Chapter XXXIX: Section III: The Two States Of Christ

I. The State of Humiliation.

1. The nature of this humiliation.

We may dismiss, as unworthy of serious notice, the views that it consisted essentially either in the union of the Logos with human nature,—for this union with human nature continues in the state of exaltation; or in the outward trials and privations of Christ’s human life,—for this view casts reproach upon poverty, and ignores the power of the soul to rise superior to its outward circumstances.

E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 224—“The error of supposing it
too humiliating to obey law was derived from the Roman treasury of
merit and works of supererogation. Better was Frederick the
Great’s sentiment when his sturdy subject and neighbor, the
miller, whose windmill he had attempted to remove, having beaten
him in a lawsuit, the thwarted monarch exclaimed: ‘Thank God,
there is law in Prussia!’ ” Palmer, Theological Definition,
79—“God reveals himself in the rock, vegetable, animal, man. Must
not the process go on? Must there not appear in the fulness of
time a man who will reveal God as perfectly as is possible in
human conditions—a man who is God under the limitations of
humanity? Such incarnation is humiliation only in the eyes of men.
To Christ it is lifting up, exaltation, glory; _John 12:32_—‘_And
I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto
myself._’ ” George Harris, Moral Evolution, 409—“The divinity of
Christ is not obscured, but is more clearly seen, shining through
his humanity.”

We may devote more attention to the

A. Theory of Thomasius, Delitzsch, and Crosby, that the humiliation consisted in the surrender of the relative divine attributes.

This theory holds that the Logos, although retaining his divine self-consciousness and his immanent attributes of holiness, love, and truth, surrendered his relative attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, in order to take to himself veritable human nature. According to this view, there are, indeed, two natures in Christ, but neither of these natures is infinite. Thomasius and Delitzsch are the chief advocates of this theory in Germany. Dr. Howard Crosby has maintained a similar view in America.

The theory of Thomasius, Delitzsch, and Crosby has been, though
improperly, called the theory of the Kenosis (from
ἐκένωσεν—“_emptied himself_”—in _Phil. 2:7_), and its advocates
are often called Kenotic theologians. There is a Kenosis of the
Logos, but it is of a different sort from that which this theory
supposes. For statements of this theory, see Thomasius, Christi
Person und Werk, 2:233-255, 542-550; Delitzsch, Biblische
Psychologie, 323-333; Howard Crosby, in Bap. Quar., 1870:350-363—a
discourse subsequently published in a separate volume, with the
title: The True Humanity of Christ, and reviewed by Shedd, in
Presb. Rev., April, 1881:429-431. Crosby emphasizes the word
“_became_,” in _John 1:14_—“_and the Word became flesh_”—and gives
the Word “_flesh_” the sense of “man,” or “human.” Crosby, then,
should logically deny, though he does not deny, that Christ’s body
was derived from the Virgin.

We object to this view that:

(_a_) It contradicts the Scriptures already referred to, in which Christ asserts his divine knowledge and power. Divinity, it is said, can give up its world-functions, for it existed without these before creation. But to give up divine attributes is to give up the substance of Godhead. Nor is it a sufficient reply to say that only the relative attributes are given up, while the immanent attributes, which chiefly characterize the Godhead, are retained; for the immanent necessarily involve the relative, as the greater involve the less.

Liebner, Jahrbuch f. d. Theol., 3:349-356—“Is the Logos here? But
wherein does he show his presence, that it may be known?” Hase,
Hutterus Redivivus, 11th ed., 217, note. John Caird, Fund. Ideas
of Christianity, 2:125-146, criticises the theory of the Kenosis,
but grants that, with all its self-contradictions, as he regards
them, it is an attempt to render conceivable the profound truth of
a sympathizing, self-sacrificing God.

(_b_) Since the Logos, in uniting himself to a human soul, reduces himself to the condition and limitations of a human soul, the theory is virtually a theory of the coëxistence of two human souls in Christ. But the union of two finite souls is more difficult to explain than the union of a finite and an infinite,—since there can be in the former case no intelligent guidance and control of the human element by the divine.

Dorner, Jahrbuch f. d. Theol., 1:397-408—“The impossibility of
making two finite souls into one finally drove Arianism to the
denial of any human soul in Christ” (Apollinarianism). This
statement of Dorner, which we have already quoted in our account
of Apollinarianism, illustrates the similar impossibility, upon
the theory of Thomasius, of constructing out of two finite souls
the person of Christ. See also Hovey, God with Us, 68.

