← Back to sermon library

You can turn again to Chapter 
8 in the Confession of Faith. We'll seek to finish our... are working through the person 
of Christ, and then the study will find its way to the work 
of Christ. And you'll remember in chapter 
eight, we've been reading the paragraphs at the outset of each 
session that specifically pertain to his person. So paragraphs 
one, two, three, seven, and nine. So we'll read those again and 
then specifically look at the remaining clauses in paragraph 
2 and some of the things from paragraphs 3 and 7. Chapter eight, paragraph one. 
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 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. 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 also 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. In paragraph nine, this office 
of mediator between God and man is proper 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. Excellent words concerning the 
person of the Lord Jesus Christ. And so we find our way back to 
paragraph two. You'll remember last time we 
started to look clause by clause at those phrases concerning his 
incarnation. So a number of Lord's days ago, 
we looked at the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. As paragraph 
two begins, the Son of God, the second person of the Holy Trinity, 
being very and eternal God, the brightness of the Father's glory, 
of one substance and equal with Him. And then it moves on, and 
these were the clauses that we looked at. We looked at the timing 
of His incarnation with the language, when the fullness of time was 
come. And then we looked at the manner 
and scope of his incarnation, with the clause, did take upon 
him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common 
infirmities thereof, and yet without sin. We talked about 
the timing of his incarnation, the manner and scope of his incarnation. Remember that his incarnation 
was not by subtraction, it was not by addition, but it was by 
assumption. And we noted that that's because 
the divine nature, God, is immutable. He is unchangeable. Nothing can 
be taken away from him, nor can anything be added to him, because 
he is perfect, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in all of his 
glory. We noted then that he really 
was man. He did not simply appear to be 
man, but he really was man. And that language of all the 
essential properties and common infirmities of mankind being 
true of Christ captures that reality, and the Bible upholds 
this through and through in many different ways. It explicitly 
says that he is man, that he took upon himself, that he became 
flesh, he walked, he ate, he thirsted, he hungered, he bled, 
he died, he was weary, he slept. And so he really was man and 
did not just appear to be. He did not just bear, as Gregory 
of Nazianzus said, the portraiture of humanity, but really was body 
and reasonable soul, man. And we noted the extent of his 
incarnation as well, in that it was with essential properties, 
common infirmities, and we only briefly touched upon the exception 
of his incarnation, which is captured in that clause, yet 
without sin. And so we're just gonna start 
with that, and then move through to the language concerning conception 
by the power of the Holy Spirit, and by virtue of the Virgin Mary. 
So first, the exception of his incarnation is seen in this language 
that Christ did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him 
man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities 
thereof, and this special clause, the qualifier yet without sin. 
So this is the exception. He is like us in all things, 
except for sin, and the Bible upholds this most certainly in 
the fact of his sinlessness connected to his incarnation. We see this 
in more places than these, but you can turn to the book of Hebrews 
for a moment. In the book of Hebrews, we have a couple, well, 
more than a couple, but two that we'll note here that speak to 
Christ's sinlessness in his assumption of humanity. The first one is 
in Hebrews chapter four, And if anyone was to ask you 
the question, and you probably would never be asked the question, 
but hypothetically, if someone asked you, hey, what's a good 
one-sentence, one-verse summary of the entire point of the book 
of Hebrews? We could say it's found in Hebrews 
4, and it is, Well, we'll look at it here. 
So notice with regards to Hebrews 4, and specifically at verse 
11. Let us therefore be diligent 
to enter that rest, lest anyone fall, according to the same example 
of disobedience. For the word of God is living 
and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword. Now, just 
pause there for a moment. Very often we think of that verse 
there, or that language, the Word of God is living and powerful, 
and we think that it means the Bible, or the Scriptures, the 
special revelation that God has given us. But it is a reference 
specifically to the person of Christ, and the context demands 
it. For the word of God is living 
and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing 
even to the division of soul and spirit and of joints and 
marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the 
heart. And there is no creature hidden 
from," notice, his sight, the word of God, who is living and 
powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword. But all things 
are naked and open to the eyes of him to whom we must give account. 
