← Back to sermon library

You can turn again to Chapter 
8 as we continue our study in the chapter of Christ the Mediator. We've looked at some introductory 
matters. Last time we were together in 
the Confession, we looked specifically, we started to look at the identity 
of Christ, and specifically last time, his deity. This morning 
we'll continue in the identity of Christ, the person of Christ, 
by looking at the incarnation and his assumed humanity. So 
we're just going to read paragraphs 2 and 7, and we'll jump into 
the subject matter. So chapter 8, paragraphs 2 and 
7. 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 
substant 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 upon 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. In paragraph 7, 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. rich paragraph, paragraph two, 
paragraph seven is rich also, it's a rich chapter in its entirety 
because it is on the topic of our precious savior of Christ, 
the mediator. In a movement from our last session 
to this session, Spurgeon notes, not that he was with us, but 
Similarly, on that topic, he wrote, remembering that Jesus 
Christ is God, it now behooves us to remember that his manhood 
was nonetheless real and essential. John Owen writes, this is that 
glorious condescension of Christ, which is the greatest of all 
gospel mysteries, which is the life and soul of the church. We think about the Christian 
faith, a central tenet, obviously, is the incarnation of the Son 
of God, the fact that the Son of God of equal power, eternity 
of one substance with the Father and Spirit in the fullness of 
the times took upon Him our nature for our redemption and recovery. 
That's at the heart of the Christian religion, and it's a truth essential 
to the Christian religion. Turretin writes on the mystery 
of the incarnation, because as we study this particular topic, 
our minds cannot fully comprehend the mystery that it is. And when 
I say mystery, I don't mean some sort of ethereal, mystical thing 
that we can't grasp. We can apprehend this truth, 
we lay hold of this truth as Christians, but not being infinite 
and being finite, we cannot fully comprehend within the grasp of 
our finitude the glory of the incarnation. Turretin writes, 
in the Christian religion 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. So we can know it, we can study 
it, we can glory in it, but we cannot exhaust the infinite glory 
and the majesty of so glorious a condescension. A couple things 
we ought to note before we jump in. As we navigate these things 
and as we consider such doctrine, we need to keep in mind the prevalence 
of error in our day. There's a need to be taught and 
stable in light of this error. There are a lot of poor, errant, weak doctrines 
being propagated within Christianity at large, but even within the 
fold, if we can say, of those who confess a reformed Christianity. And so tightening up our grip 
upon biblical doctrine, being informed well and rightly concerning 
so glorious a doctrine will help us not to imbibe error and buy 
into some of the low Christologies that are being propagated out 
there. The devil loves ignorance and 
error, the flesh seeks novelty, and the world glories in the 
rejection of truth, and so as Christians brought alive by the 
power of the spirit, we're to seek to know truth in the face 
of grave error. But we ought to also say, so 
that's sort of negatively speaking the prevalence of error, but 
we ought to also say we have this ever-present joy of positively 
affirming the blessed truths concerning our precious Savior. Doctrine does not produce a dry 
heartlessness, it stirs the heart to joy in the knowledge of the 
one eternal, infinite, and unchangeable in his glorious perfections who 
assumed our nature for our redemption. Owen writes, I know in the contemplation 
of the glory of Christ, it will quickly overwhelm our reason 
and bring our understanding into a loss. But unto this loss do 
I desire to be brought every day. For when faith can no more 
act itself in comprehension, when it finds the object of it 
is fixed on too great and glorious to be brought into our minds 
and capacities, it will issue in holy admiration, humble adoration, 
and joyful thanksgiving. In and by its acting in them 
does it fill the soul with joy unspeakable and full of glory. 
So with that, let's look at this study of the identity of Christ 
and this time his assumed humanity. And similar to what we did last 
time, if you remember when we looked at the deity of Christ, 
we started by jettisoning from our minds those things that are 
wrong, what the incarnation and the humanity of Christ does not 
mean. In this case, last time we said 
what the deity of Christ doesn't mean, and we listed a number 
of things, and we weren't just pulling those things out of the 
air or making them up, but in the history of the rejection 
of the deity of Christ, those things had been affirmed, and 
so we want to, again, cleanse our minds, if you will, of any 
notions of bad theology, or at least inform our minds that these 
things are not what the Incarnation and Humanity of Christ means. 
So let's just work through these as quickly as we can. First off, 
we do not mean by the Incarnation and Humanity of Christ, we do 
not mean that He, that is the Son of God, mutated from deity 
into humanity. So that when we read In the beginning 
was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and 
the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. That became doesn't 
mean that the Son of God somehow mutated from deity into humanity, 
so as he is no longer deity. We do not mean that he only appeared 
to the eyes of men as human. an error in the history of the 
church, that he only appeared to the eyes of men as human. A form of this is in the foreground 
in John's epistles when he's writing concerning Antichrist. 