(_c_) This theory fails to secure its end, that of making comprehensible the human development of Jesus,—for even though divested of the relative attributes of Godhood, the Logos still retains his divine self-consciousness, together with his immanent attributes of holiness, love, and truth. This is as difficult to reconcile with a purely natural human development as the possession of the relative divine attributes would be. The theory logically leads to a further denial of the possession of any divine attributes, or of any divine consciousness at all, on the part of Christ, and merges itself in the view of Gess and Beecher, that the Godhead of the Logos is actually transformed into a human soul.

Kahnis, Dogmatik 3:343—“The old theology conceived of Christ as in
full and unbroken use of the divine self-consciousness, the divine
attributes, and the divine world-functions, from the conception
until death. Though Jesus, as fœtus, child, boy, was not almighty
and omnipresent according to his human nature, yet he was so, as
to his divine nature, which constituted one _ego_ with his human.
Thomasius, however, declared that the Logos gave up his relative
attributes, during his sojourn in flesh. Dorner’s objection to
this, on the ground of the divine unchangeableness, overshoots the
mark, because it makes any _becoming_ impossible.

“But some things in Thomasius’ doctrine are still difficult: 1st,
divinity can certainly give up its world-functions, for it has
existed without these before the world was. In the nature of an
absolute personality, however, lies an absolute knowing, willing,
feeling, which it cannot give up. Hence _Phil. 2:6-11_ speaks of a
giving-up of divine glory, but not of a giving-up of divine
attributes or nature. 2d, little is gained by such an assumption
of the giving-up of _relative_ attributes, since the Logos, even
while divested of a part of his attributes, still has full
possession of his divine self-consciousness, which must make a
purely human development no less difficult. 3d, the expressions of
divine self-consciousness, the works of divine power, the words of
divine wisdom, prove that Jesus was in possession of his divine
self-consciousness and attributes.

“The essential thing which the Kenotics aim at, however, stands
fast; namely, that the divine personality of the Logos divested
itself of its glory (_John 17:5_), riches (_2 Cor. 8:6_), divine
form (_Phil. 2:6_). This divesting is the becoming man. The
humiliation, then, was a giving up of the use, not of the
possession, of the divine nature and attributes. That man can thus
give up self-consciousness and powers, we see every day in sleep.
But man does not, thereby, cease to be man. So we maintain that
the Logos, when he became man, did not divest himself of his
divine person and nature, which was impossible; but only divested
himself of the use and exercise of these—these being latent to
him—in order to unfold themselves to use in the measure to which
his human nature developed itself—a use which found its completion
in the condition of exaltation.” This statement of Kahnis,
although approaching correctness, is still neither quite correct
nor quite complete.

B. Theory that the humiliation consisted in the surrender of the independent exercise of the divine attributes.

This theory, which we regard as the most satisfactory of all, may be more fully set forth as follows. The humiliation, as the Scriptures seem to show, consisted:

(_a_) In that act of the preëxistent Logos by which he gave up his divine glory with the Father, in order to take a servant-form. In this act, he resigned not the possession, nor yet entirely the use, but rather the independent exercise, of the divine attributes.

_John 17:5_—“_glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory
which I had with thee before the world was_”; _Phil. 2:6,
7_—“_who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an
equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself,
taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men_”;
_2 Cor. 8:9_—“_For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that
ye through his poverty might become rich._” Pompilia, in Robert
Browning’s The Ring and the Book: “Now I see how God is likest God
in being born.”

Omniscience gives up all knowledge but that of the child, the
infant, the embryo, the infinitesimal germ of humanity.
Omnipotence gives up all power but that of the impregnated ovum in
the womb of the Virgin. The Godhead narrows itself down to a point
that is next to absolute extinction. Jesus washing his disciples’
feet, in _John 13:1-20_, is the symbol of his coming down from his
throne of glory and taking the form of a servant, in order that he
may purify us, by regeneration and sanctification, for the
marriage-supper of the Lamb.

(_b_) In the submission of the Logos to the control of the Holy Spirit and the limitations of his Messianic mission, in his communication of the divine fulness of the human nature which he had taken into union with himself.

_Acts 1:2_—Jesus, “_after that he had given commandment through
the Holy Spirit unto the apostles whom he had chosen_”;
_10:38_—“_Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him with the Holy
Spirit and with power_”; _Heb. 9:14_—“_the blood of Christ, who
through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto
God._” A minor may have a great estate left to him, yet may have
only such use of it as his guardian permits. In Homer’s Iliad,
when Andromache brings her infant son to part with Hector, the boy
is terrified by the warlike plumes of his father’s helmet, and
Hector puts them off to embrace him. So God lays aside “That
glorious form, that light unsufferable, And that far-beaming blaze
of majesty.” Arthur H. Hallam, in John Brown’s Rab and his
Friends, 282, 283—“Revelation is the voluntary approximation of
the infinite Being to the ways and thoughts of finite humanity.”