Now notice, with regards to the incarnation, And we could say 
that this verse 14 is a one-verse summary of the entire book of 
Hebrews, its purpose. Seeing then that we have a great 
high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of 
God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest 
who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points 
tempted as we are, yet without sin. So there's that qualifying 
clause, that Christ is like us, In all things, having assumed 
our nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities, 
yet without sin. That clause taken in the confession 
of faith from Hebrews four and verse 15. And then of course 
this blessed conclusion, let us therefore come boldly to the 
throne of grace that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help 
in time of need. You can turn over to Hebrews 
seven next. In Hebrews chapter seven, Notice that verse 26. Back up 
to verse 25. For such a high priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, 
separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens. 
So the fact of Christ's sinfulness is clear from the scriptures. 
We need a human Savior. We need a divine Savior who assumes 
our humanity with all of that humanity, body and reasonable 
soul, essential properties, common infirmities, we need that Savior 
to be sinless. We need that second Adam or last 
Adam to answer for the curse of the first and to provide the 
righteousness that the first did not provide, and we have 
that in our Christ. Now, when we talk about the sinlessness 
of Christ, we'd want to first observe that, of course, with 
respect to his essential deity, Christ is holy, holy, holy. But to speak of deity as being 
sinless is really a theological category error. Obviously, one who is God is 
perfectly and essentially holy. Sinlessness is a moral predicate 
appropriate only to humanity. And so, you know, we wanna ensure 
that we stress that of course, according to his deity, we can 
say that he was sinless, but it's really, you know, for it 
to be more precise, we would want to draw a distinction between 
that which is essentially and immutably holy and that which 
is sinless with respect to moral and a covenantal nature. We could 
say, as God, he is holy essentially. As man, he is holy morally and 
covenantally, rendering obedience in our behalf. Gregory of Nazianzus 
wrote, with regards to a little bit of a category error, and 
specifically with regards to obedience and disobedience, he 
wrote, for in his character of the word, he's saying his divine 
nature, Christ's, for in his character of the word, he was 
neither obedient nor disobedient, for such expressions belong to 
servants and inferiors." This is a good passage that not only 
argues for what we're talking about, but also argues against 
any notion of subordinationism with regards to the son as son 
to the father. Gregory says, expressions of 
submission, servanthood, and obedience are proper only to 
humanity and cannot be predicated of divinity, whether father, 
son, or Holy Spirit. And so any notion of subordinationism 
in Christology, the only locus, the only place for subordination 
in Christology is Christ according to his assumed humanity. Of course, 
according to His humanity, He submits to the will of the Father 
in His substitutionary obedience rendered on our behalf. But as 
His character of the Word, or according to His divinity, there's 
no such thing as disobedience, nor is there such thing as obedience, 
because He is essentially holy. So Christ is sinless, and when 
we talk about his sinlessness that is rendered for us and in 
our stead, we're speaking of it according to his assumed humanity. This is John Owen on this particular 
point. He wrote, the holiness of the 
human nature of Christ was not antecedent to the union. but 
from it. In other words, the holiness 
or the sinlessness of Christ comes by virtue of the union 
of the human to the divine. Not a holiness separable or distinct 
from the union, but consequential upon it. And this is the emphatic 
clause here. His divine nature could not be 
the subject of obedience or disobedience, but the human was sanctified 
in the assumption. So when we talk about Christ 
as being sinless, Truly and properly, we're speaking according to His 
humanity because it's that sinless humanity that is required for 
our redemption, for our recovery, for our salvation. We need that, 
His righteousness imputed to us and received by faith alone. Another verse that is of note 
is 1 Peter 119. You don't need to turn there. 
But speaking of Christ as a lamb without blemish and without spot, 
what a wonderful language tying back to the old covenant sacrificial 
system where that sacrifice which was to be offered up was to be 
an unblemished and a spotless sacrifice. It was to be the best 
of the flock, the best of the farm, not the blind, not the 
lame, not the stolen. but the one that is blemishless 
and spotless, and that's what we have in Christ, the Lamb of 
God who takes away the sin of the world. Secondly, we want 
to move on then to the instrumentality and historical reality of the 
incarnation of the Son of God, and this is captured in these 
next set of clauses, beginning with being conceived by the Holy 
Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and then ending with of 
the seed of Abraham and David according to the scriptures. 
