And no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire.
— Leviticus 6:30
For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.
— Hebrews 6:16
For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.
— Hebrews 12:10
And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
— Genesis 22:18
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
— Galatians 3:16
For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
— Hebrews 2:11
Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.
— Hebrews 3:2
It Was Necessary Our Mediator Should Be Man, by Thomas Goodwin. The following contains Chapter Four of Book Two of his work, Of Christ the Mediator.”
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.—Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
— Hebrews 2:16, 17
That it was necessary our mediator should be man.—The reasons why the angelical nature would not have been proper for this work; and therefore why Christ assumed not that, but the nature of man.
That which next is to be demonstrated is, that if Christ be a mediator, he must be something else than mere God or second person; as the text saith, ‘He took to himself the seed of Abraham.’
For, first, if he be a reconciler he must become a priest, and offer up something by way of satisfaction to God; so Heb. 8:3, ‘Every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore of necessity he must have somewhat to offer;’ and that which he offers must needs yet be greater than all things but God. For nothing else would be a sacrifice great enough to expiate sin; and therefore that which he offers must some way be himself, for otherwise there could nothing be greater than all things, and yet withal something else than God. And therefore still it is said, ‘he offered himself.’ But if he be God only, he cannot be sacrificed nor offered up.
And again, secondly, if he be God only, he should reconcile us to his own self; but he that is a reconciler must be some way made diverse from him unto whom the reconciliation is made, for he is to be a surety to him; and therefore Christ being made man, he, as ὀικονομικῶς, or ministerially considered, is diverse from himself as φυσικῶς considered, viz., as he is the Son of God, and so is fit to become a party between us, and to reconcile us to himself.
And, thirdly, if he be a reconciler and mediator, he must become some way subject to God, and less than God ratione officii; as he says, ‘My Father is greater than I,’ John 14:28, for he must subject and submit himself, and be obedient, and be content to be arrested by the law. He must become an intercessor and entreater, and so become subject, as Christ did, who, when he was equal with God, humbled himself: Phil. 2:6–8, ‘Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.’
Now, then, if he must take up some creature or other, it must be a rational creature; and therefore there being but two sorts of creatures reasonable, angels and men, they are both mentioned in the text as those that only were capable and fit for this assumption. The disputes of some schoolmen, that the Son of God might have assumed any creature, though unreasonable, into one person with himself, are in a manner blasphemous. And, to be sure, if such an assumption had been possible, yet unfit.
First; for his person, for which we see the reasons of the schoolmen, for there was reason that he that is taken up to this glory should be capable of knowing and loving God.
And secondly; and above all, for this work, for he must be holy: Heb. 7:26, ‘For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens.’ Such a high priest became us as was holy, he should not fulfil the law else. He must love God, for love is the fulfilling of the law. He must have an understanding and a will. He must be full both of grace and truth: of truth in his understanding part, of grace in his will. And he was to become obedient to God for us, and to have a holy will; for the will of the Godhead could not have become subject.
Now, then, seeing there are but two rational natures, angels and men, that can stand for this place, it is to be considered which of these two is the fitter.
Now, consider this fitness as it relates to the person of the Son of God simply so considered; and so the nature of angels was a fairer match for him by far. But an angel, though a more fit match for him who is a Spirit, and they spirits, and so there is a nearer assimilation, and which he would have assumed and united to himself (for his soul, when separate, was still united to him); yet it was not so fit for this business to reconcile us, therefore he says, Heb. 2:16, at no hand he took their nature. He supposeth it possible, he would not else have instanced in it, but he by no means supposeth it as fit; for ‘it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren.’
First, It was not so fit for us that he should assume the angelical nature, it was not so fit,
That we, being the persons to be reconciled, should be beholden to a stranger, but to a kinsman of our own nature. It was a law in Israel that their prince should not be a stranger; and it was meet to take place in this, that one should not be a mediator who is a stranger.
That the relations that were to be between us and him might be founded upon the greatest nearness, and so more natural and kindly, it was meet that the mediator should be of the same nature with us.
(1.) He that reconciled us was to be head to us; and it was fit the head and the body should be, as near as could be, of the same nature, homogeneal, not diverse, else there would be a monstrosity in it. (2.) We were to be made sons in him, and he to be our brother, and therefore to be of the same nature, Cant. 8:1.
(3.) He was to be a husband to us, and man and wife must be of the same nature, that she may be bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh.