(_c_) In the continuous surrender, on the part of the God-man, so far as his human nature was concerned, of the exercise of those divine powers with which it was endowed by virtue of its union with the divine, and in the voluntary acceptance, which followed upon this, of temptation, suffering, and death.

_Mat. 26:53_—“_thinkest thou that I cannot beseech my Father, and
he shall even now send me more than twelve legions of angels?_”
_John 10:17, 18_—“_Therefore doth the Father love me, because I
lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one taketh it away
from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down,
and I have power to take it again_”; _Phil. 2:8_—“_and being found
in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even
unto death, yea, the death of the cross._” _Cf._ Shakespeare,
Merchant of Venice: “Such music is there in immortal souls, That
while this muddy vesture of decay Doth close it in, we cannot see
it.”

Each of these elements of the doctrine has its own Scriptural support. We must therefore regard the humiliation of Christ, not as consisting in a single act, but as involving a continuous self-renunciation, which began with the Kenosis of the Logos in becoming man, and which culminated in the self-subjection of the God-man to the death of the cross.

Our doctrine of Christ’s humiliation will be better understood if
we put it midway between two pairs of erroneous views, making it
the third of five. The list would be as follows: (1) Gess: The
Logos gave up all divine attributes; (2) Thomasius: The Logos gave
up relative attributes only; (3) True View: The Logos gave up the
independent exercise of divine attributes; (4) Old Orthodoxy:
Christ gave up the use of divine attributes; (5) Anselm: Christ
acted as if he did not possess divine attributes. The full
exposition of the classical passage with reference to the
humiliation, namely, _Phil. 2:5-8_, we give below, under the next
paragraph, pages 705, 706. Brentius illustrated Christ’s
humiliation by the king who travels incognito. But Mason, Faith of
the Gospel, 158, says well that “to part in appearance with only
the fruition of the divine attributes would be to impose upon us
with a pretence of self-sacrifice; but to part with it in reality
was to manifest most perfectly the true nature of God.”

This same objection lies against the explanation given in the
Church Quarterly Review, Oct. 1891:1-30, on Our Lord’s Knowledge
as Man: “If divine knowledge exists in a different form from
human, and a translation into a different form is necessary before
it can be available in the human sphere, our Lord might know the
day of judgment as God, and yet be ignorant of it as man. This
must have been the case if he did not choose to translate it into
the human form. But it might also have been incapable of
translation. The processes of divine knowledge may be far above
our finite comprehension.” This seems to us to be a virtual denial
of the unity of Christ’s person, and to make our Lord play fast
and loose with the truth. He either knew, or he did not know; and
his denial that he knew makes it impossible that he should have
known in any sense.

2. The stages of Christ’s humiliation.

We may distinguish: (_a_) That act of the preïncarnate Logos by which, in becoming man, he gave up the independent exercise of the divine attributes. (_b_) His submission to the common laws which regulate the origin of souls from a preëxisting sinful stock, in taking his human nature from the Virgin,—a human nature which only the miraculous conception rendered pure. (_c_) His subjection to the limitations involved in a human growth and development,—reaching the consciousness of his sonship at his twelfth year, and working no miracles till after the baptism. (_d_) The subordination of himself, in state, knowledge, teaching, and acts, to the control of the Holy Spirit,—so living, not independently, but as a servant. (_e_) His subjection, as connected with a sinful race, to temptation and suffering, and finally to the death which constituted the penalty of the law.

Peter Lombard asked whether God could know more than he was aware
of? It is only another way of putting the question whether, during
the earthly life of Christ, the Logos existed outside of the flesh
of Jesus. We must answer in the affirmative. Otherwise the number
of the persons in the Trinity would be variable, and the universe
could do without him who is ever “_upholding all things by the
word of his power_” (_Heb. 1:3_), and in whom “_all things
consist_” (_Col. 1:17_). Let us recall the nature of God’s
omnipresence (see pages 279-282). Omnipresence is nothing less
than the presence of the whole of God in every place. From this it
follows, that the whole Christ can be present in every believer as
fully as if that believer were the only one to receive of his
fulness, and that the whole Logos can be united to and be present
in the man Christ Jesus, while at the same time he fills and
governs the universe. By virtue of this omnipresence, therefore,
the whole Logos can suffer on earth, while yet the whole Logos
reigns in heaven. The Logos outside of Christ has the perpetual
consciousness of his Godhead, while yet the Logos, as united to
humanity in Christ, is subject to ignorance, weakness, and death.
Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 1:153—“Jehovah, though present in the form of
the burning bush, was at the same time omnipresent also”;
2:265-284, esp. 282—“Because the sun is shining in and through a
cloud, it does not follow that it cannot at the same time be
shining through the remainder of universal space, unobstructed by
any vapor whatever.” Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 21—“Not with
God, as with finite man, does arrival in one place necessitate
withdrawal from another.” John Calvin: “The whole Christ was
there; but not all that was in Christ was there.” See Adamson, The
Mind of Christ.

