← Back to sermon library

Chapter 8, I'll read the chapter 
and then we'll do something of an overview. We really aren't 
going to spend a whole lot of time in any one particular area. 
But beginning in chapter 8 at paragraph 1, 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. This office 
the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake, which that he might 
discharge he was made under the law, and did perfectly fulfill 
it, and underwent the punishment due to us, which we should have 
borne and suffered, being made sin and a curse for us, enduring 
most grievous sorrows in his soul and most painful sufferings 
in his body, was crucified and died and remained in the state 
of the dead, yet saw no corruption. On the third day he arose from 
the dead with the same body in which he suffered, with which 
he also ascended into heaven. And there sitteth at the right 
hand of his father, making intercession, and shall return to judge men 
and angels at the end of the world. The Lord Jesus, by his 
perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through 
the eternal spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied 
the justice of God, procured reconciliation, and purchased 
an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven for all 
those whom the Father hath given unto him. Although the price 
of redemption was not actually paid by Christ till after His 
incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefit thereof 
were communicated to the elect in all ages successfully from 
the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, 
and sacrifices wherein He was revealed, and signified to be 
the seed of the woman which should bruise the serpent's head. and 
the lamb slain from the foundation of the world being the same yesterday 
and today and forever. 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. 
To all those for whom Christ hath obtained eternal redemption, 
He doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same, 
making intercession for them, uniting them to Himself by His 
Spirit, revealing unto them, in and by the Word, the mystery 
of salvation, persuading them to believe and obey, governing 
their hearts by His Word and Spirit, and overcoming all their 
enemies by His almighty power and wisdom. in such manner and 
ways as are most consonant to his wonderful and unsearchable 
dispensation, and all of free and absolute grace, without any 
condition foreseen in them to procure it. 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. 
This number and order of offices is necessary, for in respect 
of our ignorance we stand in need of His prophetical office, 
and in respect of our alienation from God and imperfection of 
the best of our services, we need His priestly office to reconcile 
us and present us acceptable unto God. And in respect of our 
averseness and utter inability to return to God and for our 
rescue and security from our spiritual adversaries, we need 
His kingly office to convince, subdue, draw, uphold, deliver, 
and preserve us to His heavenly kingdom. Amen. Well, certainly 
a packed chapter, but a chapter packed with wonderful and excellent 
truth concerning our Lord Jesus Christ. As I said, we want to 
just do a bit of an overview of this particular chapter, perhaps 
focusing on some particular areas along the way, but I wanted to 
read this quote from Hermann Bavink. It's from his Reform 
Dogmatics, and it's the chapter on the person of Christ, and 
the subsection is the centrality of the incarnation. He says, 
the doctrine of Christ is not the starting point, but it certainly 
is the central point of the whole system of dogmatics. All other 
dogmas either prepare for it or are inferred from it. In it, 
as the heart of dogmatics, pulses the whole of the religious, ethical 
life of Christianity. It is the mystery of godliness." 
1 Timothy 3, verse 16. So it's a subject of of absolute 
importance for the people of God. Interestingly, in our studies 
on Saturday morning, we have been going through Louis Burkhoff 
on the study of the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, and I 
suspect that some of the things that are outlined in this particular 
chapter are things that you can find further developed in, say, 
a Burkhoff or in a Bavank or in some of the other masters 
of the Reformed faith. But I just want to give you a 
lay of the land before we begin. The first paragraph deals with 
the pre-temporal appointment of the mediator. Now that idea 
of mediator is absolutely crucial, and it's something that runs 
consistently through the chapter. In fact, the title of the chapter 
is Christ the Mediator. The idea being is that God is 
a holy God and we are sinful men, and in our sin and in our 
depravity and in our averseness, we cannot just draw nigh unto 
God. There must be a mediator, and 
the Lord God Himself has provided that mediator. in the person 
of our Lord Jesus. So this chapter, paragraph 1, 
sort of gives us the pre-temporal appointment of the mediator. 
Secondly, what we'll call the historical stages of the mediator. Essentially, this section, paragraphs 
2 to 8, deal with his person and his work. And then thirdly, 
paragraph 9 highlights the exclusivity of Christ the mediator, and then 
paragraph 10 highlights the necessary functions of the mediator. Those things that are indicated 
in paragraph 1 in terms of him being a mediator, which is prophet, 
priest, and king, those are developed more further in paragraph 10, 
and we're told why we need him as our prophet, priest, and king. 
But in the first place, note the pre-temporal appointment 
of the mediator in paragraph 1. 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. So this whole idea This 
reality that man needs mediation in order to enter into the presence 
of God was not discovered by man. It's not the case that we 
took the initiative, assigned a particular mediator, entrusted 
to him the particulars of the situation, and then said, go 
on our behalf to the Father so that we may come and approach 
Him. No, it pleased God in His eternal purpose to choose and 
ordain the Lord Jesus. This is divine initiative. God recognizes, or not recognizes 
the way we recognize, that it's not raining today, but God realizes 
the great distance between Himself and between men, and the only 
way to breach that, or to broach that, rather, is through mediation. 