He is Antichrist who denies that Jesus Christ had come in the 
flesh. Thirdly, we do not mean that 
he came into the world with a heavenly body, that it was a heavenly 
body, that either he did not come into the world through the 
vessel, if you will, of the Virgin Mary, or that he just passed 
through her as through a vessel. Serial of Jerusalem on these 
particular two errors, the only begotten Son of God was made 
man, not in seeming and mere show, but in truth. nor yet by 
passing through the Virgin as through a channel, but was of 
her made truly flesh, and truly nourished with milk, and did 
truly eat as we do, and truly drink as we do. For if the incarnation 
was a phantom, salvation is a phantom also. a very important phrase 
in the history of the Church, because as our theological heroes 
throughout the ages were combating heresy, they were combating at 
the point, in this case, on the true humanity, that if we reject 
the true humanity, then we reject the salvation that the Son of 
God, who assumed humanity, affords us. If we reject his true deity, 
we reject the salvation that he brings, and if we reject his 
true humanity, then we also therefore reject the blessing of salvation. Fourthly, we do not mean that 
the enfleshment of the Son of God was simply that of a body 
only. Fifthly, we do not mean that 
the incarnation was such that the Son of God assumed flesh 
with an animal soul, but not a human soul or spirit. That's 
an error of old by someone named Apollinaris. And actually, it's 
propagated in our own day by such persons like William Lane 
Craig and some others. So on that, another quote. So 
he didn't just assume body, he didn't just assume flesh, without 
a human soul or spirit. So Gregory of Nazianzus on this, 
if anyone has put his trust in him as a man without a human 
mind, he is really bereft of mind. and quite unworthy of salvation. For that which he has not assumed, 
he has not healed. But that which is united to his 
Godhead is also saved. If only half Adam fell, then 
that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also. But if 
the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole 
nature of him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole. Let 
them not then begrudge us our complete salvation, or clothe 
the Savior only with bones and nerves and the portraiture of 
humanity." So I think we're going to see repeatedly as we work 
through these things, the intimate connection to, the inseparable 
connection between the doctrine of God, the doctrine of Christ, 
and the doctrine of salvation. These things can be considered 
systematically and with a study of the Confession in separate 
chapters and separately, but they are inseparable with regards 
to the blessed theology of the Word of God, because we can see 
how intimately linked here Christology, a proper understanding of deity 
and humanity, affect the salvation that the one who is both God 
and man, yet one Christ, affords. Sixthly, we do not mean that 
in the incarnation, deity and humanity are mixed or mingled, 
resulting in a new product, Jesus Christ. So we don't have deity 
and humanity coming together, again, being mixed or mingled, 
resulting in an end result, an equal sign, Jesus Christ, as 
if deity plus humanity equals Jesus Christ. Seventhly, we do 
not mean that he divested himself of or temporarily laid aside 
deity or divine attributes or divine prerogatives, whether 
temporarily or permanently, in the incarnation or in order to 
take on man's nature. Owen on this. By this infinite 
condescension to be a suffering man, he lost nothing of his power 
as God omnipotent, nothing in his infinite wisdom or glorious 
grace. He could still do all that he could do as God from 
eternity. If there be anything, therefore, 
in a coalescency of infinite power with infinite condescension 
to constitute a sanctuary for distressed sinners, it is all 
in Christ Jesus. And if we see him not glorious 
herein, it is because there is no light of faith in us. On this 
particular point, we have in the Bible, for example, the language 
of the Son of God coming down from heaven. We see that language, 
in fact, Christ using it himself on more than one occasion in 
the Gospel of John. I am the bread of life who came 
down from heaven. We have that same language picked 
up, well, similar language by the Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 
1.15. This is a faithful saying worthy of all acceptance that 
Christ Jesus came into this world sinners to save. And the creeds 
pick up this language, speaking of, you know, the Son of God 
who came down from heaven for us men and for our salvation. But we need to understand that 
that coming down doesn't really mean that He came down, literally 
speaking. Remember that God is omnipresent. That applies to Father, Son, 
and Holy Spirit. So the Son of God was not locally 
in heaven and then departed there so as to not be there anymore 
when he came in the incarnation. The same goes with omnipotence 
and omniscience. He didn't set aside his all-powerfulness 
in the incarnation. When he's a babe wrapped in swaddling 
cloths lying in a manger, he is at the same time upholding 
all things by the word of his power. Omniscience. When we read things like Jesus 
Christ saying that He doesn't know the day or hour, but the 
Father only, of judgment, that's of course Christ speaking to 
His assumed humanity, or according to His assumed humanity. As God, 
He knows all things. The God of heaven and earth cannot 
collapse or divest Himself of omniscience. Two quotes that 
are very important on this, and that you can see Cyril and Calvin 
here, and the language that they use upholding the proper doctrine 
of God and the proper doctrine of Christ. Remember that as we 
go through a study of Christ and as we consider his incarnation 
in humanity, all of those things from chapter two, paragraphs 
one and two, are the same. during the incarnation. He is 
still infinite, eternal, and unchangeable. He's impassable. 