How the independent exercise of the attributes of omnipotence,
omniscience, and omnipresence can be surrendered, even for a time,
would be inconceivable, if we were regarding the Logos as he is in
himself, seated upon the throne of the universe. The matter is
somewhat easier when we remember that it was not the Logos _per
se_, but rather the God-man, Jesus Christ, in whom the Logos
submitted to this humiliation. South, Sermons, 2:9—“Be the
fountain never so full, yet if it communicate itself by a little
pipe, the stream can be but small and inconsiderable, and equal to
the measure of its conveyance.” Sartorius, Person and Work of
Christ, 39—“The human eye, when open, sees heaven and earth; but
when shut, it sees little or nothing. Yet its inherent capacity
does not change. So divinity does not change its nature, when it
drops the curtain of humanity before the eyes of the God-man.”

The divine in Christ, during most of his earthly life, is latent,
or only now and then present to his consciousness or manifested to
others. Illustrate from second childhood, where the mind itself
exists, but is not capable of use; or from first childhood, where
even a Newton or a Humboldt, if brought back to earth and made to
occupy an infant body and brain, would develop as an infant, with
infantile powers. There is more in memory than we can at this
moment recall,—memory is greater than recollection. There is more
of us at all times than we know,—only the sudden emergency reveals
the largeness of our resources of mind and heart and will. The new
nature, in the regenerate, is greater than it appears: “_Beloved,
now are we children of God, and it is not yet made manifest what
we shall be. We, know that, if he shall be manifested, we shall be
like him_” (_1 John 3:2_). So in Christ there was an ocean-like
fulness of resource, of which only now and then the Spirit
permitted the consciousness and the exercise.

Without denying (with Dorner) the completeness, even from the
moment of the conception, of the union between the deity and the
humanity, we may still say with Kahnis: “The human nature of
Christ, according to the measure of its development, appropriates
more and more to its conscious use the latent fulness of the
divine nature.” So we take the middle ground between two opposite
extremes. On the one hand, the Kenosis was not the extinction of
the Logos. Nor, on the other hand, did Christ hunger and sleep by
miracle,—this is Docetism. We must not minimize Christ’s
humiliation, for this was his glory. There was no limit to his
descent, except that arising from his sinlessness. His humiliation
was not merely the giving-up of the appearance of Godhead. Baird,
Elohim Revealed, 585—“Should any one aim to celebrate the
condescension of the emperor Charles the Fifth, by dwelling on the
fact that he laid aside the robes of royalty and assumed the style
of a subject, and altogether ignore the more important matter that
he actually became a private person, it would be very weak and
absurd.” _Cf._ _2 Cor. 8:9_—“_though he was rich, yet for your
sakes he became poor_” = he beggared himself. _Mat. 27:46_—“_My
God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?_” = non-exercise of divine
omniscience.

Inasmuch, however, as the passage _Phil. 2:6-8_ is the chief basis
and support of the doctrine of Christ’s humiliation, we here
subjoin a more detailed examination of it.

EXPOSITION OF PHILIPPIANS, 2:6-8. The passage reads: “_who,
existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality
with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the
form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being
found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient
even unto death, yea, the death of the cross_.”

The subject of the sentence is at first (_verses 6, 7_) Christ
Jesus, regarded as the preëxistent Logos; subsequently (_verse
8_), this same Christ Jesus, regarded as incarnate. This change in
the subject is indicated by the contrast between μορφῇ θεοῦ
(_verse 6_) and μορφὴν δούλου (_verse 7_), as well as by the
participles λαβών and γενόμενος (_verse 7_) and εύρεθείς (_verse
8_) It is asserted, then, that the preëxisting Logos, “although
subsisting in the form of God, did not regard his equality with
God as a thing to be forcibly retained, but emptied himself by
taking the form of a servant, (that is,) by being made in the
likeness of men. And being found in outward condition as a man, he
(the incarnate son of God, yet further) humbled himself, by
becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (_verse
8_).