And so God the Father ordains His Son, the Lord Jesus, and 
then it says, according to the covenant made between them both, 
to be the mediator between God and man. We have rehearsed that 
covenant called the covenant of redemption. If you look back 
at chapter 7 in paragraph 3, where it highlights the three 
main covenants that we need to be knowledgeable of. In paragraph 3, chapter 7, it 
says, this covenant is revealed in the gospel first of all to 
Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman and 
afterward by father's steps until the full discovery thereof was 
completed in the New Testament. That's the covenant of grace. 
Notice that this covenant of grace is founded upon the covenant 
of redemption. It says, and it is founded in 
that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and 
the Son about the redemption of the elect. And then it's because 
of this reality that the covenant of works no longer has the ability 
to keep us from the presence of God. And it is alone by the 
grace of this covenant that all of the posterity of fallen Adam 
that ever were saved did obtain life and a blessed immortality, 
man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those 
terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency. So in 
chapter 7, the presentation of the covenant of grace is realized 
fully in the New Testament. It's founded upon that eternal 
transaction between the Father and the Son, here called according 
to that covenant made between them both. Historically, it's 
been referred to as the covenant of redemption, that pre-temporal, 
that means prior to time. intra-Trinitarian covenant about 
the salvation of God's people. And so this is again reiterated 
here in chapter 8, paragraph 1. And then notice, it gives 
a general description of his appointment, or a general description 
of what he is to do. He is to be the mediator between 
God and man. And then in the middle of paragraph 
1, it says, the prophet, priest, and king. So again, that will 
be developed a bit more further in paragraph 10, relative to 
why we need a prophet, priest, and king. It's not by accident 
that these things happen. It's not by accident that, wow, 
it just happens to be the case. No, we need Christ. the mediator 
to be specifically what Christ the mediator is. If you remember 
last Sunday night in our studies in Hebrews chapter 7, with reference 
to the Lord's Supper, it says it was fitting that he would 
be our high priest. He is the one alone who is qualified 
for this particular task. So he is prophet, priest, and 
king, and then it goes on to indicate 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." So that's a good overarching paragraph to introduce 
the rest of the paragraph. It gives us the broad outline, 
as is often the case in the Confession of Faith. The first paragraph 
in a particular chapter Get paragraphs and chapters down. It's very 
difficult to keep that sort of thing in your head when you're 
going through something like this. But the first paragraph 
in each of the chapters oftentimes functions that way. It's an overarching 
statement of the truth of the particular doctrine in view, 
and then the following paragraphs flesh it out. or sketch it out 
more fully or show us in more detail the particulars that are 
stated in paragraph 1. Now notice with reference to 
the historical stages of the mediator in paragraphs 2 to 8. Paragraph 2 deals with his incarnation. It's an identification of who 
this mediator is, to be sure. It shows us his sufficiency in 
order for his particular task. But the primary emphasis here 
in paragraph two is to highlight how it is indeed the case that 
the Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity, being very 
an eternal God, the brightness of the Father's glory, of one 
substance and equal with Him. How that one came about as our 
mediator who was indeed the prophet, priest, and king? It's a great 
sort of answer to the question that any might pose. You Christians 
say that your mediator is both God and man. How in the world 
did that ever happen? How in the world could it be 
the case that the God you say is in the heavens, who created 
the heavens and the earth, actually came down and saved you from 
your sins? That's the design here in paragraph 
two. Remember back in chapter two 
itself, In paragraph 3, what we find in the confession there 
gives us something concerning the triune God. God and His internal 
relations are those things that are within God Himself. And in paragraph 3, chapter 2, 
it tells us, in this divine and infinite being, there are three 
subsistences. The Father, the Word, or Son, 
and the Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having 
the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided. The Father 
is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding. The Son is eternally 
begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit proceeding from 
the Father and the Son. all-infinite, without a beginning, 
therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and 
being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties 
and personal relations, which doctrine of the Trinity is the 
foundation of all our communion with God and comfortable dependence 
on Him." So that's an overarching statement concerning who this 
God is. We go back to chapter 8, paragraph 
2, and then it develops this in terms of the incarnation. 
