Calvin, Institutes, Vol.2, Part 13
(... continued from part 12)
Chapter 12.
12. Christ, to perform the office of Mediator, behoved to become
Man.
The two divisions of this chapter are, I. The reasons why our
Mediator behoved to be very God, and to become man, see. 1-3. II.
Disposal of various objections by some fanatics, and especially by
Osiander, to the orthodox doctrine concerning the Mediator, sec. 4-
7.
Sections.
1. Necessary, not absolutely, but by divine decree, that the
Mediator should be God, and become man. Neither man nor angel,
though pure, could have sufficed. The Son of God behoved to
come down. Man in innocence could not penetrate to God without
a Mediator, much less could he after the fall.
2. A second reason why the Mediator behoved to be God and man, viz.,
that he had to convert those who were heirs of hell into
children of God.
3. Third reason, that in our flesh he might yield a perfect
obedience, satisfy the divine justice, and pay the penalty of
sin. Fourth reason, regarding the consolation and confirmation
of the whole Church.
4. First objection against the orthodox doctrine: Answer to it.
Conformation from the sacrifices of the Law, the testimony of
the Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, and even Christ himself.
5. Second objection: Answer: Answer confirmed. Third objection:
Answer. Fourth objection by Osiander: Answer.
6. Fifth objection, forming the basis of Osiander's errors on this
subject: Answer. Nature of the divine image in Adam. Christ the
head of angels and men.
7. Sixth objection: Answer. Seventh objection: Answer. Eighth
objection: Answer. Ninth objection: Answer. Tenth objection:
Answer. Eleventh objection: Answer. Twelfth objection: Answer.
The sum of the doctrine.
1. It deeply concerned us, that he who was to be our Mediator
should be very God and very man. If the necessity be inquired into,
it was not what is commonly termed simple or absolute, but flowed
from the divine decree on which the salvation of man depended. What
was best for us, our most merciful Father determined. Our
iniquities, like a cloud intervening between Him and us, having
utterly alienated us from the kingdom of heaven, none but a person
reaching to him could be the medium of restoring peace. But who
could thus reach to him? Could any of the sons of Adam? All of them,
with their parents, shuddered at the sight of God. Could any of the
angels? They had need of a head, by connection with which they might
adhere to their God entirely and inseparably. What then? The case
was certainly desperate, if the Godhead itself did not descend to
us, it being impossible for us to ascend. Thus the Son of God
behoved to become our Emmanuel, the God with us; and in such a way,
that by mutual union his divinity and our nature might be combined;
otherwise, neither was the proximity near enough, nor the affinity
strong enough, to give us hope that God would dwell with us; so
great was the repugnance between our pollution and the spotless
purity of God. Had man remained free from all taint, he was of too
humble a condition to penetrate to God without a Mediator. What,
then, must it have been, when by fatal ruin he was plunged into
death and hell, defiled by so many stains, made loathsome by
corruption; in fine, overwhelmed with every curse? It is not without
cause, therefore, that Paul, when he would set forth Christ as the
Mediator, distinctly declares him to be man. There is, says he, "one
Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus," (1 Tim. 2: 5.)
He might have called him God, or at least, omitting to call him God
he might also have omitted to call him man; but because the Spirit,
speaking by his mouth, knew our infirmity, he opportunely provides
for it by the most appropriate remedy, setting the Son of God
familiarly before us as one of ourselves. That no one, therefore,
may feel perplexed where to seek the Mediator, or by what means to
reach him, the Spirit, by calling him man, reminds us that he is
near, nay, contiguous to us, inasmuch as he is our flesh. And,
indeed, he intimates the same thing in another place, where he
explains at greater length that he is not a high priest who "cannot
be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all
points tempted like as we are, yet without sin," (Heb. 4: 15.)
