Francis Turretin on the Descent of Christ into Hell, or rather His Descent into Hades

The misleadingly-titled Apostles' Creed states in the 5th Article that "He descended into hell." How is this to be understood, and what, more importantly, is the Biblical teaching on the matter? I recently scanned the following from the P&R English translation of Turretin for some of the brethren and I'm sure it will be useful for a wider audience, esp. as ignorance is leading some Evangelicals away from the historic belief of the non-Lutheran churches:

Francis Turretin on the Descent of Christ into Hades

Extract from Institutes of Elenctic Theology,
Topic 13, “The Person and State of Christ”

Question 15

Was the soul of Christ, after its separation from the body, translated to paradise immediately? Or did it descend locally to hell?

The former we affirm; the latter we deny against the Papists and Lutherans.

The Statement of the Question

I. The question concerning Christ's descent into hell is twofold: the one with the Papists and some Lutherans, who hold a local descent of Christ; the other among the orthodox themselves concerning the true sense of the article – whether it is to be referred to the spiritual anguish of Christ or to his burial and his most abject state under the dominion of death. We are now to examine the first and will speak of the last immediately afterwards

Il. The Papists maintain that the soul of Christ from the time of its separation from the body straightway descended locally to hell until the resurrection.

In the Catechism of Trent, it is proposed to be believed: “Christ being now dead, his soul descended into hell, and remained there just as long as his body was in the sepulchre” (Catechism of the Council of Trent, Art. 5 [trans. J. A. McHugh, 1923], pp. 62 and 64).

And that no one might think this was only done by virtue and power and not by essence (as Durandus held, cf. Sententias theologicas Petri Lombardi Commentariorum, Bk. 3, Dist. 22, Q. 3, 4 [1556], p. 215), it is added in the same place, “It is to be entirely believed that the soul itself really and by presence descended into hell.” However they wish him to have descended thither for the purpose of freeing the souls of the fathers of the Old Testament detained in limbo and of carrying them with him to heaven.

Ill. The Lutherans agree with them in asserting the substantial descent of Christ into hell; not only into limbo, but into the very place of the damned, to show his victory there and exhibit his triumph.

On this account, they wish it to be referred to the state of exaltation and not to that of humiliation (as Brochmann determines, ‘De Servatoris Nostri Jesu Christi,’ Sect. 14, Q. 6, 7 in Universae theologicae systema [1638], 1:920-23).

IV. Hence the question took this form: Whether Christ descended locally into hell or only to the limbo of the fathers and to purgatory for the purpose of leading out the souls of the pious or to the very place of the damned to openly exhibit his victory. This our opponents hold; we deny.

V. First, the soul of Christ immediately after its release from the body mounted up into paradise, according to the promise made to the thief, “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43).

(1) In vain do our opponents wish the words to be understood of the deity only, with which the soul of the thief was to be in paradise.

They involve the futurition in paradise or the translation not only of the soul of the thief, but also of Christ; that as Christ and the thief truly suffered, so they were to be carried together also into heaven, that both conditions might be common to both. And thus they were consolatory not only in order to the thief, but also to the Lord himself that in a short time they would both emerge from their distresses. Thus in the same manner, they might be in heaven as to their souls as they were on the cross together as to their bodies.

Hence Cyprian: “The thief was made a partaker of the kingdom, who had been made by his confession a colleague in martyrdom” (‘De Passione Christi’ [attributed to Cyprian] in Amold Camotensis, Opera, p. 50 in Cyprian, Opera led. John Oxoniensem, 1682]). The words themselves prove this. Christ does not say, "I will be with you" (which designated the presence of the deity in paradise), but “thou shalt be with me,” in order to promise him the fellowship of his humanity. Fellowship with Christ in his kingdom is promised. Now this cannot be understood of the deity (which concedes to no one such a privilege), but of Christ, the God-man (theanthropo), who calls believers into a share of his kingdom.

(2) No better do others wish the word “today” to be referred to the words of Christ, not to the introduction into paradise. Thus the sense is, “Today I say to you,” that thou shalt be with me in paradise.

As Suarez well remarks, this is an elusion, not an interpretation. For there was no need for Christ to indicate this, which the verb of the present tense and the expression of Christ itself sufficiently indicated. Rather he wishes to encourage the thief (constituted in agony and breathing after the grace of Christ) by this consolation that his petition would be fulfilled on that very day.

(3) Thomas Aquinas also gratuitously feigns, “Paradise here denotes generally the place of happiness, wherever it may be, in which they are said to be who enjoy the divine glory; whence the thief as to place was in hell with Christ, as to reward in paradise; so that paradise is wherever Christ is and wherever God is seen” (ST, Ill, Q. 52, Art. 4, p. 2305).