how that word or son comes into this world, sinners to save, 
the Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity. Notice the 
truth enforced here, being very and eternal God, the brightness 
of the Father's glory of one substance and equal with Him. That idea of one substance was 
something very important in the early church. There was a lot 
of debates and a lot of arguments and a lot of fighting. physical 
blows, though if you take the account of St. Nicholas, you 
all know who St. Nicholas is. He's the one that 
Santa Claus is apparently modeled after or patterned after. Well, 
there's a story that at the Council of Nicaea, St. Nicholas went 
up and slapped Arius in the face. Now, whether that's true or not, 
some suggest it's apocryphal more than it is actual. But for 
the most part, when I say fight, I don't mean they came to physical 
blows, but rather there was a lot of fight over this idea of one 
substance, the same in substance. Is Jesus, thus on, the same in 
substance or the same substance as the Father, or is He only 
like Him? In fact, the two words that differentiate 
this reality differ only by the letter I. So in some sense you 
could say there was a great big debate over the letter I. The 
word homoousous, oousous means something similar or like. Homoousous 
means the same. And so that I that distinguished 
that particular word became a source of great contention and debate. And yet our confession highlights 
or incorporates some of the best insights of the church as a whole 
and says, of one substance and equal with him. It then goes 
on to highlight his power and his glory in terms of the creation, 
who made the world, who upholds and governs all things he has 
made. dead when the fullness of time was come, take upon a 
man's nature with all the essential properties and common infirmities 
thereof, yet without sin." So the paragraph highlights his 
pre-incarnate glory. Prior to his incarnation, the 
Lord Jesus has always been. When you see the language only 
begotten with reference to the Son, we're talking about this 
yesterday, we think of begottenness in terms of creatureliness. In 
other words, we might look at our children and say, they are 
begotten of us. And that's legit, right? But 
when we look at our children and we think they're begotten 
of us, and then we read from that into the father-son relationship, 
it might suggest there was a time when the son was not. But that's 
not what this idea of begottenness means with reference to Christ. It doesn't mean there was a time 
when the Son was not. Remember, it's not only begotten, 
but the eternally begotten Son. So whatever it means, it's always 
been the case. There's never been a time when 
the Son was not, and there's never been a time when the Father 
was not the Father. Again, we talked about this yesterday. 
Athanasius fought the claim of Arius who said there was a time 
when the sun was not. That was the claim of Arianism. 
That's the claim of Jehovah's Witnesses. If you go out on Yale 
on a Saturday morning and speak to them, they believe that Jesus 
is a creature. There was a time when the Son 
was not. Athanasius rejected that. The 
Orthodox Church rejected that. And I don't mean the Eastern 
Orthodox. When I say Orthodox in the context of which we're 
speaking today, I'm speaking of those who are right, the correct 
ones, the non-heretics, the non-ones who deviated from the truth. 
But this whole idea that there was a time when the son was not, 
he's eternally begotten of the father. The begottenness of the 
son points to these things that are described in paragraph 3 
of chapter 2. It says, they're distinguished 
by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations. The begottenness of the Son distinguishes 
him from the unbegottenness of the Father. The spiration or 
procession of the Holy Spirit distinguishes him from the begottenness 
of the Son and the unbegottenness of the Father. These are terms 
to highlight the distinction between the persons in the Godhead. Now can any of us successfully 
explain what it is to be eternally begotten? That's a very difficult 
concept to wrap our minds around because we're dealing with Creator, 
we're in a different realm altogether, and we've entered into eternity, 
something that our puny minds can't comprehend. There is a 
push today in the modern church to get rid of this doctrine of 
the eternal generation of the Son. We must retain it. We must hold it fast. We must 
confess it with the church in her best days, who has always 
confessed this reality of the eternal generation of the Son. 
Some suggest it implies subordination. It doesn't. It highlights those 
peculiar relative properties and personal relations that are 
in the Godhead. So back to chapter 8, paragraph 
2, it highlights His pre-incarnate glory. So there was never a time 
when the Son was not. Oh, that's what I was going to 
say. Athanasius not only maintained that the Lord Jesus has always 
been, but the Father has always been the Father. And he couldn't 
have always been the father without the son. You see the beauty of 
the logic of that argument. It's never been the case that 
the father was not the father. And if he's always been the father, 
there must have always been the son. So it's another sort of 
testimony or ascription to the to the deity or the everlastingness 
of our Lord Jesus Christ. So there is a pre-incarnate glory. 
Now, the whole idea of Christmas in and of itself, I probably 
have a lot of ideas about that, but the thing that really bugs 
me is when people say, we're celebrating Jesus' birthday. 
Now, if you've done that before, don't go home and cry today and 
say, oh, Butler, you know, criticized me or hurt my feelings. I'm sorry. But this idea of Jesus' birthday, 
on the one hand, we can refer to that according to His humanity, 
as we learned from paragraph 7 in our particular confession 
of faith here. But on the other hand, it almost 
suggests there was a time when the sun was not. And in this 
sort of trite approach to the Christmas holiday, to say we're 
going to celebrate Jesus' birthday, if you're going to say that, 
qualify it. Highlight the hypostatic union. 
the communication of idioms, the reality that he is there 
functioning according to his humanity, and so on and so forth. I suspect, though, that most 
persons, when they say, we're going to celebrate Jesus' birthday, 
don't go through that catena of doctrinal argument. So the 
thought that there was a time when Jesus was not is completely 
combated by this particular section. The Son of God, the second person 
in the Holy Trinity, being very and eternal God. See, where do 
the divines sit with reference to who our Lord Jesus Christ 
is? Is it the case that they're Arians? 
