← Back to sermon library

You can turn in your Confessions 
to Chapter 8. We're going to take a bit of a diversion, a 
bit of an excursus from the regular progression in the Confession, 
and do a few studies in the doctrine of the Incarnation from Chapter 
8. We're not Catholics, so we are not bound to a liturgical 
calendar. In our Protestant freedom, we 
could study the Incarnation in July. But as this time of year 
draws the minds of the populace around us to reflections upon 
the Incarnation, and it is a wholesome thing, no doubt, to reflect upon 
the Incarnation, December. It's certainly a wonderful thing 
to do so any time of the year, but kindly and mercifully our 
minds are peculiarly drawn in December to the time when the 
sun took to himself our nature and came in the incarnation to 
redeem guilty sinners from their sins. So it's good to reflect 
upon this doctrine, and we'll do so from chapter 8. I'm only 
going to read chapter 8, paragraphs 1 and 2, and then we'll get into 
a study of the incarnation. So this is chapter 8 beginning 
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, the prophet, priest, and 
king. head and savior of the church, 
the heir of all things, the 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. Paragraph 2. 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 who made the world, who upholdeth and governeth all 
things He hath made, did, when the fullness of the 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. So the the 
incarnation the doctrine of the incarnation One one man has said 
or probably more than one man has said that the two doctrines 
in the Christian religion that That are incomprehensible and 
that constitutes something of a divine mystery or the doctrine 
of the Trinity is the doctrine of God, the doctrine of the Trinity, 
and the doctrine of the Incarnation. One man wrote, because I didn't 
write his name down, I think it's Owen, the depths of the 
mystery hereof, actually I'm 99.7% sure it is Owen, the depths 
of the mystery hereof, that is with the doctrine of the Incarnation, 
the depths of the mystery hereof are open only unto Him whose 
understanding is infinite, which no created understanding can 
comprehend." Now, we know the truth of the Incarnation. It's 
been revealed to us. It's a revealed truth. The propositions, 
the truths related to the Incarnation are revealed by God for our knowledge 
so that we might believe the Gospel. the mode of union, the 
high things, the dynamic involved with respect to the union of 
two natures in one person, the mystery involved in the Son of 
God, the brightness of the Father's glory, the One who is of one 
substance and equal with Him who made the worlds, coming into 
our lower shame to assume our nature for our recovery, That's 
the stuff that is incomprehensible. We know it happened, but how 
it happened, and we might even say beyond the revealed purpose 
why it happened, is incomprehensible. If we say that we understand 
the doctrine of the Trinity, that is if we comprehend it, 
if we can wrap our minds around it and fully encase the high 
mystery within the grasp of our human contemplation, and if we 
can say that we do the same with the Incarnation, then we might 
as well cease to worship because we have now become God. The mystery 
of the Incarnation is such that the depths of the mystery hereof 
are open only unto him whose understanding is infinite, which 
no created understanding can comprehend. But we can know. 
We cannot wrap our minds around it, the mystery of the Trinity 
and the Incarnation to full exhaustion of comprehension, but thankfully 
and bless the name of the Lord God Almighty that we can know 
and that we can understand what He has revealed with regards 
to this most necessary truth. A couple things. As we study 
the Incarnation, we are assuming the veracity of the biblical 
narrative, certain historicity and truth concerning Jesus Christ. 
So as we work through this, as Christians, we're assuming that 
the Bible is true. The Bible has revealed truth. 
It is inerrant. It is infallible. It is divinely 
inspired. And so we're not going to spend 
a whole lot of time arguing for the veracity of the historical 
account. It is true. It is voracious. It is most certainly a true narrative 
because it has been revealed by God, divinely inspired, inerrant, 
and infallible. Also, though we will make mention 
of it throughout, we are assuming the truth that Jesus Christ is 
God, the second person in the Holy Trinity. We'll make reference 
to the fact of Jesus Christ's deity, but we're not going to 
spend a whole lot of time arguing for it. assuming, and we're assuming 
rightly, based upon the truth revealed in Holy Scripture, that 
Jesus Christ is God. So in chapter 8, paragraph 2, 
we have the doctrine of the Incarnation laid out. I say extensively, 
but I also say not extensively. In other words, it's concise, 
but it's packed. There's a lot of theological 
information here, a lot of glorious biblical truth with regards to 
this doctrine. The doctrine continues into paragraph 
3. The purpose of the doctrine of 
the Incarnation continues throughout the rest of the chapter as well. 
