← Back to sermon library

As we continue to look at Christ 
the Mediator, we noted last time that, largely speaking, the chapter 
is about the person of Christ and the work of Christ. The doctrine 
of Christology, the study of Christ, is exactly about that, 
who Christ is and what has he done. And the chapter is treating 
those two things largely and in great and glorious detail. And we're working through first 
the person of Christ. Last time we did a bit of introduction, 
and then we looked at the deity of Christ and his equality with 
the Father, the fact that he is the Son of God, the second 
of the Holy Trinity, second person of the Holy Trinity, equal with 
God, and the one who has created all things and who upholds all 
things. And today we're going to move into his incarnation 
and his assumed humanity. So I'm gonna read the paragraphs 
that concern the person of Christ, and those are paragraphs one, 
two, three, and nine. And the rest of them, I should 
say one, two, three, seven and nine. Seven captures a bit, it's 
a bit of crossover, speaking about the person of Christ, but 
also his mediation according to both natures. So one, two, 
three, seven and nine. It pleased God in His eternal 
purpose to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten 
Son, according to the covenant made between them both, to be 
the mediator between God and man, the prophet, priest, and 
king, head and savior of His church, the heir of all things, 
and judge of the world, unto whom He did from all eternity 
give a people to be His seed, and to be by Him in time redeemed, 
called, justified, sanctified, and glorified. The Son of God, 
the second person in the Holy Trinity, being very and eternal 
God, the brightness of the Father's glory, of one substance and equal 
with Him, who made the world, who upholdeth and governeth all 
things He hath made, did, when the fullness of time was come, 
take unto Him man's nature, with all the essential properties 
and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin. being conceived 
by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the Holy 
Spirit coming down upon her, and the power of the Most High 
overshadowing her. And so was made of a woman, of 
the tribe of Judah, of the seed of Abraham and David, according 
to the Scriptures, so that two whole, perfect, and distinct 
natures were inseparably joined together in one person. without 
conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God and 
very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and 
man? The Lord Jesus, in his human nature thus united to the divine, 
in the person of the Son, was sanctified and anointed with 
the Holy Spirit above measure, having in him all the treasures 
of wisdom and knowledge, in whom it pleased the Father that all 
fullness should dwell, to the end that being wholly harmless, 
undefiled, and full of grace and truth, he might be thoroughly 
furnished to execute the office. of a mediator, and surety, which 
office he took not upon himself, but was thereunto called by his 
father, who put all power and judgment in his hand, and gave 
him commandment to execute the same. Paragraph seven, Christ, 
in the work of mediation, acteth according to both natures, by 
each nature doing that which is proper to itself. Yet, by 
reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature 
is sometimes, in scripture, attributed to the person denominated by 
the other nature. Paragraph nine, this office of 
mediator between God and man is properly only to Christ, who 
is the prophet, priest, and king of the church of God, and may 
not be either in whole or any part thereof transferred from 
him to any other. So, wonderful, heavy doctrine 
concerning the blessed savior, and so we're going to move now 
to a study of his humanity. As we noted last time, that quote 
from Hilary of Poitiers, that this is the true faith for human 
blessedness, that we preach at once, the Godhead and the manhood, 
not forgetting the God because we see the man and not forgetting 
the man because we see the God. And so we want to note now his 
humanity after having noted his deity. Just by introduction, 
some quotes on the importance of this reality. In history, 
the doctrine of the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the 
humanity of Christ, and we could say thirdly, the doctrine of 
the unity of the two natures in the one Christ, Those three 
things have been the stuff of hot contention throughout the 
centuries. C.H. Spurgeon writes, remembering 
that Jesus Christ is God, it now behooves us to remember that 
his manhood was nonetheless real and substantial. John Owen wrote 
that this is that glorious condescension of Christ, which is the greatest 
of all gospel mysteries, which is the life and soul of the church. 
Speaking of the incarnation, This is that glorious condescension 
of Christ, the greatest of gospel mysteries, and the life and the 
soul of the church. And just third, to make the quotes 
Trinitarian here, in the Christian religion, this is Turretin, there 
are two questions, above all others, which are difficult. 