But what is this except to mingle heaven not only with earth but also with hell? Thus the thief on the cross would have been already in paradise because he was there with Christ. Christ, however, speaks of that paradise, where he was not then.

Finally, in no other way is paradise to be understood than as Scripture elsewhere speaks of it: as the seat of the blessed (2 Cor. 12:4; Rev. 2:7), which Bellarmine (‘De Sanctorum Beatitudine,’ 3 Opera 2:426) and Suarez (‘Commentaria ... in tertiam partem D. Thomae,’ Q. 52, Dist. 42 in Opera Omnia [1856-78J, 19:697-743) acknowledge.

The thing itself proves this because the promise of Christ ought to answer to the petition of the thief, “Remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” To which Christ answers, “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise” (i.e. in my kingdom).

VI. Second, the soul of Christ was in the hand of the Father: “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit” (Luke 23:46). Therefore it was not in hell because according to the style of Scripture the hand of the Father is not to be understood with respect to power (according to which the hand of God is everywhere, Psa. 139: 7 -10) or as it is the terrible hand of God, the Judge; but as the consoling hand of the Father of mercy with respect to glory and grace; or the condition of the blessed usually described by being in the hand of God.

It is confirmed by this – that Christ by this phrase wished to proclaim that nothing more remained to be done by him, both as to freeing others and as to undergoing new torments. But as the body was about to enjoy its repose in the sepulchre, so the soul also was about to rest from all its labours and be bathed in the greatest joys. For to commit or commend the soul has a relation to foregoing labours. Christ, however, could not have said, “I commend my spirit,” if after death he was yet to descend into hell and suffer the most grievous burdens.

He commends his spirit to the hand of his Father in the same manner as David and Stephen commended their souls because these were the very words of David before (Psa. 31:5), from whom Christ took them, and of Stephen afterwards (Acts 7:59), who imitated Christ himself; yea, as Peter recommends all believers to commit their souls to the faithful Creator (1 Pet. 4:19); not assuredly that they may descend into hell, but be received into heaven (as the ordinary gloss has it, “Into thy hands I commend my spirit that you may receive it, leaving the body”).

Hence among the fathers the hand of the Father and hell are opposed. Cyril of Alexandria says, “The innocent above, the guilty below; the innocent in heaven, the guilty in the abyss; the innocent in the hand of God, the guilty in the hand of the devil” (De exitu animi [PG 77.1082 J).

VII. Third, if according to the soul Christ truly and locally descended into hell, either that was done to suffer something there or to free the fathers or to preach the gospel to the dead, or to show his victory to the devils.

But the first cannot be said because he finished all things on the cross (John 19:30) and by one offering he perfected forever them that are sanctified (Heb. 10:14).

Not the second because they were already admitted into heaven; nor were they ever in a fictitious limbo, as was proved before.

Not the third because preaching the gospel belongs only to the state of this life, not to the condition of death. If Peter says, “The gospel was preached to the dead” (1 Pet. 4:6), this is not to be understood in the compound sense (as if he had preached to the dead as such because since they are not in the state of the way, they need no more any preaching), but in the divided sense (i.e. to them who are now dead, but who formerly lived when the gospel was preached to them).

Not the fourth because that descent ought to be penal, not triumphal and belongs to the state of humiliation, not of exaltation.

VIII. Now that such was the descent of Christ various arguments prove:

(1) According to the style of Scripture, a descent into hell signifies the most terrible adversities and most exquisite pains (Gen. 37:35; Job 14:13; Psa. 6:5; 86:13; 130:1).

(2) The passages which speak of the descent into hell denote his extreme misery, not a triumph (to wit, in which he was not on that account to be left, but to be freed by the Father, Acts 2:30, 31).

(3) The descent into the lowest parts of the earth is opposed to his ascension above all the heavens, which is a part of the exaltation (Eph. 4:9). Therefore it ought to be a part of his humiliation.

IX. The “heart of the earth” in the style of the Hebrews means nothing else than what is within the earth, for lb is put for thvdh (which is the middle) and what is internal is often called the middle, whether it is in the middle or not. The borders of Tyre are said to have been “in the midst of the seas” (Ezek. 27:4) because washed on all sides by the sea; the mountain is said to have “burned unto the midst of heaven” (Deut. 4:11), i.e. up to the middle region of the air.

Thus “to be in the heart of the earth” (Matt. 12:40) means nothing else than to be within the earth whether that be nearer or more remote from its surface. In this way is intimated the state of Christ's body in the sepulchre (which was in the earth, in which it rested until the third day).