So for the instrumentality and historical reality of the incarnation 
of the Son of God, and the first thing we want to observe under 
this is the efficient or primary cause of the incarnation. That 
simply means what is the first cause, the powerful and effectual 
and primary cause of the incarnation? It is seen in this first set 
of clauses 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. That's what we would call 
the efficient or primary cause of the incarnation. Turretin 
wrote, Christ was invisibly formed in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, 
without the concurrence of man. Remember, it was a charge by 
the God-haters, the opposers of the blessed incarnation at 
the time of Christ, that he was born of fornication. And here 
we have the Bible first upholding, of course, the virgin birth, 
the power of the most high overshadowing, the Virgin Mary. But remember, 
it's then, of course, without the concurrence of man. So back 
to Terton. Christ was invisibly formed in 
the womb of the Blessed Virgin without the concurrence of man. 
he would say the act of principle was not a man, but it is the 
power of the Holy Spirit. But by the power and overshadowing 
of the Holy Ghost, acting here, not materially, so what he's 
saying is that it's not as if there was, quote unquote, divine 
material, which would just be a contradistinction, or a, just, 
it wouldn't make sense. So there's no divine material 
implanted in the womb of the Virgin Mary. So not materially, 
but only efficiently. By power, not by seed. By might, not by intercourse. So that he was conceived by the 
power of the Holy Spirit, not by the substance of the Spirit, 
but by blessing and consecration as the ancients express it. So 
where in the Bible do we see this? You can turn first with 
me to the Gospel of Luke. In the gospel accounts, we see 
the gospel writers under divine inspiration speaking to this 
efficient and primary cause in the incarnation of the Lord Jesus 
Christ in Luke 1. Notice in Luke 1, and when you 
get there, there are many verses in Luke, 80 verses. We're looking 
specifically at verse, let's back up to 31. Luke 1 31, and behold, you will 
conceive in your womb and bring forth a son and shall call his 
name Jesus. He will be great and will be 
called the son of the highest and the Lord God will give him 
the throne of his father David and he will reign over the house 
of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there will be no end. Then Mary 
said to the angel, How can this be, since I do not know a man? 
Remember, not by the concurrence of man. And the angel answered 
and said to her, The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power 
of the Highest will overshadow you. Therefore also that Holy 
One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. So there's 
the Lucan reference to the efficient and primary cause in the incarnation. 
It's divine power, it's the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary, the 
power of the highest overshadowing. Also, if you back up to Matthew's 
gospel, in a similar passage in Matthew chapter one, Now notice what we see in Matthew 
1 at verse 18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ 
was as follows. After his mother Mary was betrothed 
to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the 
Holy Spirit. So there we see the reality that 
that efficient cause, that primary cause, is the power of the Most 
High overshadowing Mary. Now, we could say then, secondly, 
under this, what is then the instrumental or the secondary 
cause in the incarnation? We see it in the following verses. So primary cause, Holy Spirit, 
and then we see instrumental and secondary cause in, and so 
was made of a woman. of the tribe of Judah, of the 
seed of Abraham and David, according to the scriptures. So this instrumental 
cause, that which is used by God for the bringing forth of 
Messiah into the world, is the womb of the Virgin Mary and the 
so was made of a woman reality. And back to the Bible with regards 
to this, in fact, we just read one of the passages there in 
Luke 1, 31, but if you go back to the Gospel of Luke, so we're 
talking now, secondly, about the instrumental cause being 
the womb of the Virgin Mary and the fact that The Son of God 
was made of a woman according to his manhood. In Luke 1, if 
you go back there, notice, we've already noted verse 31, but notice 
as well, verse 42. Then he spoke out with a loud 
voice and said, blessed are you among women, and blessed is the 
fruit of your womb. And so the womb of Mary, Mary 
herself, the Virgin Mary, is that instrumental or secondary 
cause. Loop two, of course, if we're 
to go there, we see the birth account. And this is a glorious 
birth account, bringing together So much Old Testament. Luke chapter 
two, if we were to read from verse one all the way through 
to verse 21, which includes the circumcision of Jesus, we would 
see just all of the Old Testament coming together. Luke bringing 