The first concerns the unity of the three persons in the one 
essence in the Trinity. The other concerns the union 
of the two natures in the one person in the incarnation. These 
are high mysteries, not mysteries that cannot be known, but mysteries 
that cannot be fully comprehended because they enter into the infinite 
reality of that which is divine. And so just what we're going 
to do is we're going to try, we don't normally do a clause 
by clause sort of treatment, but we're going to do that this 
time. And the clauses in question are, if you'll notice in paragraph 
two, When the confessionalists here, when the Baptists are highlighting 
the deity in a number of glorious clauses of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
they transfer at the end of this statement regarding creation 
and providence that the Son of God who made the world who upholdeth 
and governeth all things he hath made, notice, did when the fullness 
of time was come, take unto him man's nature. So that's the first 
clause that we're going to look at this morning. And first off, 
under the head of the fact of the incarnation of the Son of 
God. So that's our first larger head, 
the fact of the incarnation of the Son of God. The first thing 
we see here is the timing of his incarnation. The clause begins 
with, if we can use the first portion of the paragraph, the 
son of God did, when the fullness of time was come, take unto him 
man's nature. So the confession here is highlighting 
a particular timing. when the fullness of the time 
was come. So what does this mean? The language 
is probably taken directly from Galatians 4.4, when the fullness 
of the times had come, God sent forth his son, born of a woman, 
born under the law to redeem those under the law. And so what 
does that mean, when the fullness of the time had come? We just 
sang and harked the herald angels sing, late in time, behold him 
come. That's the same language, it's 
unique because in the sense that, you know, it's older English, 
late in time. It's not as if the divine, you 
know, was late in sending, that God was late in the sending of 
the sun. But after a particular and deliberate period of time, 
the sun comes into the world. And so under the subordinate 
head of the timing of his incarnation, we would want to note first the 
time determined in the eternal decree. So remember that the 
confession in paragraph one began by stating it pleased God in 
His eternal purpose to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus to 
be the mediator between God and man. So what does this mean when 
the fullness of time had come? Well, the first contour of its 
meaning is seen in the time determined in the eternal decree. When Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit for lack of a better term and to use man's 
language, deliberated concerning the son and his redemption of 
the fallen elect to the praise of the glory of the triune God. 
So the eternal decree is in view. Secondly, the time announced 
and anticipated by the prophets. Remember, you know, stuff like 
Daniel, Daniel 9, 70 weeks are determined for you know, Jerusalem 
and for, you know, for the holy city. We have this reality of, 
and actually turn there for a moment because the time anticipated, 
Daniel 9, the time announced and anticipated by the prophets 
is in view when we see this language of when the fullness of the times 
had come. So notice in Daniel chapter 9, and this is, Not an announcement 
of the end of all things, but the announcement of the first 
advent of the Lord Jesus Christ. centering around his incarnation 
and ultimately his cutting off at the crucifixion. But notice 
in verse 24 of Daniel 9, 70 weeks are determined for your people 
and for your holy city to finish the transgression, to make an 
end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting 
righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the 
most holy. So this is capturing Really, 
the incarnation through to the ascension, essentially, of the 
Lord Jesus Christ, the anointing of the Most Holy in that reality, 
and 25 through 27 elaborate that a little bit more. There's no 
gap in here moving forward to some future dispensation of time, 
but it all has to do with the First Advent. of Jesus Christ, 
and really culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and 
the temple in AD 70. But all of that, to come back 
to this, 70 weeks are determined, the time announced by, and anticipated 
by, the prophets. So we have this one who will 
come into the world, who will finish the transgression, Christ 
brings an end to sin, to make an end of sins, we just said 
that, to make reconciliation for iniquity. He puts an end 
to sin and he reconciles men to God. He brings in everlasting 
righteousness. Not only does he declare divine 
righteousness, but he brings in a lasting, imputed righteousness 
to his people. He seals up vision and prophecy. So he brings an end to the anticipatory 
prophetic declarations of the Old Covenant. prophecy and vision 
are all wrapped up. They find their terminus in Christ. 
He is the terminus of all of the blessed streams of Old Covenant 
prophecy. And not only does he then bring 
an end to that, but therefore there is no further need for 
vision and prophecy once his apostles had penned the New Testament. 
and then he's anointed in the sense that he ascends to the 
ancient of days and is given glory, dominion, and a kingdom. 