X. When Christ is said to have “descended into the lower parts of the earth” (eis ta katotera mere tes ges, Eph. 4:9), a local descent is not implied, but his humiliation and manifestation in the flesh which he assumed on earth, so that it is nothing else than to descend to the earth (which is the lowest part of the universe) by a construction sufficiently known to the Hebrews, in which the governing word stands for the apposition – “in the lowest parts of the earth” (Psa. 139:15), i.e. in the earth, which is the lower part with respect to heaven.

Thus not the parts of the earth are compared with each other, but the heaven and the earth, parts of the universe. Nor do the words of the text admit of any other meaning. There is an opposition between the ascent from earth to heaven and the descent from heaven. However, as the ascent has the earth as the point from which and heaven as the point to which, so in turn the descent has heaven as the point from which and the earth as the point to which. This Cajetan saw, who by the lower parts of the earth wishes to be understood “the earth which is the lowest part of the world as distinguished from the lower parts of the heaven which are in the air. And thus he would more clearly have expressed it, because he descended first to the lower part of the earth.”

Sources of Explanation

XI. When Peter says “the soul of Christ was not to be left in hell” (Acts 2:27 from Psa. 16:10), a local descent cannot be understood, but the detention in the sepulchre because this is referred by Peter to the resurrection.

This is gathered:

(1) From the connection “my flesh,” says he, “shall rest” (i.e. in the sepulchre) “in hope, because thou wilt not leave.”

(2) From the phrase added for explanation, “Neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One” (i.e. me) “to see corruption” (to wit, in the body), which otherwise it would undergo if left in the sepulchre.

(3) From a comparison with Acts 13:34,35, where God is said to have raised up Christ from the dead that he might not see corruption.

Nor is this opposed either by the word psyches [“soul”] which as Emanuel Sa (de phrasibus Scriptura) remarks, is put by a synecdoche of a part for the whole, for the whole person itself frequently elsewhere (Psa. 3:2; 17:13; Acts 7:14) or of a part for a part, for the body itself (Lev. 19:28; 21:1, 11; Num. 5:1; Luke 6:9) as Virgil (“We bury the soul in the tomb,” Aeneid 3.68 [Loeb, 1:352-53]), or by the word “Hades”, which evidently is often put for the sepulchre, as will be proved hereafter.

XII. The passage in Peter, when “Christ quickened by the Spirit” is said “to have preached unto the spirits in prison” (tois en phylake, 1 Pet. 3:19), does not favour the local descent into hell.

(1) Peter does not speak of "the soul," but of "the Spirit." Therefore it cannot be understood of any descent of the soul. For that Spirit cannot here be taken for the soul but for the Deity is gathered from the preceding verse. No other Spirit is meant than he by whom he was quickened. This cannot be said of the soul, neither subjectively because that only is quickened which can die (which cannot apply to the soul), nor efficiently because quickening is a work of infinite power. On this account, the Deity itself must necessarily be understood.

This is often thus designated elsewhere (Rom. 1:4; Heb. 9:14; 1 Tim. 3:16) where he is said to have been “justified by the Spirit,” which Cajetan, Gagnaeus, Thomas Aquinas, Lyranus and others understand of the deity and the Holy Spirit.

(2) It treats of the apeithesasi (i.e. rebellious spirits) who did not obey those giving them good advice (such as the fathers cannot be called, whom they wish Christ to have led out of limbo [in which they were detained] to heaven). Nor can it be said that they indeed were unbelieving at first but afterwards repented because this is not in the text, but is rather opposed to it. For eight only are said to have been saved, the rest to have perished. Yet if some had repented, Peter would not have called them apeitheis.

(3) There is no mention here of liberation, but only of preaching.

(4) The “prison” (phylake) treated of here is taken only in two ways in Scripture, either for a nightly guard, or for a prison in which the guilty are detained (Luke 3:20). Since, in truth, it cannot be used here in the first sense, it ought necessarily to be taken for a prison (as the interlinear Gloss says, “the prison of darkness and unbelief”). Nowhere in Scripture is any place called a prison where happy spirits are contained.

(5) The preaching is not said to have been made to the spirits being in prison, as if they were in prison at the time of the preaching. For to what purpose would it have been made since there is granted no exit from it?

But it is said to have been made formerly in the time of Noah (in which God's patience waited for men) to them who (at the time in which Peter writes) are in prison. Hence Peter does not say ekeryxe tois pneumasi en phylake, but tois en phylake pneumasi ekeryxe. Thus the substantive verb must be supplied, not as the Vulgate has it iis qui in carcere erant as if they were in prison at the time of the preaching, but tois ousi (“who are,” to wit, at the time of the apostle's writing). For that pote Peter does not join with the words en phylake, but with apeithesasi in this manner, tois en phylake pneumasi apeithesasi pote, clearly distinguishing the times in which they were rebellious in the days of Noah and in which they were thrust into prison on account of their rebellion.