forth the reality that the entirety of the Old Testament is so many 
signposts pointing to the advent of the Messiah who comes in the 
fullness of the times to give himself for guilty sinners. But there we see Christ born 
of Mary, an expanded birth narrative with regards to the Lord Jesus 
Christ. And then of course, Galatians 
4.4, And largely, Galatians 4.4 is in view in paragraph two of 
chapter eight. When the fullness of the times 
had come, God sent forth his son, born of a woman, and born 
under the law to redeem those who were under the law. So the 
instrumental or secondary cause is the virgin birth, the womb 
of the Virgin Mary, and Christ being made of a woman. Now, just 
briefly on this point, it is most acceptable for us to speak 
of Mary as the mother of God. Our Christian tradition is replete, 
not only going back to the early church, but the reformers as 
well, retained the language that was In a sense codified at the 
Council of Ephesus in 431, Cyril of Alexandria, one of his anathemas 
was, if you do not hold that Mary is the mother of God, may 
you be anathema. And the argument with respect 
to Mary being the mother of God, the Greek word was, is theotokos, 
which literally means God-bearer, but has been translated mother 
of God. It was a Christological argument, 
not a Mariological argument. In other words, the language 
of God-bearer as a scribe to Mary, or mother of God, was to 
stress that the same one who is God was born of a woman according 
to his humanity. And it was largely an argument 
against Nestorianism, which, remember, I think we talked about 
that, perhaps it was last time, that held, perhaps, simply speaking, 
that Christ was two subjects. He had a divine eye and a human 
eye. In other words, he was not just 
one person or one subject, but he was son of God and son of 
man, as distinctly speaking. And so this language of mother 
of God, God-bearer, upheld the Christological reality that the 
one born of Mary was the same one who is the son of God. The 
son of God, equal with the father, of one substance with him who 
eternally begets him was born of the Virgin Mary according 
to the manhood. The definition of Chalcedon reads 
this way. And you'll hear some of this 
language that we'll read here is is really just taken by the 
Baptists, taken first by the Presbyterians in the 1640s, by 
the Independents in the 1650s, but even expanded more by the 
Baptists in 1677, our paragraph two is, with the advantage of 
time, richer than the previous two confessions. But this is 
the definition of Chalcedon. Christ is truly man, of a reasonable 
soul and body, consubstantial or of one substance with the 
Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according 
to the manhood, in all things like unto us without sin. for 
us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the mother 
of God, according to the manhood. And that's an important statement 
there, an important qualifier. Mary is the mother of God, but 
she didn't somehow, in some weird way, give birth to God, which 
is simply and obviously impossible, but she is the mother of God. 
according to the manhood, one in the same Christ, Son, Lord, 
only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusably, 
unchangeably, indivisibly, and inseparably. So the instrumental 
or secondary cause in the incarnation is captured in those clauses 
in the womb of the Virgin Mary and so was made of a woman. And 
lastly, under this particular head, the prophetical and promissory 
fulfillment of the incarnation. Notice, and what do we mean by 
that? Well, there were promises and there were prophecies in 
the Old Testament from the outset of the fall all the way through 
unto the advent of Christ, there were these prophecies and promises 
that one would come in the fullness of the times to save his people 
from their sins. And we see this captured in this 
language, and so was made of a woman of the tribe of Judah, 
of the seed of Abraham and David, according to the scriptures. 
So the Baptists are calling us to consider, with regards to 
the doctrine of Christ, that this one who is God, took upon 
himself our nature, with all the essential properties and 
common infirmities, without sin, that that obtained by virtue 
of the power of the Holy Spirit overshadowing the Virgin Mary, 
and this was according to scriptural promises. I mean, we could read the entirety 
of the Old Testament. But some notable passages, Genesis 
49, 10, which have a connection to Hebrews 7, 14 and Revelation 
5, 5. And then, of course, Genesis 
22, 18, with a connection to Galatians 3, 16, the connection 
between Abraham and Christ as the seed. And then, with respect 
to David, and Christ, 2 Samuel 7, 12-13, brought out, you know, brought to the fore in the New 
Testament in Acts 13, 23, and in Romans 1, 3, to name just 
two passages. So this reality of the incarnation 
of the Lord Jesus Christ is stressed at the point of divine power. 
It's stressed at the point of that efficient and primary cause. 