Is it the case that they are Homoousians? Is it the case that 
they think Jesus is like the Father? No, they confess very 
specifically, and we, by implication, confess very specifically the 
reality that the church has always confessed, being very an eternal 
God, the brightness of the Father's glory, of one substance and equal 
with Him. After it highlights his particular 
operation in terms of creation, it then goes on to indicate the 
incarnation proper. Notice it says, did when the 
fullness of time was come. And you ought to hear scripture 
in this particular paragraph. Well, throughout this particular 
chapter, you ought to hear the echoes of scripture, this idea 
of the fullness of time. If we weren't live streamed, 
I'd ask you to say, where is that from? And you'd all say, 
Galatians 4, 4, right? In the fullness of the times, 
God sent forth his son, born of a woman, born under the law. 
Well, those concepts undergird this entire confession of faith. The sermon last Sunday night 
on Hebrews chapter 7, this chapter reeks of Hebrews, and I don't 
mean reek in a bad way, reek doesn't always mean bad smells, 
it's good smells too, but it's just smacks, perhaps, of the 
book of Hebrews in terms of the priestly office of our Lord Jesus. 
And then it goes on to indicate very specifically in terms of 
a simple designation and then an elaboration and a qualification 
what happened in the incarnation. Notice, being conceived, I'm 
sorry, the previous statement, take upon him man's nature, okay? 
That's the most simple explanation of the incarnation. If someone 
were to say to you, what happened at the Incarnation? You would 
say that Christ, this one identified in the preceding statements, 
took upon him man's nature. Right? I mean, isn't that the 
most essential question or answer you can give? This one who we 
define or who the Scriptures present as the Son of God, the 
second person in the Holy Trinity, this one who is a very eternal 
God, this one took upon him man's nature. It's a beautiful thing. 
That in and of itself, it's a glorious statement that the God of heaven 
and earth, the one who made this world, the one who upholds it 
and governs it, would actually take upon our nature. Now it 
elaborates on this so that there's no misunderstanding. It took 
upon man's nature. Now notice, with all the essential 
properties and common infirmities thereof, because there could 
be some that say, Well, it only looked like man's nature. It 
only appeared to be man's nature. It wasn't really man's nature 
because God, who is God, can't do such a thing. Well, if God, 
who is God, is the God of Holy Scripture, then He most certainly 
can do such a thing. But this elaboration indicates 
for us what's involved in this simple statement of His taking 
man's nature with all the essential properties and common infirmities 
thereof. You see, that's beautiful, isn't 
it? We talked about this yesterday. At times, believers have a problem 
with the beauty of our Lord Jesus Christ. For instance, when Jesus 
is led by the Spirit in Matthew chapter 4 out into the wilderness 
to be tempted by the devil. You know what believers oftentimes 
do? Well, Jesus was successful there because he's God. He's 
not functioning in the wilderness according to his deity. He is 
functioning in the wilderness according to his humanity. And 
this is what's underscored in the statement. All the essential 
properties, everything true of man is true of Jesus in the wilderness 
and common infirmities thereof. He hungered. He thirsted. He 
was tired. He was weary. I mean, that blessed 
scene when He's on the boat with His disciples and He took a pillow, 
according to Mark, and He took a nap. Who does that? God doesn't do that. God doesn't 
weary. He doesn't need naps. It doesn't 
become 2 o'clock for Him in the afternoon and He yawns and He 
stretches and He lays down and He takes a bit of a siesta. That's 
Christ, according to His humanity. We saw in 2436 in Matthew's Gospel, 
the son confesses that he doesn't know a particular thing. Well, 
how can he do that? Because of what herein is described, 
all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof. 
The reality is that according to his humanity, he didn't know 
that particular date. According to his humanity, he 
would die, or suffer and die. According to his humanity, he 
would hunger, he would be tired. all the essential properties 
and common infirmities thereof. So in other words, the incarnation 
was true, it was real, it was legit. It wasn't a Gnostic perversion. It wasn't some simple appearance. It wasn't some phantom presence 
of this man claiming to be Jesus. No, true humanity is true of 
our Lord Jesus Christ. So there's a simple designation 
He takes upon in man's nature, a specific elaboration with all 
the essential properties and common infirmities, And then 
there's a crucial qualification, yet without sin. So when he was 
in that wilderness, he did not succumb, yet without sin. And again, Hebrews 2, I alluded 
to this on Sunday night in the sermon on Hebrews 7. This idea 
in Hebrews 2.18, for in that he himself has suffered, being 
tempted, he is able to aid those who are tempted. If he was a 
phantom, if he was an appearance, if he was some Gnostic perversion 
of what manhood is all about, 2.18 wouldn't be true. It wouldn't 
be the case that he was being tempted for that he himself has 
suffered being tempted, he is able to aid those who are tempted. 