But chapter 8, paragraph 2, is where we have sort of the sum 
and substance of the concise presentation of the doctrine 
laid out here in the Confession. First off, we just want to touch 
on the definition, or the meaning of incarnation. What does the 
incarnation mean? And firstly, some definition 
of terms. There are a number of terms and 
phrases that were used in the history of Christianity with 
regards to the Incarnation. The Incarnation isn't the only 
word or phrase that encapsulates Christ Jesus the Lord, the Son 
of God, coming in the fullness of the times to take to himself 
man's nature. There have been a number of terms 
and phrases used throughout church history in defending the doctrine 
positively and then also negatively, polemically and apologetically, 
rejecting heresy and those sorts of things. Those particular phrases 
are these, encapsulating the truth that the Son of God took 
man's nature for our salvation. First, embodying. Secondly, inhumination. Thirdly, his conversation in 
and by the flesh. His manifestation, this is fourthly, 
his manifestation by humanity. Fifthly, his advent. Sixthly, 
the exonination. Seventhly, the humiliation. Eighthly, 
the appearance, and ninthly, I'm not sure how often you've 
heard ninthly, but ninthly, the condescension. Now, most commonly, 
the incarnation is used to wrap up or to sum up or to encapsulate 
the doctrine. that the Son of God took man's 
nature for his salvation. And that's the word that we run 
with, is incarnation. Now, incarnation comes from the 
Latin incarnatio, or incarnatio, or however you want to pronounce 
that. You can ask Stephan Lindblad. But it comes from the Latin incarnatio, 
corresponding to the Greek ensarcosis. You may recognize that word flesh, 
or that word Sarkos, or sark, the Greek word for flesh. We 
get there, does everybody know the word sarcophagus? You've 
heard that word before? You know, a coffin or a, it actually 
literally means flesh eating. The idea that there was a stone 
in antiquity that would eat flesh, and so the Greeks would, you 
know, would carve out a coffin for people so that this, you 
know, flesh-eating stone could encapsulate their beloved dead 
and that sort of thing. Anyway, ensarkos is the Greek 
word which simply means in the flesh. The Greek word in the 
Nicene Creed where speaking of Christ it says and was incarnate 
from the Holy Spirit is sarkothenta And the later Latin translation 
of that Greek word in the Nicene Creed was incarnatus. And so 
we may say the English translation of incarnation or incarnatio 
is enfleshment. So the enfleshment of the Word 
of God, when we speak with respect to the incarnation, we could 
say that it is the enfleshment of the Word of God. Now there 
are, and we'll look at them later, but probably the The primary 
text in discussions of the incarnation with respect to the language 
and then sort of a launching pad for a discussion of the doctrine 
would be John 1.14. Actually, just turn there now 
just to refresh our minds and remind ourselves of the stuff 
of John 1.14. John 1.14, I'm going to dazzle 
you with this, follows John 1.1, 14 verses later. But John 1.1, of course, in the 
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word 
was God. And so when we say the enfleshment 
of the Word of God, we get that from verse 14, which says, and 
the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. So that language there, 
and the Word became flesh, no doubt sets forth and presents 
to us the language of incarnation, the enfleshment of the Word of 
God. Another text that you can make 
a note of that we may turn to later in the study is 1 Timothy 
3.16. not second Timothy 316, but first 
Timothy 316. It's another good 316. We have 
some good 316s in our Bible, don't we? John 316, second Timothy 
316 with regards to the inspiration of the word of God and its sufficiency. And here we have in first Timothy 
316, but we'll turn there later. a passage that speaks to, perhaps, 
not perhaps, but most likely, an early Christian creed, God 
was manifested in the flesh, etc. A good working definition 
of the incarnation is this by Richard Muller, The incarnation 
is the unison or act of uniting human nature with the logos or 
word accomplished by the word in his assumption of a human 
nature in the womb of the Virgin Mary into the unity of his person. Hannah, maybe if you could grab 
me a Kleenex or a napkin of some sort. That would be helpful. 
And whoever edits this can remove this from the audio. all of a 
sudden have a runny nose. Been dealing with a cough for 
a week and it's just a nasty sore throat and chest and cough 
and the nose is just starting up now so that's delightful. 
Okay. One more time, the unison or act of uniting human nature 
with the Logos or Word accomplished by the Word in His assumption 
of a human nature in the womb of the Virgin Mary into the unity 
of His person. So secondly, under the meaning 
of incarnation, an explanation of the theology. an explanation of the theology 
of the Incarnation. And then we're going to look 
at some of the wording here, actually. Well, not all of the 
wording, thank you. But I'm really set up now for 
the rest of the day. Okay. So, an explanation of the 
theology. First off, what it doesn't mean. 
What Incarnation doesn't mean. We're going to look again at 
the language of the Confession here shortly, but an explanation 
of the theology, first off, and what it doesn't mean, the Incarnation. 
