The humiliation of Christ embraces all events of His earthly life from His conception to His burial, the latter included. Christ’s descent into hell (descensus ad inferos) must be excluded from His state of humiliation, 1 Pet. 3,18; Col. 2, 15. The time during which our Lord sojourned on earth, Scripture denominates “the days of His flesh,” αἷ ἡμέραι τῆς σαρκός, Heb. 5, 7. Christ’s humiliation therefore includes: —
a. His conception and nativity. These two events belong to Christ’s state of humiliation inasmuch as the incarnation, which in itself was not a humiliation, though a most gracious condescension, took place under extremely humiliating circumstances; for by His incarnation the Son of God took upon Himself the whole misery and wretchedness which sin had brought upon fallen man, 2 Cor. 8, 9; Luke 9, 58; Phil. 2, 6. 7; Matt. 8,17. Christ was conceived and born as the Savior of the world, Luke 2,11; for through His most holy conception and birth He atoned for our sinful conception and birth, Ps. 51, 5; Gal. 4, 4. 5. The virgin birth of our Lord is a fact clearly attested by Scripture, Is. 7,14; Matt. 1, 23; Luke 1, 34. God willed that the Messiah should be the Son of a virgin, Matt. 1, 22. 23; Is. 7, 14, true man, yet without sin, Heb. 7, 26.
Luther writes: “Therefore the Seed of the Woman could not be an ordinary man; for He had to crush the power of the devil, sin, and death; and since all men are subject to the devil on account of sin and death, He most assuredly had to be without sin. Now, human nature does not bear such seed or fruit, as said above; for they are all under the devil because of their sin. ... So the only means to accomplish the desired end was this: the Seed must be a truly natural Son of the woman, not bom, however, of the woman in a natural way, but by an extraordinary act of God, in order that the Scriptures might be fulfilled that He should be the Seed of only a woman, not of a man; for the text Gen. 3, 15 clearly says that He shall be the Seed of a woman.” (St. L., XX, 1796 f.)
Whether our Savior was born clauso utero or not we may regard as an open question, though this is possible on account of the communication of attributes. (Cp. Formula of Concord, Thor. Decl., VIII, 24; VII, 100.) The denial of the virgin birth of our Savior by rationalists and Modernists (Th. Kaftan: It is “worthless from a religious point of view,” “religioes wertlos”) is contrary to the express testimony of Scripture and is a result and proof of their unbelief.
The question whether Mary afterwards in her marriage with Joseph had children or not (semper virgo) the ancient Church as well as Luther and the older Lutheran dogmaticians have answered in the negative, while the opinions of more recent exegetes are divided on the matter. The question is a purely historical one and may be left open since Scripture does not answer it with sufficient clearness. Cp. Matt. 1, 25; Luke 2, 7; Matt. 12, 46 3.; 13,553.; John 2,12; 7, 3ff.; Gal. 1,19. (Cp. Pieper, Christliche Dogmatik, II, 366 ff.) Eusebius, III, 11, according to Hegesippus: “Alphaeus (Cleophas) was a brother of Joseph, who after the death of Alphaeus adopted his children, so that these (cousins of Jesus) became brothers of our Savior in the legal sense.” According to this view, James, the apostle and brother of the Lord, Gal. 1,19, and James, the son of Alphaeus, Matt. 10, 3, are identical. Chemnitz (Jerome): Mariam post partum (Matt. 1, 25) aut cum Ioseph concubuisse aut filios ex ipso sustulisse non credimus, quia non legimus, sc. in Scriptura Sacra. The term first-born (Luke 2, 7) does not prove that Mary had other sons.
b. The circumcision, education, and life of Christ. As all Jewish male infants were circumcised on the eighth day, so Jesus was made subject to the divine Law by circumcision on the eighth day, Luke 2, 21, although He was the Lord of the Law, Matt. 12, 8; Mark 2, 28. Hence the circumcision of Christ is rightly regarded as a part of His redemptive work.
Though Jesus had no faults that required correction by education, but was rather a pattern of virtue even in His childhood, Luke 2, 51. 52, since He was “holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners/’ Heb. 7, 26, He nevertheless by real study increased in wisdom according to the natural knowledge of His human nature (secundum scientiam naturalem et experimentalem), because in His state of humiliation He did not always and fully use the divine omniscience communicated to His human nature, Phil. 2, 6. 7.
In His visible sojourn on earth Christ appeared in the form of a servant and the likeness of man, enduring all troubles, dangers, temptations, reproaches, and hardships that are common to men in general. Matt. 8, 20. He also voluntarily subjected Himself to the civil government, Matt. 17, 27, and appeared ordinarily as a mere man, so that He was regarded as equal or inferior to others. Matt. 9, 14; 16, 13.14.
c. The suffering , death , and burial of Christ. The suffering of Christ extended throughout the days of His visible sojourn on earth, Matt. 2, 13; Luke 2, 1 ff., but culminated in the passio magna during the last two days of His earthly life.
The passio magna is the extreme anguish which our Redeemer suffered from Gethsemane to Calvary, partly in His soul, partly in His body, by enduring to the end the most extreme and bitter sorrows for the atonement of our sins, Is. 53, 4—6; 2 Cor. 5, 21.
The agony of being forsaken by God, Matt. 27, 46, was the endurance of divine wrath on account of the sins of men in His soul, just as if He Himself had committed the imputed transgressions. Or we may say, it was the endurance of the pangs of hell (dolores infemales), which consist essentially in separation from God, Matt. 8, 12; 25, 41; 2 Thess. 1, 9.
Our dogmaticians aptly describe the agony of the desertio as the sensus irae divinae propter peccata hominum imputata. But it is unscriptural to ascribe to Christ despair (desperatio) in His extreme anguish, since despair is wickedness and therefore not in agreement with His sinless character, Ps. 22, 2. 19; Luke 23, 46; Gal. 4, 4. 5.
The death of Christ was a true death, or the separation of His soul from His body, Matt. 27, 50; Mark 15, 37; Luke 23, 46; John 19, 30. In Christ’s death not only His soul, but also His body remained in communion with the divine nature (unto personalis), so that His death was truly that of the Son of God, Acts 3, 15. The possibility of Christ’s death under these circumstances is a mystery so great that He Himself has explained it, John 10,17.18. He could die because He did not always and fully use the divine majesty imparted to His human nature.
The honorable burial of Christ and the preservation of His body in the grave Scripture presents as a special prerogative of the Messiah, Is. 53, 9; Ps. 16, 10; Acts 2, 31; 13, 35—37, who after the completion of His redemptive work, Is. 53,10—12, was to be highly exalted over all things, Phil. 2, 9—11; Eph. 1, 20—23.
Scholastic theologians raised the question whether Christ might be called a true man also while His body was resting in the grave. Quenstedt rightly designates this a questio curiosa, based upon a false definition of a human being (ens vivum, animal). Scripture clearly affirms that Christ gave Himself for us as a true man, 1 Tim. 2, 5. 6, which includes that He was a true man also in death.