He couldn't aid us if he wasn't true humanity. And brethren, 
if we don't identify with that true humanity and praise God 
for it, then we have missed who Jesus Christ is. He is both God 
and man in one person, and that's the point of this particular 
paragraph. It's already told us that he 
is the nature of being very and eternal God, so we know he's 
got divinity, we know he's got the divine nature. But here it 
highlights the humanity of our Lord Jesus. And then it specifies, 
I don't know if mode is the best word, but I'm not really sure 
what better word to use, the mode of the incarnation. Perhaps 
the means by which the incarnation occurred might be better. But 
notice it goes on then to develop this reality that he has this 
humanity with all the essential properties and common infirmities 
thereof, yet without sin. Now notice, being conceived by 
the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary. You see, it's 
showing us or highlighting for us or describing to us or calling 
us to confess with Scripture what Scripture says concerning 
the unique humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Being conceived 
by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin, the womb of the 
Virgin, the Holy Spirit coming down upon her. And again, you 
hear Luke here, don't you? I hope you're hearing Luke. I 
hope you don't think these divines, the London Baptist Confession 
divines, or the Westminster Confession divines, or the Savoy Declaration 
guys just said, let's just make some stuff up. Let's just formulate 
some doctrinal positions that have no basis. The thing smacks 
of Scripture. It's fragranced with Scripture. It's Scripture that's just putting 
into a confessional statement. The Holy Spirit coming down upon 
her and the power of the Most High overshadowing her, and so 
was made of a woman." That highlights the specific origin of Christ's 
humanity, and so was made of a woman, and then narrows down 
the pedigree in terms of Christ's humanity, because there's covenantal 
ramifications with who He is. It says, and so was made of a 
woman, there's the general statement, and then of the tribe of Judah, 
of the seed of Abraham and David, according to the scriptures. 
You see, it's not the case that he's just any old man, but he's 
the man prophesied by the prophets. He's the man promised in terms 
of Abraham and David. He is that great answer to Israel's 
problem. He is the Messiah and the mediator. Now, having set forth the nature 
of God, and having set forth the nature of man, what do we 
do? And this is what the confession 
goes on to describe, so that, to whole, perfect, and distinct 
natures. The two natures are what? Humanity 
and deity, right? He is 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. 
He is all that. He never stops being that. But 
in his condescension and his love, according to the covenant 
transaction made with his father, he comes into this world and 
he takes on our nature with all the essential properties and 
common infirmities thereof. So if you're following the paragraph, 
now you've got God and you've got man. How do we make this 
work? Well, we don't make it work. 
God in His glory and majesty, I don't want to say made it work, 
but orchestrated this for the salvation of the elect. But how 
do we understand this? How do we get our minds wrapped 
around this? How do we navigate Scripture 
when it tells us that God the Son becomes one of us? Well, this is what it goes on 
to say, so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures were inseparably 
joined together in one person. See, we're not dealing with two 
persons. We're not dealing with two subjects when we deal with 
Christ. We're dealing with one person 
in two natures, and those two natures remain whole. They remain 
perfect, they remain distinct, but they are inseparably joined 
together in one person. You've got to get that down. 
It's the reality that there is one person, two natures. We're 
not dealing with two persons. We're not dealing with two subjects 
with reference to Jesus. He doesn't talk to himself. The 
deity doesn't converse with the humanity. The humanity doesn't 
converse with the deity. We have one person of Christ 
in these two natures, and that's what this particular section 
goes on to describe. Look at what it says concerning 
these natures, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Essentially, 
what we find here is that we don't have a mingling together. 
We don't have a third thing with Jesus. It's not the case. He's 
a little bit deity. He's a little bit humanity. I 
think I shared this with the Saturday morning guys. When I 
was a kid, my mom used to watch Donny and Marie Osmond. They 
were those Mormons that sang and they had a particular song 
that said, I'm a little bit country and I'm a little bit rock and 
roll. I think at times we look at Jesus that way. He's a little 
bit deity. He's a little bit humanity. He's a little bit humanity. 