He's immutable. He's simple. He's most absolute. 
He's independent of the creature. None of those things change with 
respect to the incarnation. This is Cyril on sort of omnipresence 
not being cast aside in the incarnation. The Eternal Word subjected himself 
to birth for us and came forth man from a woman without casting 
off that which he was. Although he assumed flesh and 
blood, he remained what he was, God in essence and in truth. 
For although visible and a child in swaddling clothes and even 
in the bosom of his virgin mother, he filled all creation as God 
and was a fellow ruler with him who begat him. For the Godhead 
is without quantity and dimension and cannot have limits. Also 
Calvin on this, for even if the word in his immeasurable essence 
united with the nature of man into one person, we do not imagine 
that he was confined therein. Here is something marvelous. 
The Son of God descended from heaven in such a way that, without 
leaving heaven, he willed to be born in the Virgin's womb, 
to go about the earth, and to hang upon the cross, yet he continuously 
filled the world even as he had done from the beginning. So you 
see, when Christ uses the language, I came down from heaven, he's 
speaking with regards to the fact that that coming down from 
heaven or coming into the world refers to his assumption of our 
humanity, not somehow as deity departing from one location to 
another. whereby he is no longer found 
in that previous location. That's pagan deity, small g god, 
that's not the god of heaven and earth or the god of the Bible. Eighthly, We do not mean that 
he conjoined himself with a human person and was to him unified 
in dignity, honor, and person. Notice that important language 
there. We do not mean that he conjoined himself with a human 
person. He did not take to himself a 
human person. There are not two Christs, two 
sons, there is one Christ. Remember the language of the 
confession here near the end, almost at the very end. Which 
person, singular, is very God and very man, yet one Christ? the only mediator between God 
and man. So that was the era of Nestorianism 
back in the day, in the 5th century, where he believed that the Son 
of God conjoined himself with the human person, and that the 
union was not a substantial union of two natures, but rather it 
was just this union between two people that was marked by dignity, 
honor, and purpose. So the last thing we need to 
jettison from our Christological contemplations is, we do not 
mean that, though unchanging in his deity, he added to himself 
a human nature. Now this is probably the least 
this is probably the least impactful, or this isn't horrible, damning 
heresy. And in fact, it's actually usually 
seen as a noble and well-intentioned response to subtraction theology. You know, where those who are 
saying that Christ somehow subtracted you know, that emptying of himself 
in Philippians 2 is that he actually did change, that he actually 
did empty himself of some measure of deity. This addition of human 
nature, which is used by many, is usually, again, noble and 
with good intentions. It's just not terminologically 
the best. and it also doesn't represent, 
or it can be, it can also reflect a bad theology as well. So more 
on that as we work through it. So those are the lists, that's 
the list of things that we are not to see as the incarnation 
and humanity of Christ. So then, what do we mean when 
we speak of the incarnation and humanity of Christ? And we'll 
look at the confession here again in a moment in the specific language 
that it uses, but to sort of sum this all up, casting away 
what we just listed and owning positively what it does mean, 
we do mean that the Son of God, without casting off that which 
he eternally is, took to himself that which he was not in the 
assumption of our nature to be his very own, that he became 
true man in the act of assuming and therefore uniting human nature 
to himself, body and soul, yet without sin. So the son's assumption 
of man's nature is what we want to continue to look at now, and 
positively speaking. So first off, before we get to 
the confessional language, we just want to simply note from 
the confession again, the confessional language of incarnation, that 
is, who is the one who is assuming our nature? The language is explicit 
in paragraph two, right at the beginning, the son of God. And 
it further identifies who that Son of God is, obviously, you 
know, pulling from the Bible, various texts, and assuming that 
we have all read Chapter 2, Paragraphs 1 and 2, prior to this, Paragraphs 
1, 2, and 3. 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. So that's the one who is assuming 
man's nature. And I think we are to, not I 
think, we are to, this sets us up to then glory in what follows, 
the condescension that follows. To marvel in Gill's language, 
the amazing stoop. where this one that we just read 
of is the one who was born of Mary, who took upon himself our 
nature for our redemption. It's a blessed thing. Yes, while 
we're studying, again, we study doctrine, but not unto the end 
that we'll just be, you know, dry, heartless academics. We 
study doctrines so that we can glory in the blessed truth of 
our God and his Christ, the blessed redemption that we have in Father, 
Son, and in Holy Spirit. And so this sets us up for glorying 
in the incarnation. The one assuming man's nature 
is the Son of God. It's not, we want to say, the 
Father or Spirit that became incarnate. You know, some errors 
of old speaking, or some language that people will use with regards 
to the Trinity, you know, dying on the cross, and just bad theology 
that doesn't properly, you know, parse out a good theology in 
Christology. It wasn't the Father or Spirit. 