So, when the fullness of the times had come, or that Christ, 
the Son of God, did when the fullness of time was come, take 
to him man's nature, eternal decree, the time announced and 
anticipated by the prophets, and thirdly, the time of the, 
and bear with this language, the convergence and terminus 
of all things. And what we mean by that is all 
of those ceremonies, all of those washings, all of those prophecies, 
all of those shadows and types and copies of the true converge 
and find their terminus in Christ. So when the fullness of the times 
had come, the fullness of the times appointed by God, where 
there would be this divinely designed obsolescence to old 
covenant types, that would find their now-convergents and terminus 
in Christ, who was the point of all of them. And then, fourthly, 
with regards to the timing of his incarnation, the time of 
the perfection of providences. And that simply means that God 
was, according to his governance of his creation, and according 
to his upholding all things and the bringing together of all 
things, for example, the time of the Roman Empire. There's 
a really good section in, I don't, commend the entirety of his systematic 
theology, but in Robert Raymond's systematic theology, he has a 
wonderful section about this point, and how God had put in 
place all of these things for the advent of Christ and for 
the proclamation of the gospel. The Roman, you know, the Pax 
Romana, as wicked as it sort of was, nevertheless had a measure 
of uniting the Roman provinces together in order that there 
would be this free market movement roads moving all throughout Asia 
Minor and Rome's governed provinces such as Judea and that sort of 
a thing. So the ease of travel, the ease 
of market movement, all of these providential pieces are put together 
so that at the fullness of the times when Christ comes into 
the world, it's the perfect time, because God's timing always is, 
for the proclamation of the one who would come to go out throughout 
the known world. So the timing of his incarnation, 
when the fullness of the time was come, Christ himself uses 
this language in Mark chapter one regarding the hour having 
come, when the kingdom would come and be proclaimed to the 
people. And Paul uses it as well in Ephesians 
1.10. Secondly then, under the fact 
of the incarnation, so we have this clause, when the fullness 
of the time was come. Secondly, we have the manner 
and the scope of his incarnation, that the Son of God did take 
unto him man's nature. So what does that mean? The Son 
of God did take unto him man's nature. Well first, under the 
manner and scope of his incarnation, it was not by subtraction. In 
his assumption of humanity, in his taking to himself man's nature, 
he does not become less than he was. He doesn't lose his deity, 
nothing of deity is diminished, because deity cannot be diminished. 
As we'll note in a minute, it can also not be added to. He 
did not lose anything. When we read in Philippians, 
Jim just preached on this recently, Pastor Butler, when we read he 
emptied himself or that in Philippians 2.17 when he did not consider 
it robbery to be equal with God but made himself of no reputation, 
Pastor Butler noted that that was not in the casting off of 
his deity, in the laying aside of divine prerogatives, or somehow 
for a time setting aside his omnipotence, his omnipresence, 
and his omniscience, but it was rather simply in the assumption 
of humanity that he made himself of no reputation. This is Cyril 
of Alexandria on this, not by subtraction. This expression, 
however, he's speaking of John 1.14, this expression, however, 
the word was made flesh, can mean nothing else but that he 
partook of flesh and blood like to us. He made our body his own 
and came forth man from a woman, not casting off his existence 
as God or his generation of God the Father, but even in taking 
to himself flesh, remaining what he was. This the declaration 
of the correct faith proclaims everywhere. Not only is that 
proposition very important, that he took to himself that which 
he was not without casting off that which he was, which is a 
formula, a Christological formula that has echoed throughout the 
ages. Father after father, martyr after martyr, confessor after 
confessor, to use the language of Spurgeon, has always proclaimed 
that the son took to himself that which he was not without 
casting off that which he was. Not only is that proposition 
important, but the reality that this is the declaration of the 
correct faith that is proclaimed everywhere. So that anyone who 
says that Christ did lose something in the incarnation is not proclaiming 
the correct faith. Turretin on this same idea, reality, 
Christ, or no, just sorry, the language of emptied himself from 
Philippians 2. Emptied himself is not to be taken simply and 
absolutely as if he ceased to be God, which is impious even 
to think. He emptied himself not by putting 
off what he was, but by assuming what he was not. And then thirdly, 
Gil, though he took that which he had not before, he lost nothing 
of what he had. So you see how that same formula, 
that same Christological language is echoed throughout the centuries. 