2. This will become still clearer if we reflect, that the work
to be performed by the Mediator was of no common description: being
to restore us to the divine favour, so as to make us, instead of
sons of men, sons of God; instead of heirs of hell, heirs of a
heavenly kingdom. Who could do this unless the Son of God should
also become the Son of man, and so receive what is ours as to
transfer to us what is his, making that which is his by nature to
become ours by grace? Relying on this earnest, we trust that we are
the sons of God, because the natural Son of God assumed to himself a
body of our body, flesh of our flesh, bones of our bones, that he
might be one with us; he declined not to take what was peculiar to
us, that he might in his turn extend to us what was peculiarly his
own, and thus might be in common with us both Son of God and Son of
man. Hence that holy brotherhood which he commends with his own
lips, when he says, "I ascend to my Father, and your Father, to my
God, and your God," (John 20: 17.) In this way, we have a sure
inheritance in the heavenly kingdom, because the only Son of God, to
whom it entirely belonged, has adopted us as his brethren; and if
brethren, then partners with him in the inheritance, (Rom. 8: 17.)
Moreover, it was especially necessary for this cause also that he
who was to be our Redeemer should be truly God and man. It was his
to swallow up death: who but Life could do so? It was his to conquer
sin: who could do so save Righteousness itself? It was his to put to
flight the powers of the air and the world: who could do so but the
mighty power superior to both? But who possesses life and
righteousness, and the dominion and government of heaven, but God
alone? Therefore, God, in his infinite mercy, having determined to
redeem us, became himself our Redeemer in the person of his only
begotten Son.
3. Another principal part of our reconciliation with God was,
that man, who had lost himself by his disobedience, should, by way
of remedy, oppose to it obedience, satisfy the justice of God, and
pay the penalty of sin. Therefore, our Lord came forth very man,
adopted the person of Adam, and assumed his name, that he might in
his stead obey the Father; that he might present our flesh as the
price of satisfaction to the just judgement of God, and in the same
flesh pay the penalty which we had incurred. Finally, since as God
only he could not suffer, and as man only could not overcome death,
he united the human nature with the divine, that he might subject
the weakness of the one to death as an expiation of sin, and by the
power of the other, maintaining a struggle with death, might gain us
the victory. Those, therefore, who rob Christ of divinity or
humanity either detract from his majesty and glory, or obscure his
goodness. On the other hand, they are no less injurious to men,
undermining and subverting their faith, which, unless it rest on
this foundation, cannot stand. Moreover, the expected Redeemer was
that son of Abraham and David whom God had promised in the Law and
in the Prophets. Here believers have another advantage. Tracing up
his origin in regular series to David and Abraham, they more
distinctly recognise him as the Messiah celebrated by so many
oracles. But special attention must be paid to what I lately
explained, namely, that a common nature is the pledge of our union
with the Son of God; that, clothed with our flesh, he warred to
death with sin that he might be our triumphant conqueror; that the
flesh which he received of us he offered in sacrifice, in order that
by making expiation he might wipe away our guilt, and appease the
just anger of his Father.
4. He who considers these things with due attention, will
easily disregard vague speculations, which attract giddy minds and
lovers of novelty. One speculation of this class is, that Christ,
even though there had been no need of his interposition to redeem
the human race, would still have become man. I admit that in the
first ordering of creation, while the state of nature was entire, he
was appointed head of angels and men; for which reason Paul
designates him "the first-born of every creature," (Col. 1: 15.) But
since the whole Scripture proclaims that he was clothed with flesh
in order to become a Redeemer, it is presumptuous to imagine any
other cause or end. We know well why Christ was at first promised,
viz., that he might renew a fallen world, and succour lost man.
Hence under the Law he was typified by sacrifices, to inspire
believers with the hope that God would be propitious to them after
he was reconciled by the expiation of their sins. Since from the
earliest age, even before the Law was promulgated, there was never
any promise of a Mediator without blood, we justly infer that he was
destined in the eternal counsel of God to purge the pollution of
man, the shedding of blood being the symbol of expiation. Thus, too,
the prophets, in discoursing of him, foretold that he would be the
Mediator between God and man. It is sufficient to refer to the very
remarkable prophecy of Isaiah, (Is. 53: 4, 5,) in which he foretells
that he was "smitten for our iniquities;" that "the chastisement of
our peace was upon him;" that as a priest "he was made an offering
for sin;" "that by his stripes we are healed;" that as all "like
lost sheep have gone astray," "it pleased the Lord to bruise him,
and put him to grief," that he might "bear our iniquities." After
hearing that Christ was divinely appointed to bring relief to
miserable sinners, whose overleaps these limits gives too much
indulgence to a foolish curiosity.