who assumed man's nature. It wasn't the Trinity that assumed 
man's nature, it was the Son of God who assumed man's nature. Turretin writes, although the 
divine nature may properly be said to have been incarnated 
in the Son, it does not follow that the whole Trinity became 
incarnate. The divine nature is incarnate 
in the person of the Word. So it is the Son who assumes 
man's nature. And just to kind of speak a little 
bit with regards to the breadth of language that the historical 
church has used with regards to the incarnation. We're going 
to look at some terms and phrases and hopefully these will help 
us because it'll help us sort of hone in on what the Bible 
is getting at and what the history of the church. Remember, the 
history of the church that Christ is building by his spirit, that 
this church has used language throughout the years to argue 
for, to propagate, to protect, and to glory in the doctrine 
of the Incarnation. So some terms and phrases with 
biblical precedent that have been used in the history of Christianity 
to encapsulate the truth of the assumption of man's nature by 
the Son of God, embodying Inhumanation, there's a good one for you. The 
inhumanation, and there's language warrant for that English translation. His conversation in and by the 
flesh, his manifestation by humanity, the advent. Here's one for you 
that you can write down, the exonination. The humiliation, 
that simply means the emptying, and theologians have used that. 
In fact, John Owen uses that a fair bit. The exoneration, 
the humiliation, the appearance, and the condescension. Here are some terms that we're 
more familiar with. We want to speak with regards 
to the assumption itself, the language of assumption, the language 
of union, and the language of incarnation. But when we use 
then, moving on to the language of assumption, when we use this 
language, we're using it positively. to assert the biblical language 
from Philippians 2, where Christ took to himself the form of a 
bondservant. So the language of assumption 
is biblically legitimate. And as we'll see, that language 
is protected and defended by the church throughout her ages. 
But also to exclude subtraction or addition incarnation language. So it's not the case that the 
Son of God subtracted from himself in becoming incarnate and taking 
to himself man's nature as if he had to in some way for it 
to be a real incarnation. And it's not that he added humanity 
to himself, but rather that he took it to himself or he assumed 
it unto a personal union. So on this particular note, no 
subtraction, no addition. Is this true, or is it just Cam 
Porter talking about it? No, it's not just me talking 
about it. It's the Bible, and it's the history of the church. 
Some quotes with regards to the Incarnation not being by subtraction. Whilst he remained what he was, 
he took that which he was not." Chrysostom. And then a really 
good quote by Gregory of Nazianzus, for he whom you now treat with 
contempt was once above you. He who is now man was once the 
uncompounded. What he was, he continued to 
be. What he was not, he took to himself. In the beginning, he was uncaused. For what is the cause of God? 
But afterwards, for a cause, he was born. Also Cyril of Alexandria. This expression, however, the 
word was made flesh, John 1.14, 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. Turretin 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 a particular Baptist friend of ours, John Gill, Though 
he took that which he had not before, he lost nothing of what 
he had. So there's a measure of great 
clarity in the history of the church that the Son of God did 
not cast off that which he was, he simply took on that which 
he was not. Now, no addition then. So if 
it's not by subtraction, it must be by addition. And again, the 
use of addition by some theologians in our own circles, it's not 
horrible. It's just not as technically precise and could convey theology 
that isn't really conducive with biblical and confessional doctrine 
of God. This is Thomas Aquinas on no 
addition. 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 subsistence 
in his person 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. John 
Owen. It was no addition unto him. 