Here notice that what the Logos divested himself of, in becoming
man, is not the substance of his Godhead, but the “_form of God_”
in which this substance was manifested. This “_form of God_” can
be only that independent exercise of the powers and prerogatives
of Deity which constitutes his “_equality with God_.” This he
surrenders, in the act of “_taking the form of a servant_”—or
becoming subordinate, as man. (Here other Scriptures complete the
view, by their representations of the controlling influence of the
Holy Spirit in the earthly life of Christ.) The phrases “made in
the likeness of men” and “found in fashion as a man” are used to
intimate, not that Jesus Christ was not really man, but that he
was God as well as man, and therefore free from the sin which
clings to man (_cf._ _Rom. 8:3_—ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς
ἁμαρτίας—Meyer). Finally, this one person, now God and man united,
submits himself, consciously and voluntarily, to the humiliation
of an ignominious death.

See Lightfoot, on _Phil. 2:8_—“Christ divested himself, not of his
divine nature, for that was impossible, but of the glories and
prerogatives of Deity. This he did by taking the form of a
servant.” Evans, in Presb. Rev., 1883:287—“Two stages in Christ’s
humiliation, each represented by a finite verb defining the
central act of the particular stage, accompanied by two modal
participles. 1st stage indicated in _v. 7_. Its central act is:
‘_he emptied himself_.’ Its two modalities are: (1) ‘_taking the
form of servant_’; (2) ‘_being made in the likeness of men_.’ Here
we have the humiliation of the Kenosis,—that by which Christ
_became_ man. 2d stage, indicated in _v. 8_. Its central act is:
‘_he humbled himself_.’ Its two modalities are: (1) ‘_being found
in fashion as a man_’; (2) ‘_becoming obedient unto death, yea,
the death of the cross_.’ Here we have the humiliation of his
obedience and death,—that by which, _in_ humanity, he became a
sacrifice for our sins.”

Meyer refers _Eph. 5:31_ exclusively to Christ and the church,
making the completed union future, however, _i. e._, at the time
of the Parousia. “_For this cause shall a man leave his father and
mother_” = “in the incarnation, Christ leaves father and mother
(his seat at the right hand of God), and cleaves to his wife (the
church), and then the two (the descended Christ and the church)
become one flesh (one ethical person, as the married pair become
one by physical union). The Fathers, however, (Jerome, Theodoret,
Chrysostom), referred it to the incarnation.” On the
interpretation of _Phil 2:6-11_, see Comm. of Neander, Meyer,
Lange, Ellicott.

On the question whether Christ would have become man had there
been no sin, theologians are divided. Dorner, Martensen, and
Westcott answer in the affirmative; Robinson, Watts, and Denney in
the negative. See Dorner, Hist. Doct. Person of Christ, 5:236;
Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, 327-329; Westcott, Com. on
Hebrews, page 8—“The Incarnation is in its essence independent of
the Fall, though conditioned by it as to its circumstances.” _Per
contra_, see Robinson, Christ. Theol., 219, note—“It would be
difficult to show that a like method of argument from _a priori_
premisses will not equally avail to prove sin to have been a
necessary part of the scheme of creation.” Denney, Studies in
Theology, 101, objects to the doctrine of necessary incarnation
irrespective of sin, that it tends to obliterate the distinction
between nature and grace, to blur the definite outlines of the
redemption wrought by Christ, as the supreme revelation of God and
his love. See also Watts, New Apologetic, 198-202; Julius Müller,
Dogmat. Abhandlungen, 66-126; Van Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 512-526,
543-548; Forrest, The Authority of Christ, 340-345. On the general
subject of the Kenosis of the Logos, see Bruce, Humiliation of
Christ; Robins, in Bib. Sac., Oct. 1874:615; Philippi,
Glaubenslehre, 4:138-150, 386-475; Pope, Person of Christ, 23;
Bodemeyer, Lehre von der Kenosis; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:610-625.

II. The State of Exaltation.

1. The nature of this exaltation.

It consisted essentially in: (_a_) A resumption, on the part of the Logos, of his independent exercise of divine attributes. (_b_) The withdrawal, on the part of the Logos, of all limitations in his communication of the divine fulness to the human nature of Christ. (_c_) The corresponding exercise, on the part of the human nature, of those powers which belonged to it by virtue of its union with the divine.