And I would be so bold as to say it started with Paul, and 
it continued throughout the ages. So, the reason why we cannot 
say that there was subtraction in the son's assumption of humanity 
in his coming into this world, in the incarnation, is because 
of the fact that he is very and eternal God of one substance 
with the Father, the one who upholds all things, the one who 
has created all things. He is God. I am the Lord. I do 
not change." Those are the words of Christ. Those are the words 
of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the one and only living and true 
God. I am the Lord. I do not change. So then, it's 
also the manner and scope of His incarnation, not by subtraction, 
it's also not by addition. So in the incarnation, Christ, 
the Son of God, did not add to Himself humanity. That one might 
rub against our minds a little bit harder, because, well, wait 
a minute, if it's not by subtraction, then It would have to be by addition. What else is there? But hopefully 
we understand by what we just said about subtraction that the 
Lord cannot change, therefore he cannot add anything to himself 
because he is the perfection of being. perfection of being 
cannot have anything added to it. If it's the case that something 
could be added to the divine, then the divine was not perfect 
beforehand, or is now worse off than the divine was before. Either 
something was lacking, or now something has changed that brings 
lack to deity. But of course we know that I 
am the Lord, I do not change. Thomas Aquinas on this, By the 
incarnation, nothing is added to nor altered in the divine 
nature and personality of Christ. The human nature adds nothing 
to either of them. They remain the same they ever 
were. The human nature has its substance 
in his person, the person of the divine Son of God, and has 
a glory and excellency given it, but that gives nothing at 
all to the nature and person of the divine word and Son of 
God. his person was not in any way 
augmented or perfected by having assumed a human nature. So this 
is very important. In upholding our doctrine of 
God, who is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in all of his 
glorious perfections, his being and his perfections, which are 
identical to his being and to each other, he cannot change, 
he cannot be augmented, he cannot be made perfect or made less. 
A.W. Pink, as well, wrote this. It was not by adding manhood 
to Godhead that his personality was formed. The Trinity is eternal 
and unchangeable. A new person is not substituted 
for the second member of the Trinity, neither is a fourth 
added. The person of Christ is just the eternal word, who in 
time, by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the instrument 
of the Virgin's womb, took a human nature, not at that time a man, 
but the seed of Abraham, into personal union with himself. So that language there took a 
human nature into personal union with himself is important as 
to what we now move to, which is if it's not by subtraction 
and it's not by addition, what is it by? And the language really is captured 
in take unto himself. Did, when the fullness of time 
was come, take unto himself man's nature. That language is deliberate. 
It's not like, ah, well, you know what, you know, addition 
would be fine here, but let's just use sort of this language, 
take unto him. The language is rich with definitional 
meaning. There's terminological precision 
being utilized there in take unto himself. So what is it by 
then? It's not by subtraction, it's 
not by addition. Well, it is by assumption. So 
it is by assumption, not by subtraction, not by addition, but by assumption. And if we wanna be more specific, 
we would say, and bear with the language, terminative assumption. It's an important language there. 
That simply means that the divine person of the Son of God, the 
second person of the Holy Trinity, is the terminus, the final who, 
the final who of the humanity. And this is something important 
in the doctrine of Christ, too, as well, historically, is that 
The, we don't, there are not two I's of Christ. Well, he has two I's, E-Y-E, 
but there's not two I's, single letter I of Christ. In other 
words, he doesn't say, I am Christ in some occasions referring to, 
that I am the word or son, and then in other times as if a different 
subject saying I, in other words, the humanity. He's always the 
singular who, the singular I, I am Christ, that is divine and 
human in the one person. This taking to himself is terminative 
assumption. The person of the son is the 
terminus, the endpoint, the bringing together point of the humanity 
that he now eternally has. To elaborate this on a little 
bit with some propositions, the humanity has no independent personhood. Remember, some of you have probably 
heard of the heresy of Nestorianism back in the early church in the 
5th century. Largely speaking, the Ephesian 
council in 431 AD and the 451 council of Chalcedon were convened 
because of Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius. Cyril of Alexandria, we've quoted 
him a number of times, Jim and myself, he was a hero of Christology. Nestorius was a zero of Christology. Nestorius wasn't terrible, but 
he had some bad doctrine, heretical doctrine, with regards to the 
personhood of Christ. He would uphold that there are 
essentially two subjects the God and the man, not one Christ 
who is divine and human. And so the humanity of Christ 
has no independent personal subsistence. It doesn't have a personhood 
of its own. In other words, Christ did not assume a human person. 
He assumed a human nature, and he, the Son of God, provides 
the personhood to that nature. If you have questions about that 
near the end, just let me know, but it's hard to articulate sometimes 
in the plainness of words, but suffice it to say, Christ did 
not assume a human person, he assumed a human nature. That's 
why the confession calculatingly says he took to himself man's 
nature, not a man, but man's nature. The assumption finds 
its end point in the person of the sun. So that's why we say 
terminative assumption. The human nature finds its, the 
assumption finds its, and the human nature finds its end point 
in the person of the sun. The human nature's existence 
is bounded by and completed in the person of the word. And important 
as well, and lastly, the humanity is not a separate center of consciousness 
or personal identity. The Christ has two wills, and 
we'll note that in a few minutes, the divine and the human. Remember, 
he's in the Garden of Gethsemane, and he says, nevertheless, not 
my will, but thine be done. He's speaking there according 
to his humanity, because according to his deity, He has the same 
will as the Father and the Spirit. One power, one will, one God. Not three almighties, but one 
almighty. Not three willing, but one will. And so we, or not three wills, 
but one will. But the humanity is not a separate 
center of consciousness or personal identity, but rather the personhood 
of Christ is the Eternal Word, the One begotten by the Father, 
and He provides the personhood to the assumed humanity. It's 
a very important distinction historically because to avoid 
the Nestorian error of a two-person or two-subject Christology, that 
there's the God and the man, and they're not really united. 