There is nothing can add unto God, unto his satisfaction. There is nothing wanting in himself, 
unto his own eternal blessedness. There can be no addition made 
unto God. Therefore it must be an infinite 
condescension in him, and a humbling of himself, to behold the things 
done in heaven and on earth. Now one more, and of more recent 
memory here, A.W. Pink. 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 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 when we talk about assumption, 
we're talking about that as contrasted to subtraction on the one side 
and addition on the other side. So some definitions then, what 
does assumption mean? And assumption is in our, we'll 
get to that in a moment, but assumption is in the confession 
here. When we read the son of God, and then we later read, 
when the fullness of time was come, did take upon him man's 
nature. Very simple definition of assumption 
is, taking upon oneself. And that's the language that's 
used right there. He took to himself or he took 
upon himself man's nature. He didn't add to himself man's 
nature, but rather he took it to himself. So the definition 
of assumption generally, you know, often we assume, we assume 
that assumption means, or when we think of assume, we think 
of, you know, thinking about something perhaps without justification 
or something like that, you know, assume or assumption. But with 
regards to another meaning of it, and that which is captured 
in biblical theology, assumption simply means taking unto oneself, 
generally speaking. Specifically, with regards to 
our topic, Owen says, the ineffable divine act whereby the person 
of the Son of God assumed our nature or took it into a personal 
subsistence with himself. And as we'll see, this language 
has a great heritage throughout the ages. Now, another word that 
we also use as we study the doctrine of Christ and the incarnation 
is union. The language of union is used 
at the end of this paragraph where we read, so that two whole 
perfect and distinct natures were inseparably joined together 
in one person. So we have the language of assumption 
in took to himself man's nature, and the language of union being 
inseparably joined together. So deity and humanity inseparably 
joined together in one person. The language of union is very 
often used, and often used again in contrast to addition. The Cambridge Dictionary simply 
describes union, and this would be familiar to you, the act or 
state of being joined together. With regards to, specifically 
now, the incarnation, Owen writes regarding this, Maybe more simply here, Thomas, 
in describing the difference between assumption and union, 
writes, so there's an objection that he's dealing with. It seems 
that union and assumption are not different. The response is 
that union implies the relation, whereas assumption implies the 
action. So coming back to the confession 
then, the action, Christ, the son of God, takes to himself 
man's nature, the result of that is the relation Two natures, 
divine and human, joined together in one person. I'm going to walk 
to Kleenex, wherever it is. Thank you. And since I'm still 
on the microphone, as I walk back. So assumption and union 
are different. One is the act, and the other 
is the relation that accrues by virtue of that act taking 
place. Now, incarnation then. So we have assumption, union, 
and then incarnation. Very often incarnation is used. 
synonymously with assumption. It's used interchangeably with 
Christ assuming our nature, and that's perfectly fine. Sometimes 
it's used in a larger sense, where it speaks to the entire 
mission of the Son. So the entire sort of economy 
of redemption executed by the Son of God in time and in history. 
So it would include his assumption, but it would also include his 
humiliation and sufferings unto death. Incarnation simply comes, 
or the language, we have a transliteration, or we use a transliteration, 
incarnation. The English translation might 
be enfleshment. In fact, that's what Cyril uses. 
He uses enfleshment often, and I think he even says, or even 
better, the enmanment. of the Son of God. So the incarnation 
simply means that Christ took to himself man's nature with 
all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, 
and yet without sin. So with regards to assumption, 
Let's listen to just the confessional language again with Assumption 
and Union. The Son of God did, when the 
fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, so that 
two whole perfect and distinct natures were inseparably joined 
together in one person. What's the biblical witness? 
with regards to this truth then. Does the Bible speak to this? 
Yes, of course it does. Now, in the Old Testament, we'll 
look at some New Testament passages. In the Old Testament, we have 
the announcement that from Genesis 3.15, remember, that there would 
be a hero born of woman who will crush the serpent with his heel. 
As we read through further Old Covenant revelation, we find 
that this one would be divine. And in fact, in Isaiah, we see 
both of those things come together. A son born who would be divine, 
a first in Isaiah 7, 14. The virgin will be with child 
and she shall call his name Emmanuel. Matthew translates that for us, 
God with us. So a son would be born of a virgin, 
and he would be God. And then he builds on that in 
Isaiah 9-6, a passage often read around this time of year, but 
a son is given to you, a child is born, a son is given to you, 
the government will be upon his shoulders, and he will be called 
Wonderful Counselor, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. So when 
we get to the New Testament, we have the writers of the New 
Testament announcing that that blessed truth announced in the 
Old Covenant has taken place. Now, we already know John 1.14. 
Pastor Butler's been preaching through the Gospel of John and 
has rightly referred back to that theology as foundational 
as he's been working through it. In the beginning was the 
Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God, and the Word 
became flesh and dwelt among us. But turn with me in your 
Bibles to the book of Hebrews for a moment. the book of Hebrews, 
here we have wonderful language that speaks to the incarnation 
of Christ. And as we see here, and as we 
ought to always note as we're studying this, we're using big 
words, we're using these definitions, we're removing from our minds 
some maybe bad terms and bad theology, but we always ought 
to note that the incarnation is for the purpose of redeeming 
sinners. you know, in our precision or 
the interest of our precision has the end to glory in and to 
ensure that we're glorying in the proper thing, which is the 
Son of God coming into our lower shame to redeem us. Notice in 
Hebrews 2.14, and release those who through 
fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 
For indeed he does not give aid to angels, or we could say take 
on the nature of angels, but he does take on the nature of 
the seed of Abraham. Therefore in all things he had 
to be made like his brethren that he might be a merciful and 
faithful high priest. So we see this language of incarnation 
there spoken of, and we see the purpose linked to it. And we 
ought to never divorce the purpose from the thing itself. What is 
the end of the assumption of man's nature by the Son of God? 