First, under what it doesn't mean, it doesn't mean that the 
Word or Son was mutated or transformed into man. You might come to John 
1.14 and read, okay, and the Word became flesh. and dwelt 
among us. And, you know, the mind untaught 
and the mind unstable in things Christianity might say, okay, 
so the word was changed into or the word, you know, became, 
that is mutated into or transformed into flesh. But that's not what 
we mean when we talk about the incarnation, the enfleshment, 
or when we simply use the biblical language and the word became 
flesh. The language of was made or became 
does not mean that he ceased being God or changed in a measure 
of his deity. So the son, the word or son didn't 
cease being God and he did not change in a measure of his deity. There wasn't something that happened 
to his deity at the incarnation. The old boys would say things 
like this. This is Chrysostom. Whilst he 
remained what he was, he took that which he was not. You see 
what he's saying here. He's protecting divine immutability 
while maintaining the union of human nature to divinity. Whilst 
he remained what he was, he took that which he was not. This is 
Turretin being very Christostomian. in his language, the word or 
son emptied himself, and this is not to be taken simply and 
absolutely as if he ceased to be God, which is impious even 
to think. He emptied himself not by putting 
off what he was, but by assuming what he was not. It's very important 
when we come to passages like Philippians 2 5 to 11 Christ 
didn't empty himself by changing divinity changing in a measure 
of his divinity divesting himself of his divine glory and those 
sorts of things but rather He emptied himself not by putting 
off what he was, but by assuming what he was not. This is John 
Gill, though he took that which he had not before, he lost nothing 
of what he had. He's sort of reversing the Christostom 
language there. Christostom, while he remained 
what he was, he took that which he was not. Gill, echoing the 
old boy, wrote, though he took that which he had not before, 
he lost nothing of what he had. And listen to this language of 
two old guys that start with C, first Cyril and then next 
Calvin. Just so that we can understand, 
if someone, you know, I've had this question asked of me before 
when when I'm with friends and family around Christmas time, 
or maybe some people who don't know me that good, or some who 
maybe know me well and want clarification. You're a Christian. What's this 
whole incarnation stuff about? What does that mean? Maybe you've 
asked that. I was asked by a Muslim friend 
that comes over to some of our family events. Actually, that 
was during Easter. So that was, what's this death 
and resurrection stuff all about? Good Friday and resurrection. 
But you might be asked by someone about the Incarnation. And it's 
good to know what it means. We certainly don't want to be 
spewing heresy to people who are asking what the Incarnation 
is. Who is this Christ? What does 
it mean? Divine? What's going on in the 
Incarnation? We want to be armed with a proper 
answer. in the fifth century wrote the 
eternal words subjected himself to birth for us and came forth 
man from a woman without ceasing came forth man from a woman without 
casting off that which he was. Although he assumed flesh and 
blood, he remained what he was, God in essence and in truth. 
For although visible in a child in swaddling cloths, and even 
in the bosom of his virgin mother, he filled all creation as God 
and was a fellow ruler with him who begat him. For the Godhead 
is without quantity and dimension and cannot have limits." In the 
incarnation, we don't have God somehow changing himself, mutating, 
transforming. We don't have God encapsulating 
himself and condensing himself within the shell of humanity. 
There's popular atheistic movies that are published and updated 
year after year equating Christian incarnation with pagan condescensions, 
anthropomorphic deities copulating with human females and producing 
offspring and all manner of nonsense like that. The doctrine of the 
incarnation is universes away from that pagan madness. God, the triune God who fills 
the heavens and the earth, the triune God who cannot be located 
anywhere, but is everywhere without limit and without measure, that 
God who cannot change, who is eternal, infinite, eternal, and 
unchangeable in all of his glorious perfections, took to himself 
man's nature in order to redeem man. from his sins. It's a far 
cry from an anthropomorphic, gray-bearded, lightning-bolt-casting 
deity coming down into the bedchamber of a human female to copulate 
and create some demigod. So never be tricked by atheistic 
and God-hating attempts to equate the incarnation with the madness 
of pagan religion. Calvin. Echoing Cyril wrote, 
another absurdity, namely, that if the word of God became incarnate, 
he must have been confined within the narrow prison of an earthly 
body, is sheer impudence. For even if the word in his immeasurable 
essence united with the nature of man into one person, we do 
not imagine that he was confined therein. Here is something marvelous. The Son of God descended from 
heaven in such a way that, without leaving heaven, He willed to 
be born in the Virgin's womb, to go about the earth, to hang 
upon the cross, yet He continually filled the earth, even as He 
had done from the beginning. So, it doesn't mean that He had 
mutated or transformed into man. Secondly, the Incarnation doesn't 
mean that the Word or Son came in the appearance of a man. So it wasn't some trick. It wasn't 
some, okay, I'm coming in the appearance of a man, but not 
really man. The Dosetic heresy that said 
he just came in the semblance, he appeared to be, he seemed 
to be man. But because of the inherent wickedness 
of matter and creation and humanity. Now, don't get me wrong, humanity 
is wicked by virtue of the fall. We're sinful, depraved, we're 
dead in our trespasses and sins. But there's nothing inherently 
wrong with God's creation by virtue of his creation. It's 