Then when he actually appeared, he declared the cause of his
advent to be, that by appeasing God he might bring us from death
unto life. To the same effect was the testimony of the Apostles
concerning him, (John 1: 9; 10: 14.) Thus John, before teaching that
the Word was made flesh, narrates the fall of man. But above all,
let us listen to our Saviour himself when discoursing of his office:
"God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life." Again, "The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall
hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live." "I
am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he
were dead, yet shall he live." "The Son of man is come to save that
which was lost." Again, "They that be whole need not a physician." I
should never have done were I to quote all the passages. Indeed, the
Apostles, with one consent, lead us back to this fountain; and
assuredly, if he had not come to reconcile God, the honour of his
priesthood would fall, seeing it was his office as priest to stand
between God and men, and "offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins,"
(Heb. 5: 1;) nor could he be our righteousness, as having been made
a propitiation for us in order that God might not impute to us our
sins, (2 Cor. 5: 19.) In short, he would be stript of all the titles
with which Scripture invests him. Nor could Paul's doctrine stand
"What the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,
God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for
sin, condemned sin in the flesh," (Rom. 8: 3.) Nor what he states in
another passage: "The grace of God that bringeth salvation has
appeared to all men," (Tit. 2: 11.) In fine, the only end which the
Scripture uniformly assigns for the Son of God voluntarily assuming
our nature, and even receiving it as a command from the Father, is,
that he might propitiate the Father to us by becoming a victim.
"Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer;" - "and
that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his
name." "Therefore does my Father love me, because I lay down my
life, that I might take it again." - "This commandment have I
received of my Father." "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the
wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up." "Father, save
me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father,
glorify thy name." Here he distinctly assigns as the reason for
assuming our nature, that he might become a propitiatory victim to
take away sin. For the same reason Zacharias declares, (Luke 1: 79,)
that he came "to perform the mercy promised to our fathers," "to
give light to them that sit in darkness, and in the shadow of
death." Let us remember that all these things are affirmed of the
Son of God, in whom, as Paul elsewhere declares, were "hid all the
treasures of wisdom and knowledge," and save whom it was his
determination "not to know any thing," (Col. 2: 3; 1 Cor. 2: 2.)
5. Should any one object, that in this there is nothing to
prevent the same Christ who redeemed us when condemned from also
testifying his love to us when safe by assuming our nature, we have
the brief answer, that when the Spirit declares that by the eternal
decree of God the two things were connected together, viz., that
Christ should be our Redeemer, and, at the same time, a partaker of
our nature, it is unlawful to inquire further. He who is tickled
with a desire of knowing something more, not contented with the
immutable ordination of God, shows also that he is not even
contented with that Christ who has been given us as the price of
redemption. And, indeed, Paul not only declares for what end he was
sent, but rising to the sublime mystery of predestination,
seasonably represses all the wantonness and prurience of the human
mind. "He has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world,
that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having
predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to
himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise
of the glory of his grace, wherein he has made us accepted in the
Beloved: In whom we have redemption through his blood," (Eph. 1:
4-7.) Here certainly the fall of Adam is not presupposed as anterior
in point of time, but our attention is directed to what God
predetermined before all ages, when he was pleased to provide a cure
for the misery of the human race. If, again, it is objected that
this counsel of God depended on the fall of man, which he foresaw,
to me it is sufficient and more to reply, that those who propose to
inquire, or desire to know more of Christ than God predestinated by
his secret decree, are presuming with impious audacity to invent a
new Christ. Paul, when discoursing of the proper office of Christ,
justly prays for the Ephesians that God would strengthen them "by
his Spirit in the inner man," that they might "be able to comprehend
with all saints what is the breadth and length, and depth and
height; and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge,"
(Eph. 3: 16, 18;) as if he intended of set purpose to set barriers
around our minds, and prevent them from declining one iota from the
gift of reconciliation whenever mention is made of Christ.