Thus the meaning of the passage is plain, as our Beza has most happily explained it. “Christ,” says he, “whom I said was quickened by the Spirit, having gone, not by a change of place, but by a certain special manifestation of his presence, by revelation and operation, as God is often said to come in Scripture, not literally but figuratively and metaphorically; not in the body, which he had not yet assumed, but by that very Spirit or divine power by which he rose again and was quickened, and inspired (by which the prophets spoke, 1 Pet. 1:11) preached to those spirits, which are now in the prison of hell, where they suffer the punishment of their rebellion to his preaching in the time of Noah.”

This Andradius saw, saying that this is the meaning of the passage – “in which Spirit (coming long before) he preached to those spirits who now in prison pay the deserved penalty of their former unbelief, since they never wished to believe Noah telling them of their duty and building an ark by God's command” (Defensio tridentinae fidei catholicae 2 [1580], p. 294).

XIII. If Christ is said by the resurrection “to have been loosed from the pains of death” (Acts 2:24), it does not follow that he endured pains up to the moment of his resurrection and that his soul departed into hell, where he could be affected by such pains. The passage can be understood in two ways:

(1) That “the pains of death” by a grammatical figure (hen dia dyoin) are put for a painful death. Christ, it is said, “will baptise with the Holy Ghost and with fire” (as Matt. 3:11), i.e. with spiritual fire, as Virgil, “I sing of arms and men,” i.e. the armed man (Aeneid 1.1 [Loeb, 1:240-41]). It is certain that the death of Christ was connected with the most exquisite pains, nor was that death resolved except in the moment of the resurrection.

(2) The passage to which Peter alludes (Psa. 18:5) employs the expression chbly mvth, which properly denotes cables and chains by which the man is detained as a captive in death, from which he is released by the resurrection. Thus there is no need to invent in addition any suffering of the soul after death. However, Peter, following the Septuagint, retains the word odinas, which can connote both the torments he suffered in death and the chains of death, by which in a measure he was bound in the sepulchre. Thus the meaning may be “whom” (namely, Christ) “God hath raised up, having loosed the chains of death because it was impossible that he should be always holden [krateisthai] like a captive by it.”

XlV. The triumphal song which Paul sings (after Hosea, 1 Cor. 15:54,55) is rightly referred to the resurrection of Christ, by which he began to triumph over sin, death and hell. But it cannot pertain to a descent into hell, which was the lowest degree of his humiliation, in which he seemed to be only not swallowed up by death.

Question 16

May the descent into hell [Editor: Hades] be rightly referred to infernal torments and to a most abject state under the dominion of death in the sepulchre? We affirm.

The Statement of the Question

I. By the preceding question, the false opinion of the papists concerning the local descent of Christ into hell was refuted. Now its true and genuine sense must be given. About this again the orthodox do not altogether agree among themselves, some referring it to the spiritual anguish and hellish torments which he suffered (as Calvin, Beza, Danaeus, Ursinus and others, even various confessions of the churches), others maintaining that it pertains to his burial and three days' detention in the sepulchre (as Zanchius, Piscator, Pierius and others).

Il. However, we must observe before all things that we do not inquire concerning the origin of this article – whether it was contained from the beginning in the Apostles' Creed and constantly acknowledged and received by the churches. For it is evident that no mention is made of it in the Nicene Creed and in the Roman, according to Ruffinus (A Commentary on the Apostles' Creed 28 [NPNF2, 3:553-54 D. The ancients who published confessions and set forth the rule of faith (such as Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Augustine and others) say nothing about it. Also it is referred by Ruflinus only to the end of the fourth century.

This article does indeed occur in the Athanasian Creed, but the article of burial being omitted is a clear proof that they were considered as one and the same thing. So it is very probable that this article was transferred from the Athanasian to the Apostles' Creed and at first perhaps was placed in the margin for the purpose of explication; then from the margin into the text itself where it was afterwards retained and incorporated with it. But this question being now dismissed, we treat here only concerning its true sense (about which all do not agree).

Ill. However, since there is no other cause for this discrepancy than the ambiguity of the word sh'vl [Editor: Sheol] and hades and the manifold sense of the phrase “to descend into hell,” these must be briefly discussed.