the fall that... you know, that made man sinful 
and sinful ethically and morally, but by virtue of matter and those 
things according to the material of creation, there is nothing 
inherently wicked or evil. But all that to say, the Docetic 
heresy and any other heresy like it is wrong. It doesn't mean 
that he came in the appearance of a man. Pastor Kirkpatrick 
is preaching through 1st John right now. One of the biggest 
things in view there is the Christological heresy or error that Christ had 
not come in the flesh. And John is dealing not solely 
but in large part with that heresy. Those who had left out from us, 
who were never with us, they were imbibing the Christological 
heresy that Christ had not truly come in the flesh along with 
a multitude of other errors. Thirdly, it doesn't mean that 
He came, that the Word or Son came in the body only of a man. So when we say that Christ, or 
when the Bible says, and the word became flesh, or when we 
read in Hebrews 5, where it says, in the days of his flesh, it 
doesn't mean that he put on a flesh suit. It's what one man has called 
it. I think his name is Eric Svensson. He called it flesh suit Christology, 
that Christ came only in the body. of humanity, without a 
soul. So when we say the incarnation, 
we say the taking on of flesh, we're not saying that it was 
only flesh, that is to say only the body of a man. The divine 
Logos did not simply come to indwell a fleshly envelope. That's McGuckie. That's his nickname. He's actually John McGuckin, 
but he said the divine Logos did not simply come to indwell 
a fleshly envelope. You know, why do we rehearse 
these things? Well, Because we ought to know what the Bible 
says with respect to the incarnation. We need to know the fullness 
of the assumption of man's nature. Because as we'll see in a moment, 
if he did not assume the whole us without sin, then the whole 
us is not redeemed. the only assumed body, then we 
have an unredeemed mind, we have an unredeemed soul, and we want 
our soul saved. Our bodies will be, in that glorious 
day of the resurrection, united with our spirits, but we need 
our spirits saved, we need our souls saved, we need to be redeemed 
by the folly and the madness, the depravity and the sinfulness 
of our minds. Again, the Logos, the divine 
Logos, did not simply come to indwell. a fleshly envelope. 
Fourthly, it doesn't mean that the Word or Son is fully man 
with no exceptions. In that exception, of course, 
and we'll flesh that out a little bit later, no pun intended, the 
assumption of humanity in the Incarnation was the assumption 
of a full humanity, but that without sin. So it doesn't mean, 
the Incarnation doesn't mean that He assumed fully man with 
no exceptions, but it is of course without sin. Full humanity, but 
without sin. And fifthly, and lastly, under 
what it doesn't mean, it doesn't mean that the Word or Son added 
humanity to His existence. It's often the idea that, you 
know, subtraction by addition or whatever the sort of the famous 
phrase is at Ephesians 2, 5 to 11, the word or son didn't add 
humanity to his existence. The word or son is most absolute, 
perfect, eternal, unchangeable, and infinite in all of his glorious 
perfections. He cannot be added to and he 
cannot be diminished. It doesn't mean that the word 
or son added humanity to his existence. This is Thomas quoting 
Cyril of Alexandria. Since the divine person is infinite, 
no addition can be made to it. Hence, Cyril says, we do not 
conceive the mode of conjunction. That just simply means the manner 
of which the two natures are brought together. We do not conceive 
the mode of conjunction to be according to addition, just as 
in the union of man with God, nothing is added to God by the 
grace of adoption. But what is divine is united 
to man. Hence, not God, but man is perfected. So again, since the divine person 
is infinite, no addition can be made to it. So that's in a nutshell what 
the incarnation doesn't mean with respect to an explanation 
of the theology. Now what it does mean, and that's 
where we come now to the confession. A good working definition of 
the incarnation is paragraph two. Now we're going to take 
just a portion out as I read it again here, and that part 
we're going to jump over to later. But what it does mean, the confessional 
definition of the Incarnation, which as you will see, it is 
simply informed by and obviously constituted of the Word of God. 
As I read this, paragraph 2, hopefully you see that this really 
isn't, you know, some Baptist's in the 17th century, just sitting 
down, okay, let's, you know, without our Bibles, let's, you 
know, write out what the incarnation is. This is, with the occasional 
periphrastic insertion, this is simply writing out biblical 
texts. Okay, so paragraph two. This 
is what it does mean. 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 the time was come, take upon 
Him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common 
infirmities thereof, yet without sin. Now, if you move down to 
right after, 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? So hopefully you can see in just 
reading that, that all of those things that we just discussed 
with regards to what the incarnation doesn't mean, Paragraph 2 here 
affirms the opposites of those things. That he is fully God, 
who took to himself a full humanity, yet without sin, and that there 
is no change to deity, there is no addition made to deity, 
but a union of the two natures in the one person, Christ, who 
is the only mediator between God and man. So to flesh some 
of this out, secondly, the theological entailments of the incarnation. All of this, what does it mean 
then? Expanding upon this definition, what is contained in the theology 
of the incarnation? Well, first, that it is the Son 
and the Son alone who was incarnate. So it wasn't the Trinity that 
came in the incarnation. It wasn't father, son, and spirit 
who assumed flesh, who assumed humanity for our redemption and 
recovery. It wasn't the father. It wasn't 
the spirit. It wasn't the father and son. 
