Hades not to announce good news and offer deliverance to those who were there, but to declare and complete his victory over Satan and pronounce a sentence of condemnation.19 (3) The traditional Anglican view is that Jesus went to Hades, to the specific part called paradise, and there declared to the righteous a fuller exposition of the truth.20 None of these interpretations is adequate. (1) The Roman Catholic idea of a second chance to accept the gospel message after death seems inconsist- ent with other teachings of Scripture (e.g., Luke 16: 19-3 1). (2) Whereas elsewhere in Scripture the word ~qp6aaw (“to preach’) consistently re- fers to proclamation of the gospel, in the Lutheran interpretation of 1 Peter 3:19 it apparently refers to a declaration of judgment. (3) The Anglican interpretation has difficulty explaining why the righteous in paradise are described as “spirits in prison.”
It is certainly difficult to come up with an interpretation of 1 Peter 3: 18-19 which is at once internally consistent and consistent with the teaching of the rest of Scripture. One possibility is to understand this passage in the light of verse 20: Jesus preached to the spirits in prison,
“who formerly did not obey, when Gods patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.” According to this interpretation, Jesus was made alive in the same spirit in which he had preached through Noah to the people who lived in the days before the flood. Those people had failed to heed his message and hence were destroyed. This preaching was an instance of the preincarnate prophetic ministry of Jesus (see p. 765).
Some expositors would say, on the other hand, that the reference to Noah’s day is figurative or illustrative. Jesus had preached in the power of the Spirit to the sinners of his day. They were as inattentive to the message as the sinners in the days of Noah had been, and as unheedful as others will be just before the second coming (Matt. 2437-39). The same Spirit that had led Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted (Matt.
4:1), empowered him to cast out demons (Matt. 12:28), and brought him to life again, was the source of his preaching during his lifetime to those who were imprisoned in sin. Note that there is no indication of a time sequence with respect to the Spirit’s bringing him to life and his preach- ing to the spirits in prison.
18. Joseph Pohle, Eschatology; or, The Catholic Doctrine of the Last Things: A Dog- matic Treatise (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1917), p. 27.
19. Friedrich Loofs, “Descent to Hades (Christ’s),” in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings (New York: Scribner, 1955), vol. 4, pp. 656-57.
20. Edgar C. S. Gibson, The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (London:
Methuen, 1906), p. 159.
7 7 6 The Work of CMst
The final passage is 1 Peter 44-6, especially verse 6: “For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead, that though judged in the flesh like men, they might live in the spirit like God.” It has been suggested that this verse points to a descent by Jesus into hell to preach to the spirits there. However, to suppose that Peter means that the gospel was preached to people who were already physically dead encounters one of the same difficulties mentioned in connection with 1 Peter 3:18-l 9- nowhere else in Scripture is there a hint of a second chance for the dead.
In addition, there is no indication that the preaching Peter has in view was done by Christ. It seems best, then, to see in 1 Peter 4:6 a general reference to proclamation of the gospel message either to persons who had since died or to people who were spiritually dead (cf. Eph. 2:1,5; Col.
2:13).
To sum up the passages cited as evidence of a descent into Hades:
they are at best vague or ambiguous, and the attempt to piece them together into a doctrine is unconvincing. While they may be interpreted as implying that Jesus descended into hell, there is insufficient evidence here to warrant setting forth a descent into hell as an incontrovertible doctrine of Christianity. In light of the difficulties which attend interpret- ing these verses as proof of an actual descent of the spirit of Jesus into Hades between the crucifixion and the resurrection, it is best not to be dogmatic on this matter.
Resurrection
We have seen that the death of Jesus was the low point in his humilia- tion; the overcoming of death through the resurrection was the first step back in the process of his exaltation. The resurrection is particularly significant, for inflicting death was the worst thing that sin and the powers of sin could do to Christ. In the inability of death to hold him is symbolized the totality of his victory. What more can the forces of evil do if someone whom they have killed does not stay dead?