The word sh'vl [Editor: Sheol] is spoken in Scripture in four ways:

(1) For a sepulchre (Psa. 16:10; 49:15);

(2) For the place of the damned (Luke 16:23);

(3) For the greatest torments (Psa. 18:5; 116:3);

(4) For extreme humiliation (Isa. 14:15).

Hence to descend into hell [Editor: Hades] is used in four ways:

(a) It denotes to be buried (Gen. 37:35; 42:38);

(b) To descend into the place of the damned (Num. 16:33);

(c) To feel infernal pains (1 Sam. 2:6);

(d) To be extremely humbled (Matt. 11:23).

According to this fourfold signification, there can be a fourfold meaning of this article. So that it may be referred either to:

A local descent into the place of the damned (as the papists and Lutherans hold and refuted by us already);

Or to the burial of Christ,

Or to his infernal sufferings,

Or to the extreme degree of his humiliation.

The Reasons for the Burial and the State of the Dead

IV. They who hold that this article does not differ from his burial rest especially upon these reasons:

(1) That Peter (from Psa. 16:10 in Acts 2:31) seems clearly to refer to the burial of Christ, “David seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell.”

(2) Everywhere in Scripture sh'vl [Editor: Sheol] is put for the sepulchre and to descend into hell for to descend into the sepulchre (as Arias Montanus, Emanuel Sa and other papists and lexicographers teach).

(3) In various creeds mention is made of a descent into hell, no mention being made of the sepulchre (as in the Athanasian Creed, which evinces that they were taken by him for one and the same thing). And here can be referred the fact that Paul mentions Christ's death, burial and resurrection according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3, 4), but says nothing of his descent into hell. However he would have spoken of it if he had believed that such an article meant anything else than his burial.

V. Still it is not probable that this article is the same as the burial.

(1) It would be a tautology (tautologia) scarcely to be endured in so succinct and brief a creed.

(2) It cannot be said that this article was appended to the former concerning the burial to explain it, since it is more obscure than the former.

Thus it is not to be referred precisely to the burial, but to the state of death or his detention in the sepulchre under the dominion of death (as this phrase is often used to describe the state of the dead; cf. Gen. 37:35 where Jacob, bewailing his son Joseph whom he believed to have been tom in pieces by wild beasts, says, “I will go down” lsh'vl “unto my son mourning”; not indeed into a sepulchre because he supposed he had been tom in pieces by wild beasts and not buried, but simply to death or the state of the dead). Thus “in death there is no remembrance of thee, in sh'vl who shall give thee thanks?” (Psa. 6:5; cf. Job 17:13-15; Psa. 30:3; 49:15; Isa. 14:11,19,20).

VI. Also, the passage of Peter (Acts 2:27) drawn from the oracle (Psa. 16:10) seems necessarily to demand this: “Thou wilt not leave my soul eis hadou” (supply oikon, employed by him to prove the resurrection). He says this prophecy was fulfilled by the resurrection of Christ, so that the meaning is: “Thou wilt not leave my soul” (i.e. my life) or “me in death, but wilt raise me up from death by the resurrection.” Here belongs what is said in v. 24 concerning “the pains” or “chains of death” by which he was holden as a captive by death (from which he was released by the resurrection). It was impossible (both on account of the glory of his divinity and on account of the holiness of his humanity) to be held any longer by it.

Reasons for the Torments

VII. But neither is the other opinion to be repudiated which understands this descent of the extreme sufferings of Christ endured both in the garden and on the cross. It agrees:

(1) With the style of Scripture which usually designates the most grievous torments by “hell” and the “pains of hell,” as we have already said;

(2) With the creed, that the most weighty and special sufferings of Christ be not passed over in silence (which would be the case, unless the descent of Christ into hell be understood of the internal sufferings of his soul). For the preceding articles speak only of the external sufferings of the body.

Reconciliation of the Two Opinions

VIII. If it is asked which of these two opinions ought to be retained, we answer both can be admitted and be made to agree perfectly with each other.

Thus by the descent into hell may be understood the extreme degree of Christ's suffering and humiliation, both as to soul and body; and as the lowest degree of humiliation as to the body was its detention in the sepulchre, so as to the soul were those dreadful torments he felt. And thus this last article will be apposite for expressing the last degree of Christ's humiliation, whether as to disgrace of body or as to anguish of soul.

Nor should it seem wonderful if these two parts (mutually diverse from each other) should be joined together in one and the same article. It is not unusual in Scripture for a single sense to put on various relations (schesin) and for many things to be embraced together, especially when the things are mutually subordinated and connected with each other. Since this phrase may be referred now to abjection of the body, then to griefs of the soul (and Christ should have undergone both conditions), it was not without reason that the ancients added this article to the preceding in order to set forth more distinctly this state of Christ.