Wherefore, seeing it is as Paul declares it to be, "a faithful
saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into
the world to save sinners," (1 Tim. 1: 15,) in it I willingly
acquiesce. And since the same Apostle elsewhere declares that the
grace which is now manifested by the Gospel "was given us in Christ
Jesus before the world began," (2 Tim. 1: 9,) I am resolved to
adhere to it firmly even to the end. This moderation is unjustly
vituperated by Osiander, who has unhappily, in the present day,
again agitated this question, which a few had formerly raised. He
brings a charge of overweening confidence against those who deny
that the Son of God would have appeared in the flesh if Adam had not
fallen, because this notion is not repudiated by any passage of
Scripture. As if Paul did not lay a curb on perverse curiosity when
after speaking of the redemption obtained by Christ, he bids us
"avoid foolish questions," (Tit. 3: 9.) To such insanity have some
proceeded in their preposterous eagerness to seem acute, that they
have made it a question whether the Son of God might not have
assumed the nature of an ass. This blasphemy, at which all pious
minds justly shudder with detestation, Osiander excuses by the
pretext that it is no where distinctly refuted in Scripture; as if
Paul, when he counted nothing valuable or worth knowing "save Jesus
Christ and him crucified," (I Cor. 2: 2,) were admitting, that the
author of salvation is an ass. He who elsewhere declares that Christ
was by the eternal counsel of the Father appointed "head over all
things to the church," would never have acknowledged another to whom
no office of redemption had been assigned.
6. The principle on which Osiander founds is altogether
frivolous. He will have it that man was created in the image of God,
inasmuch as he was formed on the model of the future Messiah, in
order to resemble him whom the Father had already determined to
clothe with flesh. Hence he infers, that though Adam had never
fallen from his first and pure original, Christ would still have
been man. How silly and distorted this view is, all men of sound
judgement at once discern; still he thinks he was the first to see
what the image of God was, namely, that not only did the divine
glory shine forth in the excellent endowments with which he was
adorned, but God dwelt in him essentially. But while I grant that
Adam bore the image of God, inasmuch as he was united to God, (this
being the true and highest perfection of dignity,) yet I maintain,
that the likeness of God is to be sought for only in those marks of
superiority with which God has distinguished Adam above the other
animals. And likewise, with one consent, acknowledge that Christ was
even then the image of God, and, accordingly, whatever excellence
was engraven on Adam had its origin in this, that by means of the
only begotten Son he approximated to the glory of his Maker. Man,
therefore, was created in the image of God, (Gen. 1: 27,) and in him
the Creator was pleased to behold, as in a mirror, his own glory. To
this degree of honour he was exalted by the kindness of the only
begotten Son. But I add, that as the Son was the common head both of
men and angels, so the dignity which was conferred on man belonged
to the angels also. For when we hear them called the sons of God,
(Ps. 82: 6,) it would be incongruous to deny that they were endued
with some quality in which they resembled the Father. But if he was
pleased that his glory should be represented in men and angels, and
made manifest in both natures, it is ignorant trifling in Osiander
to say, that angels were postponed to men, because they did not bear
the image of Christ. They could not constantly enjoy the immediate
presence of God if they were not like to him; nor does Paul teach
(Col. 3: 10) that men are renewed in the image of God in any other
way than by being associated with angels, that they may be united
together under one head. In fine, if we believe Christ, our felicity
will be perfected when we shall have been received into the heavens,
and made like the angels. But if Osiander is entitled to infer that
the primary type of the image of God was in the man Christ, on the
same ground may any one maintain that Christ behoved to partake of
the angelic nature, seeing that angels also possess the image of
God.
7. Osiander has no reason to fear that God would be found a
liar, if the decree to incarnate the Son was not previously
immutably fixed in his mind. Even had Adam not lost his integrity,
he would, with the angels, have been like to God; and yet it would
not therefore have been necessary that the Son of God should become
either a man or an angel. In vain does he entertain the absurd fear,
that unless it had been determined by the immutable counsel of God,
before man was created, that Christ should be born, not as the
Redeemer, but as the first man, he might lose his precedence, since
he would not have been born, except for an accidental circumstance,
namely, that he might restore the lost race of man; and in this way
would have been created in the image of Adam. For why should he be
alarmed at what the Scripture plainly teaches, that "he was in all
points tempted like as we are, yet without sin?" (Heb. 4: 15.) Hence
Luke, also, hesitates not to reckon him in his genealogy as a son of
Adam, (Luke 3: 38.) I should like to know why Christ is termed by
Paul the second Adam, (1 Cor. 15: 47,) unless it be that a human
condition was decreed him, for the purpose of raising up the ruined
posterity of Adam. For if in point of order, that condition was
antecedent to creation, he ought to have been called the first Adam.