Because the resurrection is so important, it has occasioned a great deal of controversy. There were, of course, no human witnesses to the actual resurrection, since Jesus was alone in the tomb when it took place.
We do find, however, two types of evidence. First, the tomb in which Jesus had been laid was empty, and the body was never produced.
Second, a great variety of persons testified that they had seen Jesus alive.
He was seen on several different occasions and in various locations. The most natural explanation of these testimonies is that Jesus was indeed alive again. Moreover, there is no other (or, at least, better) way of
Introduction to the Work of Christ
777
accounting for the transformation of the disciples from frightened, de- feated persons to militant preachers of the resurrection.21
One question that needs special attention is the nature of the resurrec- tion body. There seems to be conflicting evidence on this matter. On the one hand, we are told that flesh and blood are not going to inherit the kingdom of God, and there are other indications that we will not have a body in heaven. On the other hand, Jesus ate after the resurrection, and apparently he was recognizable. Furthermore, the marks of the nails in his hands and the spear wound in his side suggest that he still had a material body (John 20:25-27). If we are to reconcile this seeming conflict, it is important to bear in mind that Jesus was at this point resurrected, but not ascended. At the time of our resurrection our bodies will be transformed in one step. In the case of Jesus, however, the two events, resurrection and ascension, were separated rather than collapsed into one. So the body that he had at the point of resurrection was yet to undergo a more complete transformation at the point of the ascension.
It was yet to become the “spiritual body” of which Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 15:44. We might say, then, that the Easter event was some- thing of a resuscitation, such as that of Lazarus, rather than a true resurrection, as will be the case for us. Jesus’ postresurrection body may well have been like the body with which Lazarus came out of the tomb- Lazarus could still (and presumably did again) die. If this was the case with Jesus, he may have needed to eat to remain alive.
But just as the virgin birth should not be thought of as essentially a biological matter, neither should the resurrection be conceived of as primarily a physical fact. It was the triumph of Jesus over sin and death and all of the attendant ramifications. It was the fundamental step in his exaltation-he was freed from the curse brought on him by his voluntary bearing of the sin of the entire human race.
Ascension and Session at the Father-5 Right Hand
The f&t step in Jesus’ humiliation involved giving up the status which he had in heaven and coming to the conditions of earth; the second step in the exaltation involved leaving the conditions of earth and reassuming his place with the Father. Jesus himself on several occasions foretold his return to the Father (John 6:62; 142, 12; 16:5, 10, 28; 20:17). Luke gives the most extended accounts of the actual ascension (Luke 24:50-5 1; Acts 1:6-l 1). Paul also writes regarding the ascension (Eph. 1:20; 48-10;
21. Daniel Fuller, Easter Faith and History (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 196.5), pp. 18 l- 82; cf. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesw--God and Man (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), pp.
96-97.
778 The Work of Christ
1 Tim. 3: 16), as does the writer of the letter to the Hebrews (1:3; 4: 14;
9:24).
In premodern times the ascension was usually thought of as a transi- tion from one place (earth) to another (heaven). We now know, however, that space is such that heaven is not merely upward from the earth, and it also seems likely that the difference between earth and heaven is not merely geographical. One cannot get to God simply by traveling sufh- ciently far and fast in a rocket ship of some kind. God is in a different dimension of reality, and the transition from here to there requires not merely a change of place, but of state. So, at some point, Jesus’ ascension was not merely a physical and spatial change, but spiritual as well. At that time Jesus underwent the remainder of the metamorphosis begun with the resurrection of his body.
The significance of the ascension is that Jesus left behind the condi- tions associated with life on this earth. Thus the pain, both physical and psychological, experienced by persons here is no longer his. The opposi- tion, hostility, unbelief, and unfaithfulness which he encountered have been replaced by the praise of the angels and the immediate presence of the Father. God has exalted him and given him a “name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
. . .and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:9-l 1). The angels have resumed their song of praise, for the Lord of heaven has returned. What a contrast to the abuse and insults he endured while on earth! Yet the song of praise now goes beyond that which was sung before his incarnation. For a new stanza has been added. Jesus has done something which he had not done previous to his incarnation: personally experienced and overcome death.