What is the end of the incarnation? It is that God's elect, God's 
elect sinners might be saved by grace through the perfection 
of a conquering Redeemer. We can also note, well actually 
we should turn to Philippians 2. We're very well familiar with 
that passage and as we've noted before, Philippians 2, as we've 
noted before, That passage is a blessed summary of the Bible, 
really, the intention of the Bible, the purpose of the Bible, 
communicating, setting forth the Savior of men. And not only 
does it encapsulate the deity of Christ, but it also encapsulates 
his incarnation and true humanity, and then the purpose for that. 
and then the reward given to him. But for our consideration 
this morning, notice verses six and seven. This Christ, who being 
in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 
but made himself of no reputation, or emptied himself. And notice 
what this emptying means, or how is it that the Son of God 
made himself of no reputation? How is it that the Son of God 
emptied himself? It's this later clause. taking 
the form of a bondservant and coming in the likeness of men. 
So he didn't empty himself or make himself of no reputation 
by voluntary casting off aspects of his deity, but rather he emptied 
himself or made himself of no reputation by the assumption 
of man's nature for his redemption and recovery. We can also note 
1 Timothy 1.15, You don't necessarily have to turn there, but in 1 
Timothy 1.15, Paul writes again that this is a faithful saying, 
worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into this world, 
sinners to save. The creedal witness, after this 
apostolic era, speaks of the incarnation and the assumption 
in this way. The Nicene Creed, for us and 
for our salvation, he came down from heaven. By the power of 
the Holy Spirit, he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary and was 
made man. the Creed of Chalcedon, begotten 
before all ages of the Father, according to the Godhead, and 
in these latter days for us and for our salvation, born of the 
Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the manhood. The 
Athanasian Creed, Although he is God and human, yet Christ 
is not two, but one. He is one, however, not by his 
divinity being turned into flesh, but by God's taking humanity 
to himself." Again, that definition of assumption, taking to himself. And then, of course, we have 
the Second London Confession of Faith. which is being faithful 
to those creeds and counsels and confessions before it by 
upholding the same language that Christ in the fullness of the 
times took upon him man's nature. Just some language from the church 
then, and I think what I'm trying to do at least, or what I'm hoping 
we're doing here, is gaining an appreciation for the importance 
of upholding assumption unto the uniting of these two natures 
over and against subtraction or addition. Because remember, 
that which is perfect cannot have addition made unto it. God 
cannot add anything to himself. I know that language of cannot 
with God sometimes sounds strange to us, but remember, God cannot 
lie. God cannot deny himself. God 
cannot, because he is perfect being, add to himself. And so 
throughout the ages of the church, from its outset, following the 
apostolic era, remember Paul is already using the language 
of assumption in Philippians 2, 6 and 7. But from that point 
forward, the church has been positively asserting that language 
and theology while at the same time opposing the language of 
addition and the language of subtraction. So moving forward 
from Athanasius up to our own day, it is we who were the cause 
of his taking human form and for our salvation. Again, that 
important language of taking. He freely took our nature to 
himself, Augustine. Hillary, he says, Christ, has 
assumed the nature of our flesh, now inseparable from himself. 