There's just this sort of superficial, almost parallel unity in the 
lives of the two subjects, but there's not a true unity where 
it's one person in two whole and perfect natures. The language 
of Assumption is simply captured in the language, took to himself, 
or to take to oneself. That's the language of Assumption. 
It comes from the Latin Assumptio, which, interestingly, is the 
word that's translated in Philippians 2-7 in most Latin Bibles. The word assumptio, it's a different 
form, but it's assumptus or something like that in the Latin. That 
translates the Greek eleben, which is took to himself in Philippians, 
emptied himself or took to himself man's nature in Philippians 2.7. there is 
theological precision to the language of assumption, to eliminate 
subtraction, to reject addition, though addition is much better 
than subtraction, and to ensure that it is the fact that the 
sun does not change, but unites to himself humanity. And just, 
you know, you've heard of the hypostatic union. This is what 
we're talking about here, the hypostatic union, the personal 
union of the two natures in the one Christ. Or we may even say, 
to be a little bit more theologically precise, the assumption of humanity 
by the Son unto the unity of the two natures. And so this 
is the stuff of the hypostatic union. Hypostasis simply meaning 
person, and union is that bringing together of divinity and humanity 
in the one person of Christ. So what does this mean then? 
So not by subtraction, not by addition, but by terminative 
assumption. So then he really was a man is 
what this means. Notice the confession says, did 
when the fullness of time was come, take unto him man's nature. So he really was a man. And the 
Bible speaks clearly to this in a number of locations. First off, with regards to the 
bringing together of some passages, he's clearly called man by the 
Holy Scriptures in Acts 2.22. The man, Christ Jesus, is spoken 
of in the book of Acts, and 1 Timothy 2.5 as well. There's one mediator 
between God and man, the man, Christ Jesus. So the scriptures 
clearly refer to him as man, just as it clearly refers to 
him as God. Secondly, he has and does those 
things that only men do. When we read the scriptures, 
he's doing man things. Without casting off his eternal 
deity, he's doing man things because he has assumed our nature 
unto himself. He weeps, he walks, He bleeds, 
he dies. And so he does those things that 
only men do. And I mean, in the course of 
studying this, we need to constantly come back to the fact that this 
is such a great condescension, that the son of God took to himself 
man's nature, that the unchanging one took to himself man's changing 
nature, and he did walk this earth. He walked upon the dust 
that he created. He walked upon the dust from 
which he drew up the first man. He walked the streets that he 
carved in his own providential governance. He went into the 
water and came out in immersive baptism into the water that he 
created from out of nothing. He is weary. He weeps. he bleeds and he dies. What a 
glorious condescension of our Savior in the taking to himself 
of manhood. Thirdly, he's referred to in 
terms of human descendancy. So he's referred to as the seed 
and the son of Abraham. He's referred to as the seed 
and the son of David, according to the flesh. And the Bible deliberately, 
not just for the sake of giving a genealogy, but for a multifaceted 
reason, one of them being to declare his true humanity, gives 
us those genealogies and traces the descendancy of the Lord Jesus 
Christ back through generations of the faithful, back through 
the patriarchs, back to Adam, and of course back to his eternal 
generation from the father. So, he's referred to in terms 
of human descendancy. Fourth, he is said to be a partaker 
of flesh. In John 1, 14, and in Hebrews 
2, 10, 14, and 16. In fact, just turn to John 1 
for a moment, just to talk a little bit of this language of the assumption 
of flesh. In John 1, and you'll, Remember, 
of course, that through Pastor Butler's preaching in the Gospel 
of John, he often comes back to that glorious prologue where 
the personhood of Christ is emphasized, and gloriously, his divinity 
and his assumed humanity. In the beginning was the Word, 
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and then verse 
114, and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. So that language, 
the Word became flesh, is one of the banner phrases or clauses 
of the defense of the doctrine of Christ through the ages, especially 
in the first six, seven centuries of the church. that the word 
was made flesh. It was utilized and emphasized 
to target those who were rejecting the true incarnation, the true 
assumption of our humanity by the Son of God. There were some 
who were saying that he just feigned humanity or he appeared 
like a phantom to be human. The Jehovah's Witnesses do that 
today. It's an age-old heresy. So he 
just appeared to be human. or that his humanity was a heavenly 
humanity. It was, you know, manufactured 
in heaven and, for lack of a better phraseology, implanted, if you 
will, into the virgin womb. And so there are a number of 
things, and in fact, this language of the word became flesh is probably 
calculatedly used, calculatingly, calculatedly used, by the Apostle 
John in order to target what he deals with in his epistles. 