3. That he might more naturally love us more, and we him, it was fit that he should take our nature. Likeness is the cause of love. Brethren that are like each other, love more than the other of the brethren use to do; therefore God made man in his image at first, that so he might be the nearer object of his love. But if he will take up our nature also to himself, how will this raise his love yet higher! His end in reconciling was to make us like himself, and therefore he made himself like to us, and we being to partake of a divine nature from him, he partakes of a human nature with us; and therefore he was made in the likeness of man. Kings, whom they love, they use to apparel like themselves; their favourites were so of old. As men are to love men better than angels, because made of one blood, and God did it on purpose; so Christ seeing his own nature in us, and that we are given him, cannot but love us the better; he cannot be averse to his own flesh and blood.
Secondly, An angel’s nature would not have been so fit for the business or work itself; for,
1. Seeing that justice permitted a commutation, it was but comely that yet justice might be satisfied in all other points as near as possibly might be. It was but fitting that satisfaction should be made in the sameness of nature at least, seeing it could not be by the same individual persons. This reason seems to be rendered, Rom. 8:3, ‘For 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.’ He took the likeness of sinful flesh, to condemn sin in the flesh. Also this was meet, that the very same nature that was contaminated and defiled might be cleansed and purified, that they who are sanctified, and he that sanctifieth, might be of one nature: Heb. 2:11, ‘For both he that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren.’
And, 2. Seeing that we fell by the sin of a man, God (that in his wisdom and justice loves like proportion to be made up, himself making all things in due order and measure) ordained that we should be redeemed by a man. This reason is intimated 1 Cor. 15:21, ‘Since by man came death, by man also the resurrection of the dead;’ and so by the like parallel reason, seeing by man came sin, by man came redemption; the like proportion the apostle also holds forth, Rom. 5:15–18, ‘But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead; much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore, as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.’
Thirdly, If we consider the obedience which the mediator was to perform for us, it was not fit he should be an angel. For,
1. He was to fulfil the whole law, and every iota of it, and that in a double respect.
(1.) For our righteousness.
(2.) For our example.
Now in either of these respects an angel was not so fit; for the angels were not capable of fulfilling so many parts of the law as a human nature is. An angel could not perform the ceremonial, as to be circumcised, &c.; nor half the moral, as to be subject to parents, to be temperate, sober, to sanctify the Sabbath, &c. But it became him that was our mediator (as far as possibly might be) to fulfil all (that is, every part of righteousness.
2. He was to fulfil all this righteousness by way of example. Socinus he would make it all the intent of Christ’s coming into this world (but blasphemously); yet this was requisite, that Christ should set us the greatest example of holiness. 1 Peter 2:21, ‘He left us an example that we should follow his steps: who, when he was reviled, reviled not again, nor was guile found in his mouth.’ He was to be a visible example; now so an angel’s obedience-could not have been. He was to be a perfect example and copy—Follow me as I follow Christ, says Paul, 1 Cor. 11:1—now so an angel could not have been. All duties of obedience that are performed in the body, as we are men, they are not capable of; the second table is cut off to them; their obedience is only spiritual, and the duties of the first table.
As thus an angel’s nature only could not have fulfilled that law we were to have fulfilled, so much less could it have suffered what was requisite. They could have endured God’s wrath indeed, but not that other curse which went out in the letter against us; they could not die, not return to dust, and bodily death was threatened, ‘To dust thou shalt return.’ They had no body and soul to be separated by death, and therefore could not be a sacrifice for sin, for without blood there is no remission: Heb. 9:22, ‘And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission;’ for without blood it had not been extensive, a full redemption. Now the angels have no blood to lay down nor shed.
Lastly, It was not so fit that we should be reconciled by angels, but by one in our own nature, that so the devils might be the more confounded. Now seeing the devil had out of malice ruined man’s nature, God would have man’s nature to destroy the works of the devil, as 1 John 3:8, ‘He that committeth sin, is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.’ And God, to the devil’s confusion, would have him led captive by one who is man. So Heb. 2:14, ‘He took the nature of man, that he might by death destroy him that had the power of death.’ It is a reason given of his assuming it. If this great act had been done by an angel, the devil might have said he had met with his match, and so was foiled; but to have it done by a weak man, one that was once a babe, a suckling, this was a mighty confusion of him. And thus it is noticed in the 8th psalm, which is applied to Christ, ‘Out of the mouths of sucklings thou hast ordained strength, that thou mightest still the enemy and avenger,’ Ps. 8:2. And this very confusion and revenge upon Satan, who was the cause of man’s fall, was aimed at by God at first; therefore is the first promise and preaching of the gospel to Adam brought in rather in sentencing him than in speaking to Adam, that the seed of the woman should break the serpent’s head, it being in God’s aim as much to confound him as to save poor man.
https://takeupcross.com
takeupcross
Take Up the Cross 