The Son of God visited us when we were nothing, and after having 
assumed our nature and united it to himself, he became higher 
than all. Chrysostom. He who took our nature. Gregory of Nyssa. The Son of 
God took our nature's true manhood. Leo Maximus. Again, Leo, He took 
our nature on Him and made it His own. Again, Leo, Christ took 
our nature upon Him for our salvation. Theodoritus, God the Word assumed 
not only a body but also a soul. Vincentius, the Word assumed 
our nature. Thomas Aquinas, The Son of God 
assumed an entire human nature. John Owen, he took our nature 
upon him. Owen again, the ineffable divine 
act whereby the person of the Son of God assumed our nature 
or took it into a personal subsistence with himself. Nehemiah Cox, who 
was the father of our confession, if you will, the assumption of 
the human nature was yet more proper and necessary for their 
sakes for whom he was anointed of God as their high priest and 
savior. Again, that language, the assumption 
of the human nature. John Gill, at his incarnation, 
he came from heaven to earth by the assumption of human nature. And then lastly, Spurgeon, the 
son of God took our nature upon himself. So you can see it just 
doesn't happen to be a happy coincidence that these people 
are all using, these theologians are all using that same language 
of assumption or took to himself man's nature. There's a deliberate, 
there is a deliberateness to this in protecting the deity 
of the Lord Jesus Christ and his true humanity against false 
notions of varying gravity that would seek to pull God down from 
up above and not ascribe a proper humanity to the Son of God. So 
hopefully we can appreciate that strong stream of assumption throughout 
the ages. Now, we want to note as we move 
along the Trinity and the Son's assumption of man's nature and 
the work of the Incarnation. You've heard Pastor Butler speak 
before about the undivided work of the Trinity that, excuse me, 
all the outward acts of God are the undivided acts of Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit. So how can we then say that it 
was the Son of God who took to himself man's nature? Well, there's 
some important distinctions as we speak with regards to the 
Trinity, and an outward act, but that particular act terminating, 
if you will, on the Son of God alone. This is Mahler, and hopefully 
this helps to some degree to wrap our minds around, because 
we want to fight against this idea that in the Trinity, we 
have three separately willing, you know, self-conscious individuals, 
Father, Son, and Spirit, as if we're parsing them up, as if 
we're gravely entering into the realm of tritheism, that they 
all do separate things, that the entire work of God is the 
contributive work of individual acts done by each person unto 
that sort of consummating larger work of God. This is Muller on 
the Trinity with respect to the incarnation. Like all the outwardly 
directed works of God, the incarnation is defined as a common work of 
the Godhead. Thus the Logos, or son, does 
not incarnate himself apart from the will of the Father, and the 
Spirit. So in support of this, the Bible states, 1st Galatians 
4.4, the Father sent forth the Son. 2nd John 1.14, the Son assumed 
flesh. 3rd Matthew 1.18, the conception 
of Christ by the Holy Spirit. And so we distinguish between 
the work of incarnation, considered efficiently, and in terms of 
origin, that is, the one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 
and the work of incarnation considered with a view towards its end, 
or terminatively, an end. It is the work of the undivided 
Trinity, but terminatively, it is the work of the Son." John 
Owen, with regards to this, and again, hopefully this helps us 
to wrap our minds around, and we're not going to finish today. 
We're going to stop here shortly, and maybe if there are any questions 
that you have. I know a lot of I'm talking fast, 
there are a lot of words, there are a lot of phrases, but hopefully 
as we move along this journey in the doctrine of Christ, we'll 
be able to, again, cast off error, own the truth, and be better 
as we grow in the grace and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ 
with our confessions and our articulations of our blessed 
Savior. This is John Owen. As unto original 
efficiency, power, the perfection of power, the assumption was 
the act of the divine nature, and so consequently of the Father, 
Son, and Spirit. For so are all outward acts of 
God, the divine nature being the immediate principle of all 
such operations. As unto authoritative designation, 
it was the act of the Father. As unto the formation of the 
human nature, it was the peculiar act of the Spirit. As unto the 
term of the assumption or taking of our nature unto himself, it 
was the peculiar act of the person of the Son. With all that said, 
isn't it glorious to see the oneness of the working of Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit to the end? That Christ would become incarnate 
and save a multitude of sinners from every tribe, tongue, people, 
and nation. Hopefully as we work through 
this, perhaps not with the aid of the instructor, You glory 
in the Christ of our confession because he is so glorious to 
behold in all of these perfections and all of these variegated aspects 
of his person and his work. Now just very briefly, where 
do we see that in the confession then? in just these particular 
passages, Father, Son, and Spirit. Well, in paragraph one, we read, 
with respect to the Father, this covenant made between God and 
the Lord Jesus, and so then the sending of the Son based upon 
that particular covenant. Then we see the Holy Spirit, 
overpowering Mary, overshadowing Mary, the womb of the Virgin 
Mary, making her womb fertile in the act of overshadowing. 
And we also see the Spirit in paragraph three, that the Son, 
the incarnate Son, was sanctified and anointed with the Holy Spirit 
above measure. So as we see the Son being alone 
the one who is incarnate, we ought to appreciate that there 
is the Trinity at work in the Son's assumption of human nature 
and the work of the Incarnation. Everywhere we look in our Bibles 
and whenever we read of the Son of God in His incarnate, perfect 
mediatorial work, we ought to consider Father, Son, and Holy 
Spirit in that particular work. Well, why don't I close in prayer 
there? We'll work through a little bit more of this next time. There's 
a lot to be had there for sure. But I'll pray and then if there 
are any questions that has come up in your minds during the last 
40 minutes, then you can ask those questions. Let's pray. 