Sources of Explanation

IX. The constant and indissoluble union of the human nature with the divine in Christ does not hinder him from being able to suffer both in soul and in body the punishment due to us. The union with the Word causes him indeed to be always holy and free from all sin; but not that he should be always happy and glorious (since he came that he might suffer). Christ always had the glory of person as God-man (theanthropos); but he ought not to always have the glory of human nature (which he was to obtain only after his resurrection) because he was to be tempted in all things equally with us and be made a curse for our salvation.

X. As he is properly said to be damned who in hell endures the punishment due to his own sins, this term cannot be applied to Christ, who never suffered for his own but for our sins; nor did he suffer in hell, but on earth. Still there is no objection to saying that the Son of God was condemned for us by God, just as elsewhere he is said to have been made a curse (katara) and malediction for us. Nor is it more absurd to say that Christ was condemned than that the Lord of glory suffered and was crucified and for our sake was crucified and chastened (as is so often said).

XI. The vision of God belonging to the saints in heaven by glory differs from that of believers on earth by grace. They who see God in the former manner can be subjected to no further punishments and pains because they are in their native country, constituted in a state of happiness. But it is not the same with believers who, although they see God by faith, do not cease to be exposed to various afflictions. Christ on earth (as man) saw God in the latter sense, and far more perfectly than believers; but this vision did not hinder him from suffering and complaining that he was forsaken of God.

Continued...

Against Modalism 12: The Father and the Son both Dwell in the Believer

John 14:23
Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.

Here we see both the Father and the Son making there home in the believer. Clearly this is not the humanity of the Son, for man's spirit is finite, so it must be His divinity, and yet both the divinity of the Son and the Father make their home in the believer. (We also know elsewhere that the Holy Spirit dwells in believers.)

This shows that the Son and the Father are distinct, divine persons.

Against Modalism 11: Is the Father (or Jesus) Talking to Himself? (Or is Jesus His own Father?)

John 17
Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

“I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You. For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me.

“I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them. Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

“But now I come to You, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.

“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

“Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.”

Please take the time to read this extended prayer from Christ the Son to the Father. Is this really the Father talking to Himself? Or (for other Modalists) is this Jesus talking to Himself? There is a clear, personal distinction between the Son and the Father.

Some Modalists may argue that this is the humanity of Christ talking to God the Father. However, the Son who speaks here was with the Father in eternity (v. 5). This is the one who was loved by the Father in eternity (v. 24).

Modalists complain about us dividing the one person of God into three persons (which we do not, but we believe in three distinct persons in the one being of God), but those who argue that here we have the humanity of Christ praying to the Divinity of the Father heretically divide the person of Christ.

Just to touch upon personal pronouns: here we have I and you, me and you, yours and mine, etc. The first and second persons distinguish between one person (I) and another person (you). This is another reason why Christians are forced by the clear facts of Scripture to believe in the Trinity, even though it may seem a hard thing to understand. We do not twist the facts, because to do so would be to deny the Lord to our own destruction (2 Pet. 2:1; 3:15,16; 1 John 2:22,23).

Read the passage and think about it…

Continued...

Against Modalism 10: A Present Intercessor with the Father

Mark 16:19
So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.

Romans 8:34
Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.

Hebrews 7:25
Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

Hebrews 8:1
Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens…

1 John 2:1
My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

Jesus the Christ has risen to the right hand of God in heaven. What is He doing there? Amongst other things, He is interceding on our behalf as our High Priest and will do so until the end of the World.

However, He is interceding with the Father. He is distinct from the Father. Is the Father interceding with Himself? No, Christ is. This is a problem for the Modalists, because they must divide the person of Christ: the humanity must intercede with the same Deity that indwells Him, that is the Father. For the Trinitarians, the totality of the Son, human and divine, one united person, intercedes with the Father.

Continued...

Against Modalism 9: The Divine Son Sent by the Father from Heaven to Save the World

John 3: 13,16,17
No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man… For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

John 7:29
But I know Him, for I am from Him, and He sent Me.

1 John 4:14
In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins… And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Saviour of the world.

Here we are told that the Son of Man came down from heaven. He was sent into the World by God – that is God the Father. How can we explain this? Given that we know that the Son is God, then only the Trinitarian view that both the Father and the Son are distinct persons within the Godhead makes any sense.

God in His love sent His only begotten Son to save His people from their sins (Matt. 1:21) and with them the rest of Creation (Romans 8:19-22).

John 6:38-51,69
For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” And they said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

Jesus therefore answered and said to them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father. Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.

I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven... What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?”