The eighth Psalm, with its account of the glory of human nature,
is at present fulfilled only in Christ (see _Heb. 2:9_—“_but we
behold ... Jesus_”). _Heb. 2:7_—ἠλάττωσας αὐτὸν βραχύ τι παρ᾽
ἀγγέλους—may be translated, as in the margin of the Rev. Vers.:
“_Thou madest __ him for a little while lower than the angels._”
Christ’s human body was not necessarily subject to death; only by
outward compulsion or voluntary surrender could he die. Hence
resurrection was a natural necessity (_Acts 2:24_—“_whom God
raised up, having loosed the pangs of death: because it was not
possible he should be holden of it_”; _31_—“_neither was he left
unto Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption_”). This exaltation,
which then affected humanity only in its head, is to be the
experience also of the members. Our bodies also are to be
delivered from the bondage of corruption, and we are to sit with
Christ upon his throne.

2. The stages of Christ’s exaltation.

(a) The quickening and resurrection.

Both Lutherans and Romanists distinguish between these two, making the former precede, and the latter follow, Christ’s “preaching to the spirits in prison.” These views rest upon a misinterpretation of 1 Pet. 3:18-20. Lutherans teach that Christ descended into hell, to proclaim his triumph to evil spirits. But this is to give ἐκήρυξεν the unusual sense of proclaiming his triumph, instead of his gospel. Romanists teach that Christ entered the underworld to preach to Old Testament saints, that they might be saved. But the passage speaks only of the disobedient; it cannot be pressed into the support of a sacramental theory of the salvation of Old Testament believers. The passage does not assert the descent of Christ into the world of spirits, but only a work of the preïncarnate Logos in offering salvation, through Noah, to the world then about to perish.

Augustine, Ad Euodiam, ep. 99—“The spirits shut up in prison are
the unbelievers who lived in the time of Noah, whose spirits or
souls were shut up in the darkness of ignorance as in a prison;
Christ preached to them, not in the flesh, for he was not yet
incarnate, but in the spirit, that is, in his divine nature.”
Calvin taught that Christ descended into the underworld and
suffered the pains of the lost. But not all Calvinists hold with
him here; see Princeton Essays, 1:153. Meyer, on _Rom. 10:7_,
regards the question—“_Who shall descend into the abyss?_ (_that
is, to bring Christ up from the dead_)”—as an allusion to, and so
indirectly a proof-text for, Christ’s descent into the underworld.
Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 211, favors a preaching to the dead:
“During that time [the three days] he did not return to heaven and
his Father.” But though _John 20:17_ is referred to for proof, is
not this statement true only of his body? So far as the soul is
concerned, Christ can say: “_Father, into thy hands I commend my
spirit_,” and “_To-day thou shalt be with me in Paradise_” (_Luke
23:43, 46_).

Zahn and Dorner best represent the Lutheran view. Zahn, in
Expositor, March, 1898: 216-223—“If Jesus was truly man, then his
soul, after it left the body, entered into the fellowship of
departed spirits.... If Jesus is he who lives forevermore and even
his dying was his act, this carrying in the realm of the dead
cannot be thought of as a purely passive condition, but must have
been known to those who dwelt there..... If Jesus was the Redeemer
of mankind, the generations of those who had passed away must have
thus been brought into personal relation to him, his work and his
kingdom, without waiting for the last day.”

Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:662 (Syst. Doct., 4:127), thinks
“Christ’s descent into Hades marks a new era of his pneumatic
life, in which he shows himself free from the limitations of time
and space.” He rejects “Luther’s notion of a merely triumphal
progress and proclamation of Christ. Before Christ,” he says,
“there was no abode peopled by the damned. The descent was an
application of the benefit of the atonement (implied in
κηρύσσειν). The work was prophetic, not high-priestly nor kingly.
Going to the spirits in prison is spoken of as a spontaneous act,
not one of physical necessity. No power of Hades led him over into
Hades. Deliverance from the limitations of a mortal body is
already an indication of a higher stage of existence. Christ’s
soul is bodiless for a time—πνεῦμα only—as the departed were.

“The ceasing of this preaching is neither recorded, nor reasonably
to be supposed,—indeed the ancient church supposed it carried on
through the apostles. It expresses the universal significance of
Christ for former generations and for the entire kingdom of the
dead. No physical power is a limit to him. The gates of hell, or
Hades, shall not prevail over or against him. The intermediate
state is one of blessedness for him, and he can admit the penitent
thief into it. Even those who were not laid hold of by Christ’s
historic manifestation in this earthly life still must, and may,
be brought into relation with him, in order to be able to accept
or to reject him. And thus the universal relation of Christ to
humanity and the absoluteness of the Christian religion are
confirmed.” So Dorner, for substance.