Remember in his epistles, one of the things that he says is 
he is anti-Christ who says that Christ has not come in the flesh. And so when it comes to the gospel 
of John, The Serial of Alexandria, for example, says in his introduction 
to either the Gospel of John or the Johannine epistles, John's 
epistles, that we have reason to suspect, he says something 
like this, we have reason to suspect or to conclude that certain 
persons, upset by this anti-Christ doctrine, that Christ had not 
come in the flesh, approached John and pleaded with him to 
write a letter correcting the errors of these heretics, which 
is very interesting. Is Cyril right? I don't know. 
But the language is certainly deliberate. So the word became 
flesh. Now John could have said, And 
the word became man. There were words that he had 
in his arsenal, anthropos. He doesn't use anthropos, he 
uses sarx, which is the word for flesh, that the son of God 
became flesh. What's the reason for doing this? 
I think one of the reasons is, perhaps what we just said, that 
the trueness of flesh, even though if he said became man, that would 
be theologically true, There'd be nothing wrong with that, but 
it would almost be okay with those who said, yeah, he appeared 
to be a man. But to say that he became flesh is to push the 
incarnation to the point of an emphatic reality, that the Son 
of God really did take to himself flesh and a reasonable soul. 
But notice the language of Genesis 6. You can turn there if you'd 
like, or I could just read it here in a moment, but in Genesis 
6, and then as well in Isaiah 40, there's some language here 
that is probably as well lurking in the background with regards 
to John's declaration. In Genesis 6, notice verse 2, 
that the sons of God saw the daughters of men and that they 
were beautiful and they took wives for themselves of all whom 
they chose. And the Lord said, my spirit 
will not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh. yet his 
days shall be 120 years. So there's a rich biblical theology 
and just simplicity as it pertains to the flesh of man and the language 
of flesh. There's something grounded in 
its reality and in its seriousness and here there's a connection 
to the flesh assumed by Christ and the reversal of the curse 
that man had upon him by virtue of the first man's transgression. 
Also, in the book of Isaiah, in Isaiah 40, Isaiah 40 and near the beginning, And the glory of the Lord shall 
be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth 
of the Lord has spoken. And this is speaking within the 
context, notice verse three. The voice of one crying in the 
wilderness, prepare the way of the Lord, make straight in the 
desert a highway for our God. This is language that is picked 
up by Jesus and John the Baptist regarding that precursor, the 
announcement by John the Baptist, the one who cries out in the 
wilderness, prepare the way of the Lord, and then the Lord who 
does come. And notice, a highway for our 
God. It argues for the deity of Christ. 
This is linked in the New Testament to Christ who comes. That John 
the Baptist, as this last Old Testament prophet forerunner, 
announces the way of God. In other words, the God who assumes 
flesh. And we see that language in verse 
five. The glory of the Lord shall be 
revealed and all flesh shall see it together. So there's an 
intimate connection between John saying became flesh and the reality 
that those who are fallen in sin are flesh bearers, that we 
bear the flesh of our created humanity, and the second Adam 
comes to reverse the curse inherited by the sons of Adam and Eve, 
the sons and daughters of the first man. So, moving back to 
that, He's a partaker of our flesh. He spoke and willed distinctly 
according to his humanity. Mark 13.32 and Matthew 26.39, 
when Christ says, that the son does not even know 
the day or hour of judgment, but the father only. He's speaking 
according to his humanity. There are some, well, throughout 
history, but some in our own day who claim the banner of Reformed 
and Reformed Baptist who say that this, we can't just say 
that this is him speaking to his humanity. We have to somehow 
diminish the deity of Christ at least only temporarily, in 
order to give justice to this statement? Well, of course, there 
can never be an occasion where God, Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, 
does not know something. We cannot predicate ignorance 
of the divine, properly speaking. And so when Christ says, I don't 
know the day or the hour, the sun does not know the day or 
the hour, he's speaking according to his assumed humanity. Just 
like when he says, I hunger, I thirst. He's not speaking according 
to his deity, because deity does not hunger, does not thirst. 