Again, we see in this passage that the Son was sent from heaven by the Father; for heaven was where “He was before”. The Son is not merely the humanity of Christ; neither can He be the Father in another manifestation, for it is the Father who sends the Son. So again, we see that only the Trinitarian view of God makes sense in light of this evidence.

John 3:31-36
He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all. And what He has seen and heard, that He testifies; and no one receives His testimony. He who has received His testimony has certified that God is true. For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by measure. The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.

Moreover, in this next passage, not only do we see the Son sent from heaven from the Father, but we see the Spirit as distinct from God. How can this be? The Father stands here in the economic Trinity on behalf of the whole Godhead in sending the Son to bring everlasting life and giving the Son the Holy Spirit to sustain Him in His humanity. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons, but the One God, committed to His people's salvation.

Continued...

Against Modalism 8: The Eternal Son 3

1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

Here again we see Jesus Christ described as the one through whom are all things and yet He is described as distinct from the Father, so again His pre-existence is affirmed.

‘Ah, but what about “one God, the Father”?’ say the Modalists. Fair point, but given the evidence against the Modalist position, can it really be affirming their position?

The reality is that this statement says too much. Modalists come in various shapes and sizes (modes?). For those who believe that there is one Divine Person who is manifested in different forms, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, there is a problem. If God is restricted to “the Father” in this sense, then God must be restricted to the Father mode, i.e. there can be no God the Son mode, nor any God the Holy Spirit mode.

Even for other Modalists, a similar issue exists: whatever way you try to use a “God = The Father” as opposed to “God = The Son” or “God = The Holy Spirit”, you’re still placing a restriction that destroys your ‘Oneness’ theology.

So what does “one God, the Father” mean? The word Father in relation to God is used in various senses: one is the Divine Person who bears a relation of Father to the Divine Person called the Son; another is of God as the Father of His adopted children (believers); and lastly, God as ultimate progenitor of all things, or God as Creator.

In this last sense, God is described in this passage as Father, or ultimate progenitor. He is the one ”of whom are all things”. This is especially relevant to the pagans in the preceding verses, who generally conceived of an Ultimate ‘One’ who is Father, or Source, of all (Acts 17:28,29), including the multitude of so-called gods; yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him. There are no other ‘gods’.

To those who use this verse to deny the deity of Christ, they should consider these verses as a sample: Matt. 1:23; John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; 2 Thess. 1:12; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20.

Again, lest my main point be lost in answering the objection, here we see Jesus Christ described as the one through whom are all things and yet He is described as distinct from the Father, so again His pre-existence is affirmed.

Continued...

Against Modalism 7: The Eternal Son 2

Romans 8:3
For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh…

As far as I understand it, Modalists usually regard “the Son” as the human manifestation of God, when the Father became incarnate in the humanity of Jesus of Nazareth. This humanity is what was begotten in time by the divine power of God in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

However, in this passage we see the Son being sent in the likeness of sinful flesh. Clearly “the Son” is personally distinct from the Father (otherwise how could God send Him?), and the Son existed separately from human flesh and prior to His Incarnation (otherwise what does sending the Son “in the likeness of sinful flesh” mean?).

John 5:18
Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

It is in the Son’s relation to the Father as the divine Son that He is equal with God. It is this divine Sonship, not a supernatural birth produced without a human father that is the problem for the Jews (and for Modalists).

John 6:38
For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, states here that He came down from heaven. This cannot refer to the humanity of Christ, yet it cannot refer to the Father as He also says that He was sent to do the will of Him who sent Him. He who sent Him and whose will He did is personally distinct from this divine being from heaven.

Galatians 4:4
But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law…

Again, this passage repeats the fact that God the Father sent the Son from heaven, and that this Son was not the humanity, because why would it be remarkable to say that a human was born of a woman?

1 John 1:1-3
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life — the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us — that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

Jesus as the ”Word of Life” was ”from the beginning” and thus eternal, and yet He was distinct from the Father (”with the Father”).

Isaiah 48:12-16
”Listen to Me, O Jacob, and Israel, My called: I am He, I am the First, I am also the Last. Indeed My hand has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens. When I call to them, they stand up together.
All of you, assemble yourselves, and hear! Who among them has declared these things? The LORD loves him; He shall do His pleasure on Babylon, and His arm shall be against the Chaldeans.
I, even I, have spoken; yes, I have called him, I have brought him, and his way will prosper.
Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit have sent Me.”

Here “the First" and "the Last”, the One who “laid the foundation of the earth” and “stretched out the heavens”, the One who speaks here in the days of Isaiah, and who says, “from the time that it was, I was there”, says, ”And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit have sent Me.”