It wasn't the father and spirit. It wasn't the son and spirit. 
It was the son, the word or son. who became incarnate, who took 
to Himself our nature. Now, a qualification here, this 
does not mean that the incarnation is by inception and effectually 
only the work of the Son. And we'll qualify that here in 
a moment or describe or define what we mean. The incarnation 
is not only the work of the Son. What does that mean? Well, Remember 
that with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, we confess that 
there is one God, and then answering the question, how many persons 
are there? There are three persons in the 
Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these 
three have the whole substance, or the whole essence, and the 
essence undivided. They're co-glorious, they're 
co-eternal. They're of one power and one 
will. And so they don't work separately 
and by divided wills, by separate wills, but rather by the one 
will of the undivided divine essence. This is Mahler. This is important so that we 
don't imbibe a tritheism or that we don't separate the persons 
of the Trinity such that we have no longer a Trinity but a conference 
and a conglomeration of monarchs. This is Moeller. Like all the 
outwardly directed works of God, the incarnation is defined as 
a common work of the Godhead. Thus, the logos, or son, does 
not incarnate himself apart from the will of the Father and the 
Spirit. So in support of this, we can turn to a couple passages 
in Holy Scripture, just to see that the Incarnation is the work 
of the Trinity, but it terminates upon the Son solely and particularly, 
that is, it is the Son alone who assumes humanity. Turn to 
the book of Galatians with me. In the book of Galatians, this 
is a passage that is quite familiar to you, both in preaching, I 
think every time I pray on a Sunday, not rotely, but because it's 
glorious truth and we ought to recognize it every Sunday, usually 
include this in corporate prayer during the worship service, but 
of course, you recognize this, Galatians 4.4, but when the fullness 
of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, 
born under the law to redeem those who are under the law. 
So you see there, the son separated here or distinct here, distinguished 
from God, that is in the context of the father. So we have the 
father involved in the work of the incarnation. Of course, John 
1.14, you don't need to turn there, but the word became flesh. 
and dwelt among us. And then Matthew 1.18, the conception 
of Christ by the Holy Spirit. You can turn there. We already 
read John 1.14. But just to see here, Father 
and Spirit involved along with Son in the work of the incarnation. Matthew 1. And verse 18. Notice the language 
there. 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 we have Father, Galatians 
4.4, Son, John 1.14, and Spirit, Matthew 1.18, involved in the 
undivided work of the triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 
here at the point of the incarnation. But as Muller continues here, 
and so we distinguish that is with Galatians John and Matthew 
those texts we just read in mind and and so we distinguish between 
the work of incarnation considered efficiently and in terms of origin 
and the work of incarnation considered with a view towards its end, 
or terminatively. It is the work of the undivided 
Trinity, but terminatively, it is the work of the Son. It is 
the Son alone who actually becomes incarnate. So the Father sends 
the Son, the Holy Spirit effectually conceives in the womb of the 
Virgin Mary, the humanity of Jesus, and the Son is alone assuming 
to himself that humanity, that our nature with all the essential 
properties and common infirmities thereof. But all of that to come 
back to this, that it is the Son alone who is incarnate. But 
we are not to think in that, that the Father and the Spirit 
are not at work in the incarnation and that there is some how a 
division and a hard distinction of wills in the Trinity. There 
is one power, one will, one essence, one divine nature. There is one 
undivided God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And note, the language 
of the confession here, 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 
who made the world. This is the One who became incarnate. And this is that point at which 
Christians are to marvel at this truth. The One who became incarnate 
is the Son of God. The One who became incarnate 
is the second person of the Holy Trinity. The one who became incarnate 
is not an angel, is not a seraph, is not the cherubim or the seraphim, 
but rather the one who became incarnate is very an eternal 
God, the brightness of the Father's glory, of one substance and equal. with him who made the world. 
And that's important, equal with him who made the world. Wasn't 
the case that we had father as commander and son as the subservient 
lesser divine among the Trinity that humbly obeys his father's 
command in the eternal council and is somehow, because of his 
subservience, coming according to the Father's command. We have 
one who is very an eternal God, equal with Him who made the world, 
who does determine to take upon Himself man's nature, which is 
humility, which is condescension, but we do not have some sort 
of disunity or inequality among the persons of the Trinity. All right, so it is the sun and 
the sun alone who was incarnate. Secondly, it was God, the divine 
nature in the person of the sun, who became incarnate. We just 
rehearsed that with the language that we read there, but it's 
the sun, but we must remember that it is the divine sun. It 
is God, the divine nature in the person of the sun, who became 
incarnate. And again, John 1.14. And now 
you can turn again, or not again, but now to 1 Timothy 3. We briefly alluded to it, but 
notice the language there in 1 Timothy 3 with regards to this 
most glorious doctrine. 1 Timothy 3 and beginning in verse 
16. Language here is with and without 
controversy, but the language could be rendered by common confession. By common confession, great is 
the mystery of godliness. And just pause there for a second. 