It's stressed with that instrumental and secondary cause, which is 
the womb of the Virgin Mary. Christ is made of a woman. And 
it's stressed here with regards to the fact that the old covenant 
scriptures spoke concerning Christ. And he says this himself in more 
than one place, but in Luke 24, more than once, he says, the 
scriptures spoke concerning me, the law, the prophets, and the 
Psalms, these all spoke concerning me. concerning me, and he sits 
down and gives a post-resurrection Bible study to the disciples, 
and the power of God is seen there in opening up their eyes, 
not salvifically, but intellectually and blessedly to behold the reality 
that they need not fear, that they need not doubt this Christ, 
very God and very man, is the one who stands before you resurrected 
as the scriptures and as he himself had promised. Thirdly then, and so largely, 
so we were there looking at the instrumentality and historical 
reality of the incarnation of the Son of God. It's glorious 
to know as Christians that this is not fable, it's not a once 
upon a time tale, it is true history. And it is the point 
of history. the incarnation of Christ unto 
that point where he would give himself for guilty sinners upon 
that cross, rise again and bring many sons to glory. That's the 
whole point of history. So moving on then to the effects 
and the purpose of the incarnation of the Son of God as we move 
on to these next sets of clauses, notice first the unity of the 
divine and human natures in Christ. And this is seen in the clause, 
so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures were inseparably 
joined together in one person. So this speaks to the hypostatic 
union. and the certain truth that two 
natures, and notice, two whole, perfect, and distinct natures. 
So it's not as if, remember the Gregory of Nazianzus approach, 
that Christ just took upon himself the portraiture of humanity in 
that he's writing against Apollinarius, an early Christological heretic, 
who is arguing, in essence, that the nature wasn't whole, it wasn't 
perfect, it wasn't complete. There was something lacking in 
the humanity that Christ assumed. Gregory of Nazianzus, arguing 
largely and strongly against that, stating that Christ assumed 
the whole man. he took upon himself a whole 
and a perfect nature. And that whole and perfect human 
nature was inseparably joined to the divine nature or united 
to the divine nature in one person. And that's the important language 
of what we have called in history the hypostatic union, the personal 
union of two natures in the one Christ. Nothing has changed except 
the reality of humanity now being united to the divine, but nothing 
has changed in the divine nature, and the human nature assumed 
doesn't lose the reality of the fact that it is a whole perfect 
human nature. There's nothing lost in the humanity. An important thing to stress 
here, if we connect what we looked at last time regarding the Son 
of God's assumption of a human nature and the conception of 
Christ in the womb of the Virgin Mary, we must say and we must 
maintain that those two things were simultaneously concurrent. In other words, there wasn't 
somehow this human nature in the womb of the Virgin Mary that 
Christ then assumes and takes to himself. Human natures don't 
exist outside of a person in whom that nature subsists. Human 
nature always has to have personhood. And the Son of God provides that 
personhood to the human nature so the assumption of the human 
nature and the conception of Christ in the womb of the Virgin 
Mary are concurrent. One doesn't happen before the 
other. Getting back to this, though, we have the unity of 
the divine and the human natures in Christ. They are inseparably 
joined together, but they are still whole, perfect, and distinct 
natures, so that we have one mediator between God and man, 
very God and very man. Secondly, we see the untransformed 
reality of the two natures in Christ. Notice this next clause, 
which is summarizing, really, the Chalcedonian language in 
some different words, just a three-fold collection of words that captures 
the four-fold Chalcedonian distinction. So that two whole perfect and 
distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one person, 
without conversion, composition, or confusion. This is important, 
and really, really it's just three words that obliterate the 
history of Christological error from the outset of the church. Those three words. Any heretics 
that reared their ugly heads throughout the history of the 
church would come up against these sets of clauses and would 
be dashed to pieces by their simple verity. So, without conversion, 
there's nothing changed. There's no conversion. When we 
read the word became flesh and dwelt among us, we're not to 
read in that mutation, change, conversion, the obliteration 
of the Divine or the change of the Divine at all. It's without 
conversion. It's without composition. There's 
no making now of a third thing in the Incarnation. God and man, 
and now some, by virtue of this incarnation, now there's a third 
sort of thing going on here because of the composition of these two 
natures. They're not intermingled, they're 
not combined to form now something different, but as the Confession 
had already said, two whole perfect and distinct natures inseparably 
joined together in one person. And then, of course, without 
confusion, there's no divinizing of the humanity or humanizing 
of the divinity. There's nothing that the Again, there's nothing changed 
or nothing confused in this union, but rather we have two whole, 
perfect, distinct natures inseparably joined together. And this is 
necessary for man's salvation. That's why throughout the history 
of the church, the heroes of our faith have argued against 
the lessening of the deity in the incarnation and against the 
lessening or the diminution of the humanity in the incarnation. 