There is a difference in another respect as well. For now Jesus is the God-man. There is a continuing incarnation. In 1 Timothy 25 Paul says,
“There is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” This gives every indication that Jesus currently is a man who mediates between God and us. His, however, is not the type of humanity that we have, or even the humanity that he had while he was here. It is a perfected humanity of the type which we will have after our resurrection. Thus, his continuing incarnation imposes no limitation upon his deity. Just as our bodies will have many of their limitations removed, so it has been with the perfect, glorified humanity of Jesus, which continues to be united with the deity, and thus will forever exceed what we will ultimately be.
There were definite reasons why Jesus had to leave the earth. One was in order to prepare a place for our future abode. Although he did not specify just what was involved, he made it quite clear to his disciples that he had to leave them in order to carry out this work (John 14:2-3).
Introduction to the Work of Christ
779
Another reason he had to go is that the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, might come. Again, the disciples were not told why the one was requisite to the other, but Jesus did say that such was the case (John 16:7). The sending of the Holy Spirit was important, for whereas Jesus could work with the disciples only through external teaching and exam- ple, the Holy Spirit could work within them (John 1417). Having more intimate access to the centers of their lives, he would be able to work through them more freely. As a result, the believers would be able to do the works which Jesus did, and even greater ones (John 14: 12). And through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, the Triune God would be present with them; thus Jesus could say that he would be with them forever (Matt. 28:20).
Jesus’ ascension means that he is now seated at the right hand of the Father. Jesus himself predicted this in his statement before the high priest (Matt. 2664). The session at the Fathers right hand was referred to by Peter in his Pentecost sermon (Acts 2:33-36) and before the council (Acts 53 1). It is also mentioned in Ephesians 1:20-22; Hebrews 10: 12;
1Peter 3:22; and Revelation 3:21; 22:l. The significance of all this is that the right hand is the place of distinction and power. Recall how James and John desired to sit at Christ’s right hand, and at his left as well (Mark 10~37-40).
Jesus’ sitting at the right hand of God should not be interpreted as a matter of rest or inactivity. It is a symbol of authority and active rule.
The right hand is also the place where Jesus is ever making intercession with the Father on our behalf (Heb. 7:25).
Second Coming
One dimension of the exaltation remains. Scripture indicates clearly that Christ will return at some point in the future; the exact time is unknown to us. Then his victory will be complete. He will be the con- quering Lord, the judge over all. At that point his reign, which at present is in some ways only potential, and which many do not accept, will be total. He himself has said that his second coming will be in glory (Matt.
2531). The one who came in lowliness, humility, and even humiliation,
will return in complete exaltation. Then, indeed, every knee will bow and
every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Phil. 2: lo- 11).
Theories of the Atonement
The Significance of the Atonement The Manifold Theories of the Atonement
The Socinian Theory: The Atonement as Example
The Moral-Influence Theory: The Atonement as a Demonstration of God’s Love The Governmental Theory: The Atonement as a Demonstration of Divine Justice The Ransom Theory: The Atonement as Victory over the Forces of Sin and Evil The Satisfaction Theory: The Atonement as Compensation to the Father
The Significance of the Atonement
In the atonement, we come to the crucial point of Christian faith. It is, of course, essential that our understanding of God the Father and of his Son be correct, and that our conception of the nature of man and his spiritual condition be accurate. But the doctrine of the atonement is the most critical for us, because it is the point of transition, as it were, from the objective to the subjective aspects of Christian theology. Here we shift our focus from the nature of Christ to his active work in our behalf;
here systematic theology has direct application to our lives. The atone-
ment has made our salvation possible. It is also the foundation of major
doctrines which await our study: the doctrine of the church deals with
781
7 8 2 The Work of Christ
the collective aspects of salvation, the doctrine of the last things with its future aspects.
Most theologians have in one way or another acknowledged the essen- tial nature of the atonement or, to make a play on words, the “cruciality of the cross.” Emil Brunner, for example, said, “He who understands the Cross aright . . . understands the Bible, he understands Jesus Christ.“l Leon Morris wrote, “The atonement is the crucial doctrine of the faith.