That means that the time of Paul's writing, there was a creedal 
form of biblical truth being rehearsed and being distributed 
and being reflected upon by Christians. This whole idea of no creed but 
the Bible is a creed, but it is also hogwash. The Christians 
in the early church used creeds that doesn't destroy or diminish 
sola scriptura. In fact, the doctrine of sola 
scriptura assumes and actually commands that we use creedal 
formulations of truth in order to reflect upon God, Christ, 
and those sorts of things. But here we see a creed being 
used by the Apostle Paul to enforce a blessed truth. God was manifested 
in the flesh, the creed begins. God was manifested in the flesh, 
justified in the spirit, seen by angels, preached among the 
Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in glory." 
So it is God, that is the divine nature in the person of the Son 
who became incarnate. Thirdly, it was a full humanity 
that was assumed. Notice the confession continues 
here. did, when the fullness of the 
time was come, take upon him man's nature, note, with all 
the essential properties and common infirmities thereof. So 
it was a full humanity that was assumed. Remember, not just a 
body, not just a flesh suit, but it was a full humanity that 
was assumed. This is Gregory Nazianzen in 
the fourth century. Nope, that's the order of worship 
for today. This is Gregory of Nazianzus 
in the 4th century. Speaking of Christ, He has not healed. So he starts 
with the implication. If Christ did not assume a full 
humanity, then those parts or those elements, those constituent 
parts that he did not assume, then are not healed. So we do 
not have a full redemption. We do not have a full salvation. 
For that which he has not assumed, he has not healed. If only half 
Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half 
also. But if the whole of His nature 
fell, and it did, it must be united to the whole nature of 
Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole. Let them 
not then begrudge us our complete salvation, or clothe the Savior 
only with bones and nerves and the portraiture of humanity. 
He's speaking, I believe, here against the Apollinarians, who 
supposed that Christ only animated a body. And that's simplistic, 
but we'll leave it at that. That's why he says here, let 
them not then, those Apollinarians, begrudge us our complete salvation 
or clothe the Savior only with bones and nerves and the portraiture 
of humanity. He assumed our nature with all 
the essential properties and common infirmities thereof." 
What does that mean then? Well, he assumed body and soul. We see that he assumed body in 
texts like, and you can turn to these with me, Hebrews 2, 
17. So we're talking about the fact 
that Christ assumed a full humanity and that specifically at the 
point here of essential properties. And notice he assumed a body, 
Hebrews 2. 17, therefore in all things he 
had to be made like his brethren, that he might be a merciful and 
faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation 
for the sins of his people, the people, for in that he himself 
has suffered being tempted, he is also able to aid those who 
are tempted. And if you back up just a little 
bit here, verse 14, inasmuch then as the children have partaken 
of flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared in the same, 
that through death he might destroy him who had the power of death, 
that is the devil, and release those who through fear of death 
were all their lifetime subject to bondage. And note again here 
for indeed he does not give aid to angels, but he does give aid 
to the seed of Abraham. Now that contains within it redemptive 
language, but it could be rendered not destroying the redemptive 
language, but upholding the assumption of full humanity. It could be 
rendered for indeed he does not take on the nature of angels, 
but he does take on the nature of the seed of Abraham. So we 
see here Christ himself shared in the same, that is, flesh and 
blood, partaking of flesh and blood. He assumes not the nature 
of angels to redeem angels, but he assumes the nature of man 
to redeem man. And that is contained here in 
flesh and blood in which by which he made propitiation for the 
sins of the people. No doubt that includes the mind 
as well that was assumed, but the emphasis there is on the 
flesh and blood and on the nature of the sons of Abraham. Luke 
24, 39, you don't have to turn there, but what does that show 
us? Luke 24, in fact, not just 39, but a couple of sections 
in that post-resurrection narrative, we see Christ showing his disciples 
his body. He says, look, the print of the 
nails, look at my side. Not only does he say, look, but 
he says, touch, handle, and see that it is I. You know, it's 
almost as if Luke is helping the early church come up against 
docetic heretics, though that's not the primary purpose. He's 
showing forth the Christ as the glorious promised one who redeemed 
guilty sinners from their sins. But you see, he is not a phantom. He's not a specter. As one old 
church father said, or early church father said, if Christ 
was a specter, if his humanity was a specter, then our salvation 
is a phantom also. He shows himself to be real man. 
He shows himself to be a fully assumed humanity. He has wounds. 
He has body. Touch me. Handle me and see. 