Heavenly Father, we thank you for this time together studying 
our Christ. We pray that as we move along 
through this, you would help us to gain a proper knowledge, 
a good knowledge of our Savior, that we would grow in grace and 
knowledge, that we would rejoice in our Christ as we fill our 
minds with the knowledge of Him. Help us now as we go into worship 
to do so in spirit and in truth, that we would be filled with 
joy, that we would be filled with that uncrackable hope that 
we would be filled, Lord God, with such measures of the Spirit 
that we might worship you aright and rejoice with each other in 
the incarnate Son of God. And it's in his name that we 
pray. Amen. Any, yes, Leslie, and then Joy. Yeah, I have a question 
of just kind of, this is a magic question. Yeah? Like, if I said to you, I add a new exercise 
regimen in my week, where I said to you, I assume you didn't do 
an exercise earlier in my week. First of all, the second one 
is natural. In natural vernacular speech, I wouldn't say that. 
The first one is more natural. But you do, and I get what you're 
saying about what is, like addition suggests a lack. In terms of 
just basic conversation with somebody, it just doesn't seem 
natural for me to say the second one. And it's not. Technically, you're wrong? Oh, 
I see what you're saying. Yeah, okay. I would be communicating 
a slight error, or a nuanced error, by saying the first one 
and not the second one. No. No? But if what you're saying 
is better than an addition. Yeah, because we're dealing with 
the uniqueness of perfect being, there's no real analogy that 
we can sort of obtain in the realm of creative things. Because we're talking about perfect 
being. That's why when we're using this language, if we try 
to find some sort of analogy down below, it probably won't 
work all that well. There are some helps, though, 
with regards to understanding assumption rather than addition. Actually, in the email that I 
sent you, there's some helpful analogies to talk about assumption. 
and what it means, but there are some help. But yeah, I think 
the problem kind of is, you know, it's not our common parlance, 
but in theology, it is common parlance. And I think the distinction 
between those two has to do with there is only one perfect being, 
and that's God. And this is why we can't sort 
of describe it that way. Yeah. Joy. So my question, thank you for 
the teaching, seven or eight times, maybe you all kind of 
get it. At the crucifixion, Jesus, in 
his human nature, had so much anxiety, heat, sweat, blood, 
which would make him even more sensitive to pain. He prayed 
three times. An angel came and strengthened 
him, and he prayed a little harder. I always wondered, what exactly 
was he anxious about? What happened on the cross that 
he had such anxiety? It was much more than just the 
physical death. Yeah, it was much more than the 
physical death. In fact, Isaiah 53 speaks about 
the travail of the soul of the son as the father is bruising 
him. And so it has to do with Christ's 
bearing of the wrath due to those for whom he's dying. So it's 
more than physical pain. In fact, it's much more than 
physical pain, though we can't discount that. It's the weight 
of him bearing the wrath substitutionarily for the sinners for whom he's 
dying. There's also a passage in the 
book of Hebrews, in Hebrews chapter 12, I believe it's 12.2, let 
me just try and get there quickly here, that speaks to the same 
thing that Isaiah is talking about in Isaiah 53. So in Hebrews 
12.2, we read, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our 
faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, 
despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of 
the throne of God. So he's enduring the cross, he 
has this travail of soul He'll worry someone to death. 
And I think it's because he's a boat in the garden, for example, 
and on the cross. But in the garden, he talks about 
the cup that he has to drink. That cup is the wrath of God 
that he'll drink clean as he bears that wrath upon the cross. 
So when he's talking about, when he says, my God, my God, why 
have you forsaken me? When even before that, he is 
wearied in the garden, it's because he's about to bear the wrath 
of God. So it's not, it isn't just the physical, like you said, 
it's that spiritual aspect. So it's, okay, so he's in love, 
the Trinity's in love almost with each other. And it's the 
turning on, he endures anger of the one he 
loves. He endures what, sorry? Anger. 
Wrath. Yeah, he endures, yeah, he's 
enduring the wrath, the wrath, according to his... But he's 
always, according to his humanity. Exactly, yeah. I think he's always 
been joined. Yeah, we're inseparable. Out 
held. In spirit. In love. Yep. Yeah, I mean, that's 
one of the things. Now he's, according to his humanity, 
he's enduring... He's enduring yet the wrath of 
God for his elect, for his people. So yeah. And yet he still loves, 
like he looks after Mary. He's still loving her. Oh, right. 
At the cross, he's taking care of his mother on the cross. Yeah, 
absolutely. Yeah. Well, to that, I was trying 
to explain something. Because even during that, during 
the event of taking on the wrath, Oh, God.