novum qualitatibus). The natural body (ρώμα ψυχικόν, 1 Cor. 15,44) had become a spiritual body (σώμα πνευματικόν, 1 Cor. 15, 44), that is, a glorified body (σῶμα τής δόξης, Phil. 3, 21).
The resurrection of Christ occurred clauso sepulchro, or through the closed and sealed tomb, Matt. 28, 1—6. This truth is denied by the Reformed theologians because they reject the communication of attributes, John 20, 19.
The eating of the food by the risen Savior, Luke 24, 43, occurred not from necessity, but from free will; not for the nourishment of His body, but for the strengthening of the faith of the disciples.
With regard to the purpose of the resurrection, Hollaz says correctly that Christ rose again in order to manifest the victory which He had obtained over death and the devil, Acts 2, 24; Heb. 2, 14.15, and to offer and apply to all men the fruits of His Passion and death, Rom. 4, 25; 1 Pet. 1, 3. 4; John 11, 25. 26; 14, 19; 2 Cor. 4, 14; 1 Thess. 4, 14; Rom. 6, 4; 2 Cor. 5, 15. For this reason the doctrine of Christ’s resurrection is fundamental for the entire Christian religion.
c. The forty days between Christ’s resurrection and ascension. The information which Holy Scripture gives with regard to the forty days between Christ’s resurrection and ascension is only fragmentary. After His triumphant victory over death our Savior no longer associated with His disciples as He did in the days of His flesh, Luke 24, 44, yet He continually appeared to them, Acts 1, 3; 1 Cor. 15, 4—8, conversed and ate with them, Luke 24, 41—43, and convinced them that He was the Christ, the Son of God, John 20, 19—31.
d. The ascension of Christ. Christ’s ascension may be viewed either in a wider sense, including His sitting at the right hand of God, Acts 2, 33. 34; Eph. 4,10, or in a narrower sense, embracing only the visible elevation of Christ on high, Luke 24, 51; Acts 1, 9—11. In this article we use the term in the latter signification.
In contradistinction to the resurrection the ascension occurred before witnesses. Acts 1, 9—14. Essentially it consisted in a local movement upward (motus localis), until the Savior was received by a cloud, Acts 1, 9.
The heaven into which Christ ascended is not only the heaven of the blessed saints (John 14, 2: domicilium beatorum ascensionis terminus ad quern proprius), but also the right hand of God (coelum maiestaticum). God’s right hand is not a definite place, but His omnipotent power, which fills heaven and earth, Matt. 26, 64; Ex. 15, 6; Heb. 1, 3; 8, 1; 12, 2; Ps. 139, 10; Eph. 1, 20—23.
The purpose of the ascension was, a) with respect to Christ Himself, His public and triumphant certification as the Savior of the world, or His solemn enthronement according to His human nature, John 6, 60—62, and, b) with respect to all believers, the most glorious assurance that they, too, shall follow Christ into heaven, John 14, 2f.; 17,24.
The Reformed regard heaven as created space, in which Christ’s human nature is enclosed (Christus comprehensus et circumscriptus), so that, according to His human nature, He is present neither in the Lord’s Supper nor anywhere else outside the heavenly place in which His human nature is shut in. Acts 3, 21 does not prove the error of the Reformed. (Cf. Formula of Con- cord, Thor. Decl., VII, 119.)
Hollaz gives the following comprehensive definition of Christ’s ascension: “The ascension is the glorious act of Christ by which, after having been resuscitated. He betook Himself, according to His human nature, by a true, real, and local motion, according to His voluntary determination (per liberam oeconomiam) and in a visible manner unto the clouds and thence in an invisible manner into the common heaven of the blessed and to the very throne of God, that, having triumphed over His enemies, He might occupy the kingdom of God, Acts 3, 21, reopen the closed paradise. Rev. 3, 7, and prepare a permanent inheritance for us in heaven, John 14, 2.” (Doctr . Theol., p. 380.)
e. Christ’s sitting at the right hand of God. Since the right hand of God is His omnipresent power and operation, Ps. 139, 9. 10; 118, 15. 16, Christ’s sitting at the right hand of God the Father is His full and incessant use of the divine majesty communicated to the human nature for universal and most glorious government in the kingdoms of power, grace, and glory, 1 Cor. 15, 25. 27; Ps. 110, 1; Heb. 2, 7. 8. Christ’s session at the right hand of God is therefore His exaltation, according to His human nature, to the sovereign lordship and rule over all things, Eph. 1, 20—23; 4,10; 1 Pet. 3, 22; Acts 3, 21. (Cp. Formula of Concord, Thor. Decl., VIII, 27.)
Concerning the participation of the human nature in the omnipotent operation of the divine nature in the states of humiliation and exaltation, we may note the following: As the divine majesty (δόξά) was always in the human nature after the incarnation, John 1, 14; Col. 2, 9, yet revealed itself in a peculiar way through the human nature at the transfiguration, Matt. 17, 1—8, so also the omnipotent operation of the divine nature was always in the human nature after the incarnation, yet revealed itself most gloriously after its exaltation to the right hand of God.
The sitting of Christ at the Tight hand of God may be defined in all its aspects as “the highest degree of glory, in which Christ, the God-man, having been exalted as to His human nature to the throne of divine majesty, most powerfully and by His immediate presence governs all things which are in the kingdoms of power, grace, and glory for the praise of His own name and the solace and safety of the afflicted Church.” (Hollaz, Doctr. Theol., p. 381.)
The special comfort for the believer which attaches to Christ’s triumphant session at the right hand of God is beautifully expressed by the Formula of Concord in the following words (Thor. Decl., VII, 78 f.): “We hold . . . that also according to His assumed nature and with the same He Christ can be, and also is, present where He will, and especially that in His Church and congregation on earth He is present as Mediator, Head, King, and High Priest, not in part, or one half of Him only, but the entire person of Christ is present, to which both natures belong, the divine and the 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, even as He has instituted His Holy Supper for the certain assurance and confirmation of this, that also according to that nature according to which He has flesh and blood He will be with us and dwell, work, and be efficacious in us.”
f. Christ’s second advent. The doctrine of Christ’s visible and glorious return for the final Judgment will be considered under the head of Eschatology, where it properly belongs.