Not only that, but he even says, look, I'm going to eat this broiled 
fish and honeycomb. to show you that you should have 
joy. Do not disbelieve or do not be 
found in unbelief because of the fact that you're overjoyed 
by me. Look at me, handle me, see, I'm eating, you can touch 
me. So Christ assumed essential properties. He assumed our nature, 
which is that it comes with those characteristics of essential 
properties and common infirmities. Of course, 1 John 1.1, Pastor 
Kirkpatrick has been preaching through that. It opens up with 
that acknowledgement by John that we handled him, our eyes 
saw him, we touched. This one. Why would you entertain 
any heretical notion, any madness, that the Son of God did not assume 
flesh for our redemption? We saw Him, we touched Him. This 
glorious one, the Word made flesh. Secondly, He assumed a soul. 
So what does essential properties mean in the Confession? Body 
and soul. We're just working through these 
quickly. But He assumed body. We've already looked at that. 
And He assumed soul. Isaiah 53. You can turn to Isaiah 
53, and then a coordinate passage 
after that. But notice in Isaiah 53, and specifically verse 10, 10. 10. Yet it pleased the Lord to 
bruise him. He has put him to grief when 
you make his soul and offering for sin. He shall see his seed, 
he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall 
prosper in his hand. And again, verse 11, he shall 
see the labor of his soul and be satisfied. So Christ not only 
assumes body when he assumes humanity, but he assumes soul 
as well. You can turn to Matthew 26. Matthew 
26. Notice beginning in verse 36, 
then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane and 
said to the disciples, sit here while I go and pray over there. 
And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee and he 
began to be sorrowful and deeply distressed. Then he said to them, 
my soul is exceedingly sorrowful even to death. stay here and 
watch with me. You see that language there? 
Similar to Isaiah 53, my soul is exceedingly sorrowful even 
to death. Now, Isaiah 53 is most likely 
speaking about when he's on the cross, the travail of his soul 
bearing the wrath of God when he cries out, my God, my God, 
why hast thou forsaken me? But in Gethsemane, make no mistake, 
there was travail of soul there. We see that here. My soul is 
exceedingly sorrowful, even to death. We see later in the narrative, 
of course, you know, Father, if it is possible, let this cup 
pass from me. And so Christ assumes not just 
a flesh suit, not only body, but he assumes soul as well. 
And as Owen notes, this includes the will, it includes affections, 
and it includes endowments, that is, wisdom and growing in stature, 
as in Luke chapter 2. So he has a human will. This is a doctrine that the early 
church came up against. When it articulated in Chalcedon, 
particular doctrines of Christology, that there were two natures united 
in one person, they had to subsequently answer questions then, okay, 
well, If there are two natures, and if Christ assumed body and 
soul, and not just body, not just a flesh envelope, then does 
he have two wills? And if he has two wills, is that 
not then two persons? Because the definition of a person 
includes an individual rational soul and will. And so they had 
to deal with that and flesh it out. And the answer was that 
Christ most certainly has two wills, or else humanity has no 
redeemed will. but it is two wills in one person. And in fact, in the passage that 
we just discussed there, or that I just alluded to, nevertheless 
not my will, but thine be done, the Son, Christ, says in the 
Garden of Gethsemane. when he asks if, you know, if 
it's possible that this cup pass from me, he resolves to the Father's 
will, not to his own human will that is, you know, pleading that 
if it is possible for the cup to pass from him, that is the 
cup of the wrath of God. This isn't the divine will or 
Christ, according to his divine will, asking something different 
then and not in that perfection of harmony with the Father's 
will, but rather Christ according to his human will asking if this 
cup can pass from him because his soul is exceedingly sorrowful 
even to death. All of that to say the essential 
properties includes body and soul and that soul also includes 
with it the implication or the entailment of a will and also 
affections and endowments or gifts such as wisdom and growth 
in stature. And secondly, common infirmities. 
So it was a full humanity that was assumed And if this means, 
as the Confession says, all the essential properties and common 
infirmities thereof, what does common infirmities mean? And 
just quickly, a quote from Owen that's in agreement with Gregory 
of Nazianz and at this point, that the nature which had offended 
might suffer. This is answering the question, 
why did God send Christ to be born of a virgin to assume our 
humanity? And the answer is this, that 
the nature which had offended might suffer. and make satisfaction, 
and so He might be every way a fit and sufficient Savior for 
men. He's not saying, when He says that the nature which had 
offended might suffer, He's not saying that Christ offended, 
and so He had to suffer, but what He's saying is that the 
whole nature of humanity offended, that is, all have sinned and 
have fallen short of the glory of God. all are under the federal 
headship of Adam, who by one act of disobedience made sinners, 
or made the unrighteous. Because, or by virtue of the 
fall, Owen is saying, Christ had to assume the nature that 
fell in order that that nature which had offended might suffer. 