As we'll see here in a moment, very God. He's God from God, 
light from light, true God from true God. He is very God and 
He is very man. That simply means that there 
is no diminishment of the deity in the incarnation, there's no 
diminishment of the humanity in the incarnation. The one Son 
of God is God and man, very God and very man, yet one Christ. 
And that's the next set of clauses where we also see the redemptive 
design of the incarnation. what is all this coming to? What is the purpose of the incarnation? What is the purpose, besides 
maintaining the glory of the person of Christ, which is first 
and foremost, as before we move to that and on this point, listen 
to Olin on the glory of Christ and how our study of this one 
who is very God and very man isn't simply unto the end of 
being able to articulate intelligently certain clauses and, you know, 
to wax eloquent concerning this one as if it's just the taking 
in of knowledge for knowledge's sake. But it's that we might 
adore and that we might admire this one. Owen wrote, 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 it is 
fixed on too great and glorious to be brought into our minds 
and capacities, it will issue, as we said before, in holy admiration, 
humble adoration, and joyful thanksgiving. In and by its acting 
in them, the saints, it fills the soul with joy unspeakable 
and full of glory. What is the endeavor of Christology? It's that. It's to be lost in 
the contemplation of the glory of Christ and to there find our 
everything. So the redemptive design of the 
incarnation, notice what we find here at the end of paragraph 
two, which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, 
and notice, the only mediator between God and man. So the purpose 
of the son of God, assuming to himself man's nature, body and 
reasonable soul, all those essential properties and common infirmities, 
it is so that, Without sin, He might bring many sinners to glory 
by virtue of the perfection of His saving work, His active obedience 
unto the whole law, and His passive obedience in His death for our 
whole and soul righteousness. A consideration of paragraph 
three would take a lot of time, but I don't want to just skip 
over it. We're going to close with some 
incarnational and interpretive rules for us when we consider 
the doctrine of Christ. But paragraph three is important 
because it captures the role of the Holy Spirit in the equipping 
of the mediator. We very often think about, okay, 
our blessed Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ, is very God and 
very man, and so he goes about doing good on the earth, saving 
a multitude of sinners, and ascending to glory. But we very often can 
forget the sum and substance of paragraph three, which is 
the ministry of the Holy Spirit in not simply the conception, 
overpowering and overshadowing the Virgin Mary, but in the entire 
life of the mediator, the Holy Spirit plays a role. I think 
it was Sinclair Ferguson that says something like, from womb 
to tomb, the Holy Spirit is active in the mediation of the Lord 
Jesus Christ. We see that He sanctifies and 
anoints the Holy Spirit above measure, that by virtue of that, 
Christ has in Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and 
also is full of grace and truth. When we read that language of 
the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and that Christ is full of grace 
and truth, we often think, again, according to His deity, But it 
was according to his humanity, the Holy Spirit sanctifying and 
anointing him, that according to that assumed humanity, he 
would have all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and 
that he would be full of grace and truth, and unto the end, 
as we already noted, the redemptive purpose, that he might be thoroughly 
furnished to execute the office of a mediator and surety. And so when we consider the doctrine 
of the person of Christ, yes, his glorious deity, yes, the 
perfection of his assumed humanity, but also, yes, the ministry of 
the Holy Spirit in the mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ, sanctifying, 
upholding the person, and equipping him for the office of mediator 
and surety. We're going to close now with 
incarnational and interpretive rules governing the doctrine 