He's a little bit deity. That's not what Jesus is. He 
is not a conglomeration. He's not a third thing. He's 
not a made-together sort of not-God-not-man sort of a thing that goes around 
and does stuff without conversion, without composition, without 
confusion. And then it goes on to underscore 
the reality, which person is very God and very man, yet one 
Christ, the only mediator between God and man. Now, certainly there's 
a lot we could say here. I just want to highlight something, 
though, concerning this paragraph. And I think it's important for 
us to remember, they didn't make this up. Guys, in 1677, when 
the Confession of Faith, the Baptist Confession of Faith was 
written, or the Westminster Confession in the early 1640s, the Savoy 
Declaration, 50s, 1650s? 46. 46. They didn't just make 
this stuff up. They are reflecting the best 
insights of the church as a whole. I pulled a book off my shelf 
yesterday by John Fesco, and he has a book on the Westminster 
standards. It's not necessarily an exposition, 
you know, chapter per chapter. It does do exposition in particular 
chapters, but it also gives a lot of the historical background 
concerning the Westminster Confession of Faith. And that's important 
for us as particular Baptists because our confession is modeled 
very largely after the Westminster Confession. So to know the history 
behind the Westminster, it's helpful to know the history behind 
our confession, it's helpful to know the history behind the 
Westminster. And Fesco made this observation. 
The doctrine of Christ was central to a number of theological discussions 
and debates in the post-Reformation period. One of the chief criticisms 
against the Reformation was that it was a schismatic movement. 
That means divisive, or not cohesive, or designed to separate, or designed 
to divide. So one of the criticisms against 
the Reformation was that it was a schismatic movement, not a 
genuine reform of the church. Reformers were therefore keen 
on demonstrating their continuity with the theological past. I mentioned this in our Saturday 
morning studies. We need to appreciate that the 
confessions, the Protestant confessions that we hold dear to and the 
Reformation as a whole did not reform the doctrine of God. They 
didn't reform the doctrine of the Trinity. They didn't reform 
the doctrine of Christ. Now, they certainly dealt with 
the work of Jesus Christ, contra Rome and contra, you know, many 
of the church, sort of church issues prior, but in terms of 
God, Trinity, person of the Lord Jesus Christ, you won't find 
Reformation in those particular areas. And so we ought not to 
jettison the rest of the church from 1500s down, nothing was 
good and nothing makes sense. That's not how Luther Or Calvin, 
or what's called the post-Reformation scholastics looked at the early 
church. In fact, if you read Calvin's 
Institutes, or you read John Owen, or you read Stephen Charnock, 
or you read some of these great Protestants, oftentimes they 
quote at length different Hopish scholars, and at times Orthodox 
or Eastern Orthodox scholars. They're interacting with the 
truth concerning the Trinity and concerning the person of 
our Lord Jesus. And what Fesco says is that this 
whole approach was calculated to show that they were not divisive, 
they were not schismatic, and they were not trying to be this 
new thing. It was indeed a reformation that 
was sought. So he goes on to say, reformers 
were therefore keen on demonstrating their continuity with the theological 
past, particularly the ecumenical councils of the patristic era 
that define the doctrines of the Trinity and Christ for all 
of Western Christendom. So particularly the ecumenical 
councils. I mentioned this yesterday, you 
guys that were here, I'm sorry, you're going to hear it again. 
But ecumenicism is the design to try to bring as many people 
together. We do ecumenicism all wrong today. We say if somebody 
can utter the word Jesus, we'll welcome them into the church. 
These early ecumenical councils or creeds oftentimes ended with 
anathemas. In other words, if you don't 
confess the truth of this creed, may God damn you to hell. That's 
an ecumenicism we're not real familiar with today because for 
us ecumenicism means, well, the Catholic is our brother, the 
Jehovah's Witness is our brother, the Mormon is our brother, the 
whoever is our brother, we're all just brothers because we 
all say Jesus. That's ecumenicism gone afoul. Ecumenicism in the early church 
was you confess the truth and you're one of us. You don't confess 
the truth and may God indeed damn your soul to hell. That's 
what anathema means. It's not just even a... May God 
have mercy on you. It is a positive declaration 
of God's damnation upon you should you continue to resist and reject 
the truth. Sharing with the fellows yesterday, 
the man Nestorius, a man by the name of Nestorius maintained 
a two-subject Christology. In other words, there were basically 
two persons of Christ. Not that he spoke to himself 
like that. It was a little bit more detailed 
and elaborate than that. But when he was exiled for heresy, 
when they wrote a letter to him, they called him the new Judas. 