So he spoke and willed distinctly according to his humanity. He 
has a divine will, the inseparable reality of the fact that Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit are of one essence, power, eternity, and 
will, but he also, of course, has a human will. He grew in 
wisdom and knowledge, learned obedience, Luke 2, 52, and Hebrews 
5, 8. He provides. infallible post-resurrection 
proofs of his true humanity. Remember what he does in Luke 
24. He appears before the disciples, 
and there's this progression of realities that he brings to 
them. He says, well, first he speaks 
to them. They still doubt. Then he says, 
see that it is I. He tells them to look at the 
wounds upon his hands and his side. That sort of thing. They 
still don't believe, so he says, touch me, handle me, and see 
that it is I. And they still don't believe, 
and then he eats broiled fish and honeycomb before them. Phantoms 
can't do these things is really what Christ is saying to a large 
degree. I'm not a phantom, I'm not a 
specter, it is me, the one who beforehand you did hear, see, 
handle, and touch, and rest your head upon. You rested your head 
upon my bosom, John. I'm the same one. I bear flesh, 
I bore flesh before, following my death and resurrection. It 
is I. Look at my wounds, handle the wounds, and here, I'm even 
eating broiled fish and honeycomb before you. What a mercy of our 
Savior. to, you know, to, you know, any 
one of us would be like, ah, you know, you don't believe me, 
I'm going to the next village to see if they will. But the 
graceful and merciful Son of God incarnated sits with them 
and patiently brings them through these evidential realities of 
his assumed humanity and his glorified post-resurrection humanity. So, he provides that infallible 
proof of the post-resurrection certainty of his humanity. Spurgeon 
on this, it is idle to speculate upon a heavenly manhood, as some 
have done, who have, by their very attempted accuracy, been 
borne down by whirlpools of error. It is enough for us to know that 
the Lord was born of a woman, wrapped in swaddling bands, laid 
in a manger, and needed to be nursed by his mother as any other 
little child. He grew in stature like any other 
human being, and as a man, we know that he ate and drank, that 
he hungered and thirsted, rejoiced and sorrowed. His body could 
be touched and handled, wounded and made to bleed. He was no 
phantom, but a man of flesh and blood, even as ourselves. He 
was a man needing sleep. requiring food, and subject to 
pain, and a man who, in the end, yielded up his life unto death. 
The true humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ is absolutely vital. Now, we're gonna notice the extent 
of his incarnation. Notice the next set of phrases 
here. So back to paragraph two, the 
son of God did, when the fullness of time was come, take unto him 
man's nature, now notice, with all the essential properties 
and common infirmities thereof. So the extent of his incarnation 
is, simply again to say, to repeat, that he truly is man. And this 
is an elaboration upon that. All of the essential properties 
and all of the common infirmities. So the completeness, first of 
all, of his humanity is seen in essential properties. And 
what does this mean? We could say it means, well, 
we could say two things, or we could say three, but I'll try 
to make it clear, because that doesn't make too much sense. 
The first, with regards to the completeness of is humanity, 
is that essential properties could largely mean body and soul. So body and reasonable soul. 
What is man? He is body and soul. And so to 
take to oneself humanity is to take to them body and soul. Whenever we read things like, 
the word became flesh. We're not to so narrowly define 
flesh there as to exclude the assumption of a human soul. Very 
often I think the technical word might be synecdoche, where The 
statement of one thing is used for the whole of a thing. In 
other words, the statement of a part of something is used to 
capture the whole. You've heard Jim say before, 
I think, in describing the same thing, when the Titanic went 
down, there were 1,200 souls on board. Well, of course, they 
had bodies. It wasn't just souls floating 
around. 1,200 persons. And so when we read language 
like Christ and the body of Christ, Christ and the flesh of Christ, 
we're always to say, unless the context defines it more narrowly, 
that that means Christ's whole humanity, body and soul. So he 
has a body and a reasonable soul. This is the language of, I think 
I printed it, the Chalcedon definition. captures that language, I believe 
it is, as well as the Athanasian creed. If you wanna look at, on your 
own time, a good expansion upon this doctrine that our Baptist 
confessionalists are drawing from, it's the definition of 
Chalcedon from 451, as well the Athanasian Creed, which was probably 
in the fifth century, mid-fifth century, not written by Athanasius, 
but Athanasian in its theology concerning the deity and the 
humanity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity. But the definition 
of Chalcedon says this, that Christ was truly man of a reasonable 
soul and body, consubstantial with the Father according to 
the Godhead, so of one substance with the Father according to 
the Godhead, and consubstantial of one substance with us according 