of Christ, and that comes from paragraph 7. How can we talk 
of this Christ? And what do we do with certain 
passages in the scriptures that seem to argue against his deity, 
perhaps? So what are some rules that we 
can approach the scriptures with? Notice paragraph seven, and then 
we'll have a look at some things that we can and can't say. with regards to the doctrine 
of Christ. But what we have in paragraph seven, well, actually 
three things. First, that Christ is mediator 
according to both natures. There was a debate at the time 
of the Reformation and a little bit afterwards with regards to 
that very topic. The Roman Catholics largely would 
say that Christ was only mediator according to his humanity, whereas 
the Reformed argued that Christ is mediator according to both 
natures, his deity and his humanity. So we have that Christ is mediator 
according to both natures, and we also have what's been called 
the communication of idioms or properties, and also the communication 
of operations with respect to the person of Christ. What can 
be said of Both natures, divine or human, is predicated of the 
one person Christ. That one single subject, single 
person Christ can say, I thirst, but he can also say, I uphold 
the universe by the word of my power. And so whatever can be 
said of either nature or ascribed with regards to the work of Christ 
according to both natures is said of that one Christ. Christ, 
this is the language of the paragraph, in the work of mediation, acteth 
according to both natures. So there's that mediator according 
to both the divine and the human natures. By each nature doing 
that which is proper to itself. So Christ, of course, according 
to his deity, doesn't weep, and according to his humanity, doesn't 
uphold all things by the word of his power. 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. And largely, you'll see there, 
your copy probably has John 3.13, where Christ says, the son of 
man, speaking of himself, of course, the Son of Man who is 
in heaven. So he's speaking there that according 
to his humanity, well, he's saying that the one who is man is in 
heaven. And he's saying something of 
one nature, the human, that's normally proper to one nature, 
there in this instance is attributed to the person denominated by 
the other. In other words, I am the son 
of man, and I am in heaven. So the one who is man is in heaven, 
but, according to his deity, not his humanity. And then Acts 
20, 28 is where we read that God redeemed the church by his 
own blood. Of course, God doesn't have blood. There, the reference is that 
Christ, the one who is God, shed his blood, but of course, not 
according to his deity, but according to the only nature that can shed 
blood, which is the assumed humanity. A few quotes on this particular 
point because when we come to the scriptures and we read certain 
passages like The Father is greater than I, we've noted that before. 
Christ in John 14, 28, the Father is greater than I. Or in Mark 
13, 32, and in a parallel passage in Matthew, where Christ says 
that the Son of God does not even know the day or the hour 
of judgment, but only the Father. So we come across these passages, 
and some stumble, some who claim even the Reformed faith, stumble 
and say, well, Christ for a time had set aside his omniscience 
in order to go about the work of mediation, and so there, obviously 
that's evidence that until he is ascended to heaven and has 
this glory restored to him, he somehow, according to his divinity, 
does not have the full omniscience that he beforehand and will afterwards 
possess. Of course, that's Christological 
madness, and there's a way to approach these passages properly. 
But listen to a few of our old brothers. This is Nehemiah Cox. All that Christ did or suffered 
is properly referred to as person. But if we consider the immediate 
principle of the actions, some of them must be referred to as 
divine nature only, others to as human. So if two whole, perfect, 
and distinct natures that remain their wholeness, that keep their 
wholeness, that keep their perfectness, and that keep their distinctness 
are inseparably united, then obviously some of the immediate 
principles of those actions are the divine and some are the human. 