The early church didn't play games with people who did not 
confess the truth. And so this idea of ecumenicism 
or ecumenical councils, if you hear that with reference to the 
patristic era, the church fathers, it doesn't mean they all just 
wanted to sing kumbaya and have a love-in and say Jesus and everybody 
was welcome. No, it was a lot more narrow 
than that. And if you confessed wrong concerning 
the Trinity or who Jesus Christ is, you were not allowed within 
the context of the church. He goes on, finally, to say, 
the connections to the councils of Nicaea, 325, Constantinople, 
381, and Chalcedon, 451, were crucial historical anchors for 
the Reformed tradition, anchors that staved off the criticism 
of doctrinal novelty and schism. And I say that because I wanted 
to read what's called the symbol of Chalcedon or the Creed of 
Chalcedon. And just listen as I read here 
how much of Chapter 8, Paragraph 2 comes from that. Now there's 
elements that come from, you know, say Nicaea or Constantinople, 
but just listen to this with reference to Chalcedon in 451. 
It says, we then, following the Holy Fathers, all with one consent, 
teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus 
Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood, 
truly God and truly man of a reasonable or rational soul and body, consubstantial 
or coessential with the Father according to the Godhead, and 
consubstantial with us according to the manhood. and all things 
like unto us without sin, 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, one in the same Christ, Son, 
Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusably, 
unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably. The distinction of natures being 
by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property 
of each nature being preserved and concurring in one person 
and one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, 
but one in the same son. and only begotten, God the Word, 
the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have 
declared concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself 
has taught us, and the creed of the Holy Fathers has handed 
down to us." Now there may be some words or concepts there 
that might take some time to tease out and flesh out and explain, 
but the point is, when they develop this confession, It wasn't, okay, 
let's just, you know, sit around and think about it and do that. 
They took the best insights from the church where the church had 
been right. You see, there's a tendency to 
say, well, you know, the ancient church, they were just weird 
and they taught this and they taught that. There's a lot of 
weird stuff in the ancient church, and there's a lot of things that 
we ought to be aware of. There's a lot of great stuff in terms 
of who God is, in terms of the Trinity, and in terms of who 
Jesus Christ is. There's a lot of weird stuff 
in the church today. I mean, I hope in 200, 400, 800, 
1,000 years, people don't write off 
the 21st century because there was so much weird stuff. Well, 
where there's weird, there's oftentimes good and true and 
faithful. And you know what God did in 
the early church? He used the weird and the wacky to drive 
the church to the scriptures so that they could formulate 
proper biblical response to it. In other words, there's a reason 
for heresy. The Bible tells us that in 1 
Corinthians chapter 11. First Corinthians chapter 11 
tells us there must be factions among you so that those who are 
approved may be recognized among you. Now factions come at the 
supper time and in First Corinthians 11 because of some, you know, 
foolishness of the people of God. The haves want to exclude 
the have-nots. But factions also develop in 
terms of theological debate, theological dispute. And God 
used the various heretics in the early church to promote and 
produce in the true church to get to work, to expound the scriptures, 
to write creeds and confessions, and to stave off the wicked who 
would try to enter in among the people of God and lead them astray 
with their false teaching. So this particular paragraph 
does hearken back to those councils and creeds, Nicaea, Constantinople, 
and Chalcedon. Now, when it says the mother 
of God, when it refers to Mary as the mother of God, again, 
for those who were not here yesterday morning, Can we legitimately 
say that? Yes, if we qualify it as it does. The mother of God according to 
the manhood. Look at paragraph 7 in chapter 
8. Paragraph 7 in chapter 8 is how 
we can call Mary the mother of God. Now, I'm not suggesting we run 
down the street and do this necessarily, but I am suggesting that the 
reading of that statement ought not to throw us into a theological 
pope-ish tailspin to think that we've all become, you know, subject 
to the Pope of Rome. Notice what paragraph 7 says. I suspect that if you understand 
this particular paragraph, it'll help you in your Bible reading 
very much. Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according 
to both natures. We should expect that, shouldn't 
we? He's one person, two natures, he's God, he's man, so we ought 
to expect it. And when we read our Bibles, 
that's precisely what we see, 24, 36 in Matthew. He doesn't 
know something. That's obviously him as a man. 
Matthew 9, when he pronounces the forgiveness of sins upon 
a paralytic, well, there he's acting according to his deity, 
isn't he? Because the Son of Man has power 
on earth to forgive sins. So he acts according to both 
natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself. 