to the manhood in all things alike unto us without sin. The Athanasian Creed writes, 
reads, that Christ is man of the substance of his mother, 
born in the world, perfect God and perfect man of a reasonable 
soul and human flesh subsisting. So essential properties, we would 
want to say that it can't be less than body and reasonable 
soul. As well, with that then, we would 
say that he has a human will, human operations, like the old 
divines would say powers or even energies, that Christ had two 
wills, the divine and the human, and he had two energies or two 
powers. He did those things according to his divine power and according 
to his assumed humanity, the power that men have, which is 
subordinate and certainly finite. so that when he walks on the 
water, there is a measure by which the 
divine and the human are there acting according to their respective 
properties. When Christ is eating, he's eating 
according, not to the power of the divine, but according to 
the humanity that he assumed, the divine, of course, as with 
all of us, providing the sustentation or the lifting up and the holding 
of the body together. So, body and soul and human will 
operations and human affections. When Christ weeps, when Christ 
sorrows, when Christ is joyful, when Christ engages in the holy 
and righteous indignation against the unbelieving Jews of his day, 
These are not divine affections. These are human affections because 
the divine doesn't have affections. They are perfections in him which 
are affections in us. God doesn't move to and fro from 
different emotions. Only men do. And so Christ had 
a human will, human power, human affections. And then we notice 
the inherent weakness of his humanity. So essential properties 
with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof. So that's an important clause 
as well, that not only did he bear our essential properties, 
he truly was men insofar, in everything true of man. Of course, 
as we'll see, yet without sin. And we'll probably move to that, 
we'll probably move to that next time because that sort of leads 
into the instrumentality of the incarnation as well as the purpose 
for it. But, Christ assumed our common 
infirmities, and we'll close with this and then have some 
questions. Listen to John Flavel on this common infirmities reality. He does treat essential properties 
as well, but this is on common infirmities, and what does this 
mean that Christ took to himself our nature with these things? He assumed our nature as with 
all its integral parts, so with all its sinless infirmities. 
Notice. sinless infirmities, and therefore 
it is said of him that it behooved him in all things, that is, all 
things natural, not formerly sinful, as it is limited by the 
same apostle in Hebrews 4.15, to be made like unto his brethren. Hebrews 2.17. But here, divines 
carefully distinguish infirmities into personal and natural. Personal 
infirmities are such as befall particular persons from causes 
such as dumbness, blindness, lameness, leprosies, monstrosities, 
and other deformities. These it was no way necessary 
that Christ should, nor did he at all assume. But the natural 
ones, such as hunger, thirst, weariness, sweating, bleeding, 
mortality, et cetera, which though they are not in themselves formerly 
and intrinsically sinful, yet they are the effects and consequence 
of sin. They are so many marks that sin 
has left of itself upon our natures. And on that account, Christ is 
said to be sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, Romans 8.3, 
wherein the gracious condescension of Christ for us is marvelously 
signalized that he would not assume our innocent nature as 
it was in Adam before the fall, while it stood in all its primitive 
glory and perfection, but after sin had quite defaced, ruined, 
and spoiled it. So those are those common infirmities, 
and that will bring us next time to this reality, that Christ 
assumed the fullness of our humanity without sin, or else we're not 
redeemed. If Christ only, for example, 
assumed a body, well, what about our souls? If Christ dies upon 
the cross only having assumed a human body, then we have half 
a savior and half a salvation. That was Gregory of Nazianzus' 
argument against the Apollinarians of his day who rejected the assumption 
of a full humanity. They rejected that Christ had 
a human mind and will. Gregory of Nazianzus would say 
stuff like, well, then we have half a savior. If Christ only 
came with the portraiture of humanity, then we're not redeemed. And so another statement of the 
early church was what is not assumed is not healed. If Christ 
does not assume body and soul, then our bodies and souls are 
not healed. If Christ assumes body but only 
soul, then okay, maybe our bodies are redeemed, but our souls are 
still left eternally condemned. And so we need a whole Savior, 
and that's what we have in Christ. Praise God, and we'll continue 
with more next time. Let's close in prayer, and then 
if there are any questions, you can fire away. God, thank you 
for this time together in learning of our Christ. We thank you for 
our Savior, that he is very God and very man, yet one Christ 
and our precious mediator. We pray as we go into worship 
that we would glory in our Savior, that we glory in our triune God, 
and that we would sing your praises and be attentive for the worship 
of triune God. And we pray in Christ's name, 
amen.