Unless we are right here it matters little, or so it seems to me, what we are like elsewhere.“2 In view of the importance of this doctrine, it be- hooves us to work very carefully in examining it.
In the doctrine of the atonement we see perhaps the clearest indica- tion of the organic character of theology, that is, we see that the various doctrines fit together in a cohesive fashion. The position taken on any one of them affects or contributes to the construction of the others. Here the doctrines of God, man, sin, and the person of Christ come together to define man’s need and the provision that had to be made for that need.
And from our understanding of these other doctrines issues our under- standing of the various facets of salvation: our being given a righteous standing in the sight of God (justification); the instilling of spiritual vitality and direction into our fives (regeneration); the development of godliness (sanctification). Theology, when properly done, possesses an aesthetic quality. There is a symmetry, a balance, among the different facets of doctrine which is surely impressive. There is an interconnectedness re- minding us of the beauty of a smoothly functioning machine, or the beauty of a painting where each color complements the others, and the lines and shapes are in correct and pleasing proportion to the remainder of the picture.’
Our doctrines of God and of Christ will color our understanding of the atonement. For if God is a very holy, righteous, and demanding being, then man will not be able to satisfy him easily, and it is quite likely that something will have to be done in man’s behalf to satisfy God. If, on the other hand, God is an indulgent, permissive Father who says, “We have to allow humans to have a little fun sometimes,” then it may be sufficient simply to give man a little encouragement and instruction. If Christ is merely a man, then the work that he did serves only as an example; he was not able to offer anything in our behalf beyond his perfect example of doing everything he was required to do, including dying on the cross.
1. Emil Brunner, The Mediator (London: Lutterworth, 1934), pp. 435-36.
2. Leon Morris, The Cross in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), p. 5.
3. Helmut Thielicke, A Little Exercise for Young Theologians (Grand Rapids: Eerd- mans, 1962), p. 28.
Theories of the Atonement 783
If, however, he is God, his work for us went immeasurably beyond what we are able to do for ourselves; he served not only as an example but as a sacrifice for us. The doctrine of man, broadly defined to include the doctrine of sin, also affects the picture. If man is basically spiritually intact, he probably can, with a bit of effort, fulfil what God wants of him.
Thus, instruction, inspiration, and motivation constitute what man needs and hence the essence of the atonement. If, however, man is totally depraved and consequently unable to do what is right no matter how much he wishes to or how hard he tries, then a more radical work had to be done in his behalf.
The Manifold Theories of the Atonement
The meaning and impact of the atonement are rich and complex.
Consequently, various theories of the atonement have arisen. Given the abundance of biblical testimony to the fact of atonement, different theo- logians choose to emphasize different texts. Their choice of texts reflects their views on other areas of doctrine. We will examine several of the theories, thus gaining an appreciation for the complexity of the meaning of the atonement. At the same time we will come to see the incomplete- ness and inadequacy of each one of them by itself.
The Socinian Theory:
The Atonement as Example
Faustus and Laelius Socinus, who lived in the sixteenth century, devel- oped a teaching which is best represented today by the Unitarians. They rejected any idea of vicarious satisfaction.4 They made a formal acknowl- edgment of the threefold offices of Christ, but in practice neutralized the priestly office in two ways. F&t, they maintained that the ministry of Jesus during his earthly days was prophetic rather than priestly. Second, they maintained that his priestly role, the seat of which is in heaven, is coincident with his kingly office rather than distinct from it. The new covenant of which Jesus spoke involves an absolute forgiveness rather than some sort of substitutionary sacrifice. The real value of the death of Jesus lies in the beautiful and perfect example which it supplies us, epitomizing the type of dedication which we are to practice. The resur- rection of Jesus is important because it is, as it were, the confirmation of what he taught, thus validating to us the promises which he gave. For proof that the meaning of Christ’s death rests in its effect as an example
4. Faustus Socinus De JCSU Ckristo servatore 1. 1.