So what does common infirmities mean then? We could probably 
wrap it up in just three quick notes of biblical text that allude 
to certain things that are common infirmities. He hungered, Matthew 
4.2. He was weary, John 4.6. And he 
suffered being tempted, Hebrews 2.18. So the essential properties, 
you know, refers to those properties of humanity. He assumed full 
humanity with essential properties, body, soul, will, affections, 
endowments. And common infirmities, you know, refers to those things 
that mark that full humanity. He hungered, he was weary, and 
he suffered being tempted. No doubt there are other things, 
but things of such tenor and flavor as those. Fourthly, under 
the theological entailments of the Incarnation, we want to note 
that Christ is sinless in His humanity. The confession after 
saying that Christ took upon Him man's nature with all the 
essential properties and common infirmities thereof, affirms 
and qualifies rightly, yet without sin. That clause is important 
for our salvation and for the perfection of our redemption 
and recovery. We need a sinless Savior. And so Christ is sinless in His 
humanity. We want to note that the substitutionary 
righteousness and obedience and sinlessness of Christ that is 
imputed to us and received by faith alone is not the inherent 
sinlessness with respect to His divinity. Christ is, of course, 
sinless according to his divinity but it is his sinless humanity 
his sinlessness and his spotlessness and the fact that he is without 
blemish according to his humanity because he doesn't need to save 
deity he needs to save humanity and so it is Christ is sinless 
in his humanity Hebrews 4.14 Hebrews 7.26, He is wholly harmless 
and undefiled. 1 Peter 1, a lamb without blemish 
and without spot. 1 Peter 2, He's without guile 
of tongue. Those practical examples that 
Peter could reflect upon. When he was reviled, he did not 
revile in return. When he suffered, he did not 
threaten, but committed himself to him who judges righteously. 
Christ is sinless in his humanity, and that is absolutely necessary. 
This clause, yet without sin, if that was taken out, well, 
it would still be true that Christ was sinless. But if the truth 
behind it was removed from our holy religion, was removed from 
Christianity, we would be without hope. We would be without salvation. We would be without redemption. 
And lastly, under the theological entailments of the incarnation, 
that Christ is one in person. The language of the confession 
says at the end here, so that to whole, perfect, and distinct 
natures were inseparably joined together in one person without 
conversion, composition, or confusion. Now that language is important. 
First off, the unity of person is important. We do not have 
in Christ, you know, two persons, Son of God and then also Son 
of Man. We have Son of God and Son of 
Man, yet one Christ, but we don't have two persons in the hypostatic 
union. In the union of humanity and 
divinity, we do not have a divine person assuming a divine person, 
we have a divine person assuming human nature. And this is very 
important for the same reason that Christ assumed full humanity 
is important for our perfect redemption and our perfect salvation. 
If it is two persons and it's only the humanity, because it 
is only humanity that is redeemed, then it is not a humanity that's 
united truly and properly with the divinity, but rather these 
two realities that somehow go along, but don't connect, don't 
come together. There is no proper union. And 
so our redemption then as well is vanity, and our redemption 
is loss, and our redemption is hopeless, if it is a two-person 
Christology. He was not two persons, and secondly, 
he was not a third thing, the product of a commingling of deity 
and humanity. Notice the language of the text 
here. Two whole perfect, and distinct natures were inseparably 
joined together in one person, but without conversion, composition, 
or confusion. And so there is then no third 
thing created by the union of divinity and humanity the product 
of a commingling of those two things, but rather one glorious 
person, two natures, which person, as the confession said, is very 
God and very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God 
and man. And we'll spend a little bit 
more time on that next time. You see, all of this is to end 
with this. The incarnation is unto the purpose 
that we would have a glorious mediator between God and man 
that would affect our redemption. A proper understanding of the 
incarnation helps us to grasp a proper understanding of the 
glorious gospel of the blessed God. that the Son of God, the 
second of the blessed triune, the brightness of the Father's 
glory, the One who is equal and glorious and co-eternal with 
Him, came down from the pinnacle of glory to our lower shame to 
assume our humanity yet without sin to save us from our sins. What a glorious truth. the Incarnation 
is. Next time we'll look at the means 
of affecting the Incarnation, how did God send Him, the peculiar 
act of the Holy Spirit in the formation of the human nature, 
and the taking of flesh from the substance of Mary, among 
other things. Let's close in prayer and then 
if there's any questions you can fire away. Heavenly Father, 
we thank you for this brief study in the doctrine of the Incarnation. 
rejoice in your truth revealed in the holy scriptures by divine 
inspiration that the word or son that took upon himself man's 
nature for our redemption for the salvation of his elect and 
we rejoice in in that so glorious truth we thank you that in him 
we have the forgiveness of sins that in him we have a righteousness 
not our own that avails with you, imputed to us, received 
by faith alone. We rejoice in the glorious gospel 
of you, our blessed God, and we pray that we would return 
unto you praises as we go into worship. Help us to worship you, 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and might we sing the praises 
of so great a grace, so great a mercy, so great an eternal 
love. We pray in Christ Jesus the Lord. 
Amen.