All this _versus_ Strauss, who thought that the dying of vast
masses of men, before and after Christ, who had not been brought
into relation to Christ, proves that the Christian religion is not
necessary to salvation, because not universal. For advocacy of
Christ’s preaching to the dead, see also Jahrbuch für d. Theol.,
23:177-228; W. W. Patton, in N. Eng., July, 1882:460-478; John
Miller, Problems Suggested by the Bible, part 1:93-98; part 2:38;
Plumptre, The Spirits in Prison; Kendrick, in Bap. Rev., Apl.
1888; Clemen, Niedergefahren zu den Toten.

For the opposite view, see “No Preaching to the Dead,” in
Princeton Rev., March, 1875:197; 1878:451-491; Hovey, in Bap.
Quar., 4:486 _sq._, and Bib. Eschatology, 97-107; Love, Christ’s
Preaching to the Spirits in Prison; Cowles, in Bib. Sac.,
1875:401; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:616-622; Salmond, in Popular
Commentary; and Johnstone, Com., in loco. So Augustine, Thomas
Aquinas, and Bishop Pearson. See also E. D. Morris, Is There
Salvation after Death? and Wright, Relation of Death to Probation,
22:28—“If Christ preached to spirits in Hades, it may have been to
demonstrate the _hopelessness_ of adding in the other world to the
privileges enjoyed in this. We do not read that it had any
favorable effect upon the hearers. If men will not hear Moses and
the Prophets, then they will not hear one risen from the dead.
‘_Today thou shalt be with me in Paradise_’ (_Luke 23:43_) was not
comforting, if Christ was going that day to the realm of lost
spirits. The antediluvians, however, were specially favored with
Noah’s preaching, and were specially wicked.”

For full statement of the view presented in the text, that the
preaching referred to was the preaching of Christ as preëxisting
Logos to the spirits, now in prison, when once they were
disobedient in the days of Noah, see Bartlett, in New Englander,
Oct. 1872: 601 sq., and in Bib. Sac., Apr. 1883:333-373. Before
giving the substance of Bartlett’s exposition, we transcribe in
full the passage in question, _1 Pet. 3:18-20_—“_Because Christ
also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous,
that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh,
but made alive in the spirit; in which also he went and preached
unto the spirits in prison, that aforetime were disobedient, when
the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah._”

Bartlett expounds as follows: “ ‘_In which_ [πνεύματι, divine
nature] ‘_he went and preached to the spirits in prison when once
they disobeyed._’ ἀπειθήσασιν is circumstantial aorist, indicating
the time of the preaching as a definite past: It is an anarthrous
dative, as in _Luke 8:27_; _Mat. 8:23_; _Acts 15:25_; _22:17_. It
is an appositive, or predicative, participle. [That the aorist
participle does not necessarily describe an action preliminary to
that of the principal verb appears from its use in _verse 18_
(θανατωθείς), in _1 Thess. 1:6_ (δεξάμενοι), and in _Col. 2:11,
13_.] The connection of thought is: Peter exhorts his readers to
endure suffering bravely, because Christ did so,—in his lower
nature being put to death, in his higher nature enduring the
opposition of sinners before the flood. Sinners of that time only
are mentioned, because this permits an introduction of the
subsequent reference to baptism. _Cf._ _Gen. 6:3_; _1 Pet. 1:10,
11_; _2 Pet. 2:4, 5_.”

(_b_) The ascension and sitting at the right hand of God.

As the resurrection proclaimed Christ to men as the perfected and glorified man, the conqueror of sin and lord of death, the ascension proclaimed him to the universe as the reinstated God, the possessor of universal dominion, the omnipresent object of worship and hearer of prayer. _Dextra Dei ubique est._

_Mat. 28:18, 20_—“_All authority hath been given unto me in heaven
and on earth.... lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of
the world_”; _Mark 16:19_—“_So then the Lord Jesus, after he had
spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the
right hand of God_”; _Acts 7:55_—“_But he, being full of the Holy
Spirit, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of
God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God_”; _2 Cor.
13:4_—“_he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth through
the power of God_”; _Eph. 1:22, 23_—“_he put all things in
subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things
to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth
all in all_”; _4:10_—“_He that descended is the same also that
ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all
things._” Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 4:184-189—“Before the
resurrection, Christ was the God-_man_; since the resurrection, he
is the _God_-man.... He ate with his disciples, not to show the
_quality_, but the _reality_, of his human body.” Nicoll, Life of
Christ: “It was hard for Elijah to ascend”—it required chariot and
horses of fire—“but it was easier for Christ to ascend than to
descend,”—there was a gravitation upwards. Maclaren: “He has not
left the world, though he has ascended to the Father, any more
than he left the Father when he came into the world”; _John
1:18_—“_the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the
Father_”; _3:13_—“_the Son of man, who is in heaven._”

