Thread: What happened from the cross to the throne?

Hello Beloved!

I have been a believer for about eight and a half years now. I was introduced to (and fell in love with) Reformed theology in May of 2004.

I would like to know what the Reformed teaching is on "what happened from the cross to the throne." I have been in several different denominational & independent church settings throughout my regenerate life and have heard so many different ideas on the matter. It almost seems to be taboo in some circles to even discuss the matter! I have been prayerfully searching the Scriptures over the last few months for myself.

So did Jesus go to hell or what? I am currently reading Shedd's The Doctrine of Endless Punishment and it seems to me that he does not think so (or is my understanding just darkened?). For example, "While the tenet of Christ's local descent into Hades has no support from Scripture, or any of the first (o)ecumenical creeds, it has support...from patristic authority (pg. 71)."

It would seem to me that if the substitutionary work of Christ (paying in full the debt incurred by my sin & iniquity) were truly vicarious, then He must have endured the sentence of hell. Is this not the just wage of a fallen man?

I'm asking from a place of ignorance on the matter and am grateful for any nuggets of wisdom you might pass my way.

Thanks gang!

I want to help, but I can't!

So too look forward to any replies. I do not personally believe Christ went to Hell though. I used to believe that in my charismatic days though.

Chuck,

I visited your church once when in Kansas City. So we're friends.

I have heard (the other folks on this board will be of more assistance, I'm sure) that there's a classic "reformed" defence and explanation of the historic phrase of the creed, "he descended into hell"... Dr. DeWitt mentioned it in passing, but I can't remember title or author. I'll know it when I see it, though...so keep posted.

The catechism, I think, says something about Christ "remaining under it's [death's] power 'for a time'" when referring to the state of Christ's humiliation.

In my Lutheran days, I was taught that the phrase "he descended into hell" was actually part of Christ's exaltation. I could look in Luther's Small Catechism for the explanation, but I'm afraid I have to go read Benedict Anderson's _Imagined Communities_ before my wife puts me to work washing dishes.

Originally posted by Charismatic Calvinist

So did Jesus go to hell or what? I am currently reading Shedd's The Doctrine of Endless Punishment and it seems to me that he does not think so (or is my understanding just darkened?). For example, "While the tenet of Christ's local descent into Hades has no support from Scripture, or any of the first (o)ecumenical creeds, it has support...from patristic authority (pg. 71)."

It would seem to me that if the substitutionary work of Christ (paying in full the debt incurred by my sin & iniquity) were truly vicarious, then He must have endured the sentence of hell. Is this not the just wage of a fallen man?

Historically, the phrase "descended into hell" and "was crucified, dead, and buried" were used synonoumsly. The Western church used one, the eastern church the other. Eventually over time they were combined, at least according to Witsius.

Christ did not descend into hell after he died. He went through hell on the cross. That is where he suffered the wrath of God completely for his people, signified by the hours of darkness, and his crying out "My God, My God why hast Thou forsaken me," and of course signaling the completion "It is finished."

Also, we know Christ didn't go to hell after he died because he told the theif "today you will be with me in paradise." So where was he after his death? His soul was in paradise awaiting the resurrection of His body the third day.

I can see that, Patrick. There's a real sense in which the phrases "the holy Christian Church" and "the communion of saints" have been separated and dealt with separately, when most view them as being two descriptions of the same truth.

I agree with Patrick but would add that I believe he began to endure hell in the garden when we see the cup of God's wrath being poured out on him.

It would seem to me that if the substitutionary work of Christ (paying in full the debt incurred by my sin & iniquity) were truly vicarious, then He must have endured the sentence of hell.

He did but God was able to so intensify it that he endured it in hours rather than an eternity. What would take us an eternity to endure, Christ was able to take upon himself and endure in the time span of a few hours. He was able to do this because he is God himself. This is my understanding anyway.

Originally posted by puritansailor
Christ did not descend into hell after he died. He went through hell on the cross. That is where he suffered the wrath of God completely for his people, signified by the hours of darkness, and his crying out "My God, My God why hast Thou forsaken me," and of course signaling the completion "It is finished."

Also, we know Christ didn't go to hell after he died because he told the theif "today you will be with me in paradise." So where was he after his death? His soul was in paradise awaiting the resurrection of His body the third day.

I understand that Christ had to suffer both a physical & spiritual death to be fully identified with man. We know He died a physical death on the cross and also that his union with the Father & Holy Spirit were severed (spiritual death) as evidenced by his lament, "My God, My God, what has Thou forsaken Me..."

Can you reccomend any articles/books by Reformed authors that would build on this? Anything available online that would expound on/support this view? Thanks!

Originally posted by Scot
I agree with Patrick but would add that I believe he began to endure hell in the garden when we see the cup of God's wrath being poured out on him.

I have often wondered if Christ's separation from the Father & Holy Spirit began in the garden & that His Passion was undertaken completely on His own. Quite amazing when you consider that since eternity past, They beheld one another's glory & shared in the volcanic, fiery, affections that is the Godhead...

I don't know of anything online at the moment, but Witsius wrote a two volume study called The Apostle's Creed. It's pretty indepth, exploring both the history and theology behind the Creed. It's been reprinted.

WSC includes Christ's incarnation as part of his humiliation. Is that distinct from his "passion" proper? He was a man of sorrows, not just in those final hours, right?

A. 27: Christ's humiliation consisted in his being born, and that in a low condition, made under the law, undergoing the miseries of this life, the wrath of God, and the cursed death of the cross; in being buried, and continuing under the power of death for a time.

The "wrath of God" being endured is kind of plugged in there amidst all these other humiliations. There's even an "and" between "the wrath of God" and "the cursed death of the cross".

Any takers on this?

remember that a few of His final words from the cross were, "Into Your hands I commend My spirit."

When He said, "It is finished" it was done. No more wrath. Nothing left unpaid. No balance to forward! He paid it all.

Phillip

Excellent point, Pastor Phil. Thanks guys!

Originally posted by pastorway
remember that a few of His final words from the cross were, "Into Your hands I commend My spirit."

When He said, "It is finished" it was done. No more wrath. Nothing left unpaid. No balance to forward! He paid it all.

Phillip

So true. I am just curious if God's wrath is to be understood as propitiated only in the last day or two of Christ's humiliation, or it's propitiation commenced with the incarnation itself, being completed when he said "it is finished"?

We talk of active and passive obedience as being crucial. Blood and righteousness. Does Christ do the righteousness part first, and then the blood part, chronologically-speaking? Or is there more of an overlap?

Originally posted by ARStager

So true. I am just curious if God's wrath is to be understood as propitiated only in the last day or two of Christ's humiliation, or it's propitiation commenced with the incarnation itself, being completed when he said "it is finished"?

We talk of active and passive obedience as being crucial. Blood and righteousness. Does Christ do the righteousness part first, and then the blood part, chronologically-speaking? Or is there more of an overlap?

It's important to know about the distinction between his passive and active obedience, but not to split hairs. Christ obeyed the law on our behalf the whole of his life. When he began to take the punishment can be debatable but there's no question that he did, whether it began on the garden, or the cross, etc. But there is another dimension, and that Christ also identified with our suffering in His life. He was tempted, and also endured the miseries of this life just as we do. He knew experientially what is was like to live in a fallen world, yet without sin. I can't imagine what that must have been like that for him, both as a sinless man, and as the Creator, how he could live as he did among sinners in a fallen world. Whether this dimension falls under active or passive obedience I don't know, probably both in some sense.