Clearly this is the eternal God, the creator of all things, and yet He is distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit, and is sent by them. This is the eternal, divine Son, not His temporal humanity, which accords perfectly with the doctrine of the Trinity.

Hebrews 1:1,2
God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds…

The Son is the one through whom the Father made the worlds. “The Son” as the Son was present at the creation of the universe and was distinct from the Father.

Hebrews 1:5-8
For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, today I have begotten You”? And again: “I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son”?
But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him.”
And of the angels He says: “Who makes His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire.” But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Your kingdom.”

The Firstborn is brought into the world. This clearly refers to the Son existing prior to His birth and as having an origin in heaven.

Again, to the Son the Father says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever…” The Son is not merely the humanity of Christ. This is not Thomas speaking to the God-man, but the Father referring to the Son.

(Modalists often use v. 5 to claim that the Son is born only in time. Some Trinitarians would say that the “today” is in eternity, e.g. Augustine. I would be inclined to think that it does refer to His Incarnation given the context of Psalm 2 concerning the Mediatorial Kingship of the Messiah. A temporal birth (which He clearly had) does not preclude an eternal begottenness. Trinitarians do not use the term Son to refer only to His divinity, but the totality of who the Son is: His undivided personhood as God and man in two distinct natures and one person forever. However, my focus is not on this verse, but the other ones.)

Hebrews 7:3
…without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God…

Here Melchizedek is compared with the Son in that he almost appears to be eternal. Melchizedek of course isn’t, but the Son clearly is from this passage.

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

Although this is a disputed text, yet I am personally persuaded that it is original and thus I quote it. (See here for an example argument.) It is clear what it says.

If you reject the above reading because of a belief in the superiority of the Alexandrian text-type or eclectic considerations, then try this for an Alexandrian reading:

John 1:18
No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

Need I say more?

Continued...

Against Modalism 6: The Eternal Son 1

One of the great distinctions between generic Modalism (apologises to Modalists who differ) and Trinitarianism is the following:

• Modalists believe that God the Father became incarnate in the humanity of Jesus Christ and that the Son became begotten in time at the point of the Incarnation. The Son is the "incarnate mode" of the Father. God is eternally one person.
  
• Trinitarians believe that the one God has eternally consisted of three distinct persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son has existed eternally as God. Only the Son became incarnate, when "the eternal Son of God, became man, and so was, and continues to be, God and man in two distinct natures, and one person, forever." "Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul,being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, and born of her, yet without sin." (Westminster Shorter Catechism Questions 21, 22).
  

I will try to show from Scripture that this orthodox belief is correct and the Modalist heresy is wrong. This will be a fairly simple exposition of these texts as I'm not writing a book, nor do I have the time.

John 1:1-3,14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Here we see that there was a person called “The Word” who was with God and yet was God. The Word is thus shown as both God and yet distinct from God. This Word is the only begotten of the Father, i.e. the eternal being called “the Word” is not the Father.

Who is “the Word”? Verse 14 and the rest of John 1 make clear that the eternal Word was made flesh as Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God.

Also, all things were made through the Word, so if the Son only came to exist at the point that Jesus’ humanity was conceived, then how could this be?

This shows both that the Son is eternal, very God and yet distinct from the Father.

See also here.

Colossians 1:15-17
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

Again, all things were made through the Firstborn, so the Son did not begin to exist at the Incarnation. This repeats the theology of John 1, that all things were created by, through and for Him. Not only did the Son (as distinct from the Father) create all things, but all things were created through Him.Who was creating through the Son? It was the Father.

See also here.

John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

Christ was with the Father before the World existed. He is shown as present in eternity and yet distinct from the Father.

See also here.

Philippians 2:5-11
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Christ was “in the form of God” and yet “equal with God” before His Incarnation. He was divine, distinct from God in some sense and yet equal with God. This glory that He had with the Father from all eternity he laid aside to take upon himself the “form of a bondservant” and “likeness of man” in His humiliation.

Paul clearly quote from Isaiah 45:23,24, where Yahweh says, “[T]o Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall take an oath.” All will declare Christ to be the Lord, or ‘Kurios’ in the Greek, which was the translation of the Hebrew ‘Yahweh’ in the Greek version of the Old Testament, due to the sensitivity about the divine name Yahweh among the Jews.

So Yahweh declares before the Incarnation something about Himself, which will happen in the person of Christ. This will be to the glory of the Father as distinct from Jesus Christ, whom all will confess is Yahweh.

All of this aligns perfectly with Trinitarianism which believes that Christ is the eternal Son of God, who is God, and yet distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. We believe that He joined to His divine nature a fully human nature, and that He will continue to have this divine/ human nature to all eternity.

See also here.
Continued...