You see, when we look at Jesus in the wilderness, he has the 
spirit without measure. That is who is holding him up 
and aiding him and encouraging him and blessing him in his humanity. It's not that the humanity has 
been divinized or deified. And at the same part, when we 
see Jesus bleeding, dying, suffering and broken, it's not that the 
humanity is or that the deity is being humanized. Those two 
natures remain intact. They remain distinct. So Christ, 
in Scripture, in the work of mediation, acts 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." So in other words, we 
have this. We have the one person of Christ 
who is both humanity and deity. You can say whatever you say 
concerning his humanity of the person. We can say that Jesus 
Christ died, Jesus Christ suffered, Jesus Christ ate, Jesus Christ 
hungered, Jesus Christ wept, Jesus Christ sorrowed, Jesus 
Christ slept. Whatever is true of His divinity, 
we can say of the person of Christ. We can say that Christ knew the 
thoughts of men. We can say that Christ was able 
to heal people. All those things that are true 
of deity, we can say of His humanity. And there are times in the scripture 
those things that are true of humanity are said of Christ, 
but it's attributed to his deity. I'm going somewhere with this 
thing. Don't lose sight here. You can go humanity to person 
and deity to person. And there's even times where 
humanity goes to other nature. Acts 20, 28 is the specimen passage 
in John 3, 13. When Paul says, shepherd the 
church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood, you can do 
that, okay? Because we know, though God doesn't 
have blood, by virtue of the hypostatic union that Christ 
is indeed the God-man, that's legit. Even though God doesn't 
have blood and God doesn't die. Whatever we say concerning one 
nature that is true of the person, sometimes it's attributed to 
the other nature. But the problem is when we go 
from nature to nature. You can't do that. You can't 
say that humanity is deity, or that deity is humanity, or what's 
true of the deity is true of the humanity. That's where you've 
got a problem. And in sum, that's what paragraph 
seven is saying. if I could just read through 
it all quickly. And that may sound confusing. 
So if we were to say that Mary is the mother of God, I would 
suggest we qualify that the way Chalcedon does according to the 
manhood So she's the mother of God because Jesus is this one 
person, two natures. And based on what we have in 
here, 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. It's just when you go 
from nature to nature that you have a problem. And this is what 
Lutherans do, for instance, when they want to have Jesus really 
present at the Lord's Supper. They have to divinize his humanity. They have to ascribe omnipresence 
to the humanity of Jesus Christ. So that's going from nature to 
nature, and you can't do that. or those who deny the doctrine 
of immutability or impassibility, they're going nature to nature. 
They say, well, Jesus is God. He suffered on the cross. Therefore, 
God can suffer. Well, we can say that God suffered 
as long as we qualify it in terms of paragraph 7. Jesus according 
to his humanity, who is true God, true man, but it was according 
to his humanity. Because that's what Paul does 
in Acts 20, 28, shepherd the church of God, which he has purchased 
with his own blood. Well, God doesn't have blood. 
God didn't die. But in terms of this hypostatic 
union, the one person, two natures, we can legitimately speak that 
way. I would suggest, however, that 
we qualify it. If you were to say, yeah, I think 
Mary's the mother of God and leave it unqualified, it can 
have the idea that God has a mother. You know, there was a time when 
God was not, but the mother was, and she bore forth... That's 
not what it means! It means God-bearer, referring 
to this unique one, the Lord Jesus, who is one person, both 
God and man. So it is legitimate to speak 
this way, provided you explain what you're doing. Now, if you 
can't, you know, fully process paragraph 7, then maybe stay 
away from that sort of thing right now. Just stay where you're 
comfortable with scripture. You don't have to go out and 
be an apologist and say, yes, we can defend on how it is we 
can say mother of God, or how we can defend a particular book 
title on the doctrine of divine impassibility that's called the 
suffering of the impassible God. Well, that's oxymoronic to say 
suffering and impassable, but not in light of paragraph 7. 
You see, if you get paragraph 7 down, then the suffering of 
the impassable God makes sense, because we're not saying that 
the Lord Jesus suffered as God, but he suffered according to 
his humanity. But he is nevertheless the one person who is indeed 
God-man. That's a lot to qualify every 
time we use a particular statement. So as I said, maybe stick with 
the basics and stick with those things that are most easily understood. 
But don't be so inclined to say, well, that's just terrible, heretical, 
blasphemous language. not as it was confessed in the 
early church or not as it's been confessed throughout, you know, 
classical Christian orthodoxy. If you understand the terminology 
properly and the language that is utilized, then it really is 
legit and it really is good to do so. So we're going to actually 
stop there. God willing, in two weeks, we'll 
keep up on this overview. I do want to close in prayer 
and then shut the thing off, and if anybody has any questions, 
Cam is here to answer for you. So let's pray. Father, we thank 
you for our Lord Jesus, that perfectly fitted mediator, that 
prophet, priest, and king, the one you ordained. before the 
foundation of the world to be that one who saves us from our 
sins. We thank you for the glorious 
person of Christ. We thank you for this hypostatic 
union, this one person, two natures. Give us wisdom and grace that 
we don't confuse it, that we don't confound it, that we don't 
mix it or mingle it, but that we would see the distinction 
between the natures and the blessed unity in the person. Go with 
us into worship in this coming hour, I pray, in a special way 
that your Holy Spirit would be present in the lives of unbelievers 
as we look forward to the Judgment Day. What a horrific day that 
will be for those outside of Jesus Christ. May you indeed 
cause us to take heed to your word. Cause sinners to fly to 
Christ for salvation. And we pray in Jesus' name. Amen.