Osiander confidently affirms, that because Christ was in the purpose
of God foreknown as man, men were formed after him as their model.
But Paul, by calling him the second Adam, gives that revolt which
made it necessary to restore nature to its primitive condition an
intermediate place between its original formation and the
restitution which we obtain by Christ: hence it follows, that it was
this restitution which made the Son of God be born, and thereby
become man. Moreover, Osiander argues ill and absurdly, that as long
as Adam maintained his integrity, he would have been the image of
himself, and not of Christ. I maintain, on the contrary, that
although the Son of God had never become incarnate, nevertheless the
image of God was conspicuous in Adam, both in his body and his soul;
in the rays of this image it always appeared that Christ was truly
head, and had in all things the pre-eminence. In this way we dispose
of the futile sophism put forth by Osiander, that the angels would
have been without this head, had not God purposed to clothe his Son
with flesh, even independent of the sin of Adam. He inconsiderately
assumes what no rational person will grant, that Christ could have
had no supremacy over the angels, so that they might enjoy him as
their prince, unless in so far as he was man. But it is easy to
infer from the words of Paul, (Col. 1: 15,) that inasmuch as he is
the eternal Word of God, he is the first-born of every creature, not
because he is created, or is to be reckoned among the creatures, but
because the entire structure of the world, such as it was from the
beginning, when adorned with exquisite beauty had no other
beginning; then, inasmuch as he was made man, he is the first-born
from the dead. For in one short passage, (Col. 1: 16-18,) the
Apostle calls our attention to both views: that by the Son all
things were created, so that he has dominion over angels; and that
he became man, in order that he might begin to be a Redeemer. Owing
to the same ignorance, Osiander says that men would not have had
Christ for their king unless he had been a man; as if the kingdom of
God could not have been established by his eternal Son, though not
clothed with human flesh, holding the supremacy while angels and men
were gathered together to participate in his celestial life and
glory. But he is always deluded, or imposes upon himself by this
false principle, that the church would have been "akefalon" -
without a head - had not Christ appeared in the flesh. In the same
way as angels enjoyed him for their head, could he not by his divine
energy preside over men, and by the secret virtue of his Spirit
quicken and cherish them as his body, until they were gathered into
heaven to enjoy the same life with the angels? The absurdities which
I have been refuting, Osiander regards as infallible oracles. Taking
an intoxicating delight in his own speculations, his wont is to
extract ridiculous plans out of nothing. He afterwards says that he
has a much stronger passage to produce, namely, the prophecy of
Adam, who, when the woman was brought to him, said, "This is now
bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh," (Gen. 2: 23.) But how does
he prove it to be a prophecy? Because in Matthew Christ attributes
the same expression to God! as if every thing which God has spoken
by man contained a prophecy. On the same principle, as the law
proceeded from God, let Osiander in each precept find a prophecy.
Add, that our Saviour's exposition would have been harsh and
grovelling, had he confined himself to the literal meaning. He was
not referring to the mystical union with which he has honoured the
Church, but only to conjugal fidelity, and states, that the reason
why God declared man and wife to be one flesh, was to prevent any
one from violating that indissoluble tie by divorce. If this simple
meaning is too low for Osiander, let him censure Christ for not
leading his disciples to the hidden sense, by interpreting his
Father's words with more subtlety. Paul gives no countenance to
Osiander's dream, when, after saying that "we are members of his
body, of his flesh, and of his bones," he immediately adds, "This is
a great mystery," (Eph. 5: 30-32.) For he meant not to refer to the
sense in which Adam used the words, but sets forth, under the figure
and similitude of marriage, the sacred union which makes us one with
Christ. His words have this meaning; for reminding us that he is
speaking of Christ and the Church, he, by way of correction,
distinguishes between the marriage tie and the spiritual union of
Christ with his Church. Wherefore, this subtlety vanishes at once. I
deem it unnecessary to discuss similar absurdities: for from this
very brief refutation, the vanity of them all will be discovered.
Abundantly sufficient for the solid nurture of the children of God
is this sober truth, that "when the fulness of the time was come,
God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to
redeem them who were under the law," (Gal. 4: 4, 5.)
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2, Part 13
(continued in part 14...)
----------------------------------------------------
file: /pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-04: cvin2-13.txt
.