We are compelled here to consider the problem of the relation of
the humanity to the Logos in the state of exaltation. The
Lutherans maintain the ubiquity of Christ’s human body, and they
make it the basis of their doctrine of the sacraments. Dorner,
Glaubenslehre, 2:674-676 (Syst. Doct., 4:138-142), holds to “a
presence, not simply of the Logos, but of the whole God-man, with
all his people, but not necessarily likewise a similar presence in
the world; in other words, his presence is morally conditioned by
men’s receptivity.” The old theologians said that Christ is not in
heaven, quasi carcere. Calvin, Institutes, 2:15—he is “incarnate,
but not incarcerated.” He has gone into heaven, the place of
spirits, and he manifests himself there; but he has also gone far
above all heavens, that he may fill all things. He is with his
people alway. All power is given into his hand. The church is the
fulness of him that filleth all in all. So the Acts of the
Apostles speak constantly of the Son of man, of the man Jesus as
God, ever present, the object of worship, seated at the right hand
of God, having all the powers and prerogatives of Deity. See
Westcott, Bible Com., on _John 20:22_—“_he breathed on them, and
saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit_”—“The characteristic
effect of the Paschal gift was shown in the new faith by which the
disciples were gathered into a living society; the characteristic
effect of the Pentecostal gift was shown in the exercise of
supremacy potentially universal.”

Who and what is this Christ who is present with his people when
they pray? It is not enough to say, He is simply the Holy Spirit;
for the Holy Spirit is the “_Spirit of Christ_” (_Rom. 8:9_), and
in having the Holy Spirit we have Christ himself (_John 16:7_—“_I
will send him_ [the Comforter] _unto you_”; _14:18_—“_I come unto
you_”). The Christ, who is thus present with us when we pray, is
not simply the Logos, or the divine nature of Christ,—his humanity
being separated from the divinity and being localized in heaven.
This would be inconsistent with his promise, “_Lo, I am with
you_,” in which the “I” that spoke was not simply Deity, but Deity
and humanity inseparably united; and it would deny the real and
indissoluble union of the two natures. The elder brother and
sympathizing Savior who is with us when we pray is man, as well as
God. This manhood is therefore ubiquitous by virtue of its union
with the Godhead.

But this is not to say that Christ’s human _body_ is everywhere
present. It would seem that body must exist in spatial relations,
and be confined to place. We do not know that this is so with
regard to soul. Heaven would seem to be a place, because Christ’s
body is there; and a spiritual body is not a body which is spirit,
but a body which is suited to the uses of the spirit. But even
though Christ may manifest himself, in a glorified human body,
only in heaven, his human soul, by virtue of its union with the
divine nature, can at the same moment be with all his scattered
people over the whole earth. As, in the days of his flesh, his
humanity was confined to place, while as to his Deity he could
speak of the Son of man who is in heaven, so now, although his
human body may be confined to place, his human soul is ubiquitous.
Humanity can exist without body; for during the three days in the
sepulchre, Christ’s body was on earth, but his soul was in the
other world; and in like manner there is, during the intermediate
state, a separation of the soul and the body of believers. But
humanity cannot exist without soul; and if the human Savior is
with us, then his humanity, at least so far as respects its
immaterial part, must be everywhere present. _Per contra_, see
Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:326, 327. Since Christ’s human nature has
derivatively become possessed of divine attributes, there is no
validity in the notion of a progressiveness in that nature, now
that it has ascended to the right hand of God. See Philippi,
Glaubenslehre, 4:131; Van Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 558, 576.

Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:327—“Suppose the presence of the divine
nature of Christ in the soul of a believer in London. This divine
nature is at the same moment conjoined with, and present to, and
modified by, the human nature of Christ, which is in heaven and
not in London.” So Hooker, Eccl. Pol., 54, 55, and E. G. Robinson:
“Christ is in heaven at the right hand of the Father, interceding
for us, while he is present in the church by his Spirit. We pray
to the theanthropic Jesus. Possession of a human body does not now
constitute a limitation. We know little of the nature of the
present body.” We add to this last excellent remark the expression
of our own conviction that the modern conception of the merely
relative nature of space, and the idealistic view of matter as
only the expression of mind and will, have relieved this subject
of many of its former difficulties. If Christ is omnipresent and
if his body is simply the manifestation of his soul, then every
soul may feel the presence of his humanity even now and “_every
eye_” may “_see him_” at his second coming, even though believers
may be separated as far as is Boston from Pekin. The body from
which his glory flashes forth may be visible in ten thousand
places at the same time; (_Mat. 28:20_; _Rev. 1:7_).