They're not somehow blended and mixed in such that we have a 
third thing who has lost his omniscience or whatever the gross 
error may be. This is Hilary of Poitiers. Had they held fast the faith 
of the apostle, these heretics, they would have noted reasonably 
and reverently the distinction of occasions and mysteries without 
dishonoring the divinity or being misled by the incarnation of 
Christ. So what is a way that we could 
be misled by the incarnation of Christ? Well, it's in those 
instances, like where Christ says, the Father is greater than 
I. So that must be that in the assumption 
of humanity, something was diminished in his deity. And Hillary says, 
no. Had they held fast the faith 
of the apostle, they would have rejected that. And then lastly, 
Gregory of Natz. We attribute to the deity of 
Christ the higher and diviner expressions and the lower and 
more human to him who for us men was the second Adam. We attribute 
to the deity the higher and diviner expressions, those instances 
where Christ forgives sins, those instances where Christ calms 
the winds of the storm and the waves of the sea. Those are the 
diviner and the higher expressions. But the lower and more human 
to him who for us men was the second Adam, I thirst. I hunger. Jesus wept. Jesus slept on the 
boat. Jesus was weary. Jesus bled. Jesus died. And so, just in closing, 
or just some things to note with regards to this, and we can ask 
some questions. In his work of mediation, Christ 
does things proper to one nature, and he does not do things that 
are proper to one nature according to another nature. The union 
of the two natures in the one person affords a manner of speaking 
concerning Christ, John 3.13, Acts 20.28. Also, you can note 
1 Corinthians 2.8, And it provides us the propriety 
to sing hymn stanzas like, Amazing love, how can it be that thou, 
my God, shouldst die for me? And then lastly, some ways we 
can and can't speak of Christ given these truths. The virtue 
of the unity of the person, what are some ways that we can speak 
of Christ and some ways that we can't speak of Christ? Just 
very briefly, we can say Christ wept, Christ ate, Christ prayed, 
Christ bled, Christ died. We can say God wept, God ate, 
God prayed, God bled, God died. But we cannot say Christ, according 
to his divine nature, wept, ate, prayed, bled, and died. We can say Christ is omnipresent, 
omnipotent, and omniscient. We can say that a man is omnipresent, 
omnipotent, and omniscient, but we cannot say that Christ, according 
to his human nature, is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Just 
two more. We cannot say the divine nature 
wept, unless you're Cyril of Alexandria waxing poetic against 
Nestorius. We cannot say that the divine 
nature wept or the human nature upholds all things. We should 
not say that the human nature wept, ate, prayed, bled, and 
died, but that Christ, according to his human nature, wept, ate, 
prayed, bled, and died. And just lastly, natures don't 
do things persons do according to their nature. So we wouldn't 
want to say that the human nature of Christ died, but that the 
one person of Christ, according to his human nature, died on 
Calvary's cross. The important thing here in this 
principle is simply that persons do things, not natures, and persons 
do them according to a nature. So that Christ, when he calms 
the storms, when he quiets the waves of the sea, he's doing 
that according to his divine nature. When he bleeds, thirsts, 
hungers, and dies, he does that according to his human nature. 
Lots of information regarding Christ over the last couple of 
weeks. Any questions about anything? 
We covered a lot of ground today, and Cameron spoke fast, but are 
there any questions about the person of Christ and his incarnation? 
First, Carla. You talked about his reasonable 
soul. What do you mean by that? Yeah, well, I think the distinction 
or the important qualifier of reasonable just means like a 
rational soul, a soul that has reason. In the ancient church, Apollinarius 
would probably say that Christ had a soul, but it was an animal 
soul. It wasn't reasonable. It didn't 
have rationality. In other words, it wasn't truly 
a human mind or soul. So that reasonable soul just 
captures what really is the image of God in man, that reasonable 
and that rationality, and the body that is the instrument connected 
to it. So that when Christ, to say Christ 
assumed true humanity is to say he assumed body and reasonable 
soul yet without sin. As we all have, body and soul, 
reasonable soul, yeah. Yeah? Yeah. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Yeah, yeah, no, that's very good. 
Yeah, that verse, as well as a verse in the Gospel of Luke, 
where it speaks to the fact that Christ grew in wisdom and knowledge, 
and that verse where he learned obedience through suffering. 
It's not that he was disobedient and learned how to be obedient 
through suffering. That's how we do it. but rather 
that he grew in that wisdom and knowledge, and through the suffering, 
through the reproach of men, through the bruising and the 
beatings and the hatred, and ultimately unto the crucifixion, 
he learned that obedience through suffering and perfected it for 
us in salvation. I've seen this growing up as a child. They're telling 
him to be so legitimate, and his mom says, you know, all of that. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, he grows and 
he learns temple religion. He learns the ceremonial law. 
He reads the scriptures and, you know, learns. He goes into 
the carpenter's shed and learns that that's a saw and that's 
a hammer and, yeah. Remember Luke 2, 50-ish, is it? Yeah, I'll find the exact verse 
here in a moment. Yeah, anything else? Any other 
questions? Anything to add, James P. Butler? No? OK. OK, thanks.