Westminster Larger Catechism # 38
Commentary by Dr. Chuck Baynard
Q38. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God?
Answer: It was requisite that the Mediator should be God, that he might sustain and
keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God, and the power of
death, give worth and efficacy to his sufferings, obedience, and intercession, and to
satisfy God’s justice, procure his favour, purchase a peculiar people, give his
Spirit to them, conquer all their enemies, and bring them to ever lasting salvation.
References: Acts 2:24-25; Rom. 1:4; Rom. 4:25; Heb. 9:14; Acts 20:28; Heb. 9:14; Heb.
7:25-28; Rom. 3:24-26; Eph. 1:6; Mt. 3:17; Tit. 2:13-14; Gal. 4:6; Luke 1:68-69, 71, 74;
Heb. 5:8-9.
I don’t deny a single word the Divines have written in the answer to question
thirty-eight. Nonetheless I find they were too wordy and included things that have nothing
to do with the answer to the question, why did the mediator have to be God. They answer
this question in the first thirty-one words, yet continue for thirty eight additional
words naming some of the things that Christ as the God/man did in satisfying the justice
of God. It is as if they made the proper decision, then looking at its brevity decided it
must be more than this, and proceeded to add additional doctrinal statements until it was
a "full" blown. Perhaps it was an attempt to speak to the opponents of the day,
and reaction as much as an attempt to be complete.
I find statements here that I hesitate to toss aside lightly, but despite much
wrestling, just don’t seem to fit my understanding of the theology involved.
"Give worth and efficacy to his sufferings" for example makes no sense to me.
Neither Christ the man, nor any other has or ever will bring worth to the sacrifice by
their deeds. The efficacy was with God the Father from the beginning. If we ascribe the
ability of the human nature assumed by Christ to have been able to fulfill the covenant in
our behalf because He was also God, I fear we are poking holes in the doctrine that Christ
was "fully" man. This is a co-mingling of persons that is not permissible. In my
opinion if the presence of the divine nature is much more than the presence of the Holy
Spirit within the elect, then we again have crossed the line of fully man yet fully God.
While we see some glimpse of knowledge of who He was in Christ the man, it isn’t a
mingling of natures. It is only in this sense that Christ could fulfill His office as
prophet, yet show a definite lack of the full knowledge of God as man. For example His
discussion concerning the date of the end times where He says He doesn’t know but
only the Father knows. I think this points to the human nature, because Christ the second
person of the Trinity having been included in the eternal counsel and privy to the eternal
decrees would most certainly have known the whole story. To deny this I believe would be
the same as denying the deity of Christ, since Scripture says He is equal to God, lack of
this knowledge would deny this. There is an element of the metaphysical here I am not sure
we can with our finite minds grasp completely. This must be handled with great care so in
solving one problem we do not create several others.
"Procure his favor" doesn’t seem to fit anywhere in this question, or in
my opinion anywhere else in Scripture. I don’t care what the price is, if the favor
of God can be purchased, we are in trouble since grace no longer exists. It is all of
grace, and none of merit. I don’t deny that compared to the animals of the OT temple
worship that Christ is a far superior sacrifice, but the value of the sacrifice has noting
to do with the result. To be otherwise is to attack the "justice" of God.
". . . and keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God. .
.." I sure would like to speak with the Divines about the use of the word infinite
here. I would choose the word perfect or complete. Nonetheless, this was not done, or the
demands of the law were not fulfilled. Christ knew the full weight of sin, and for at
least some period of time knew separation from God as the Son of Man, that is the human
nature. Witness the words on the cross as foretold by the Psalmist "My God, My God,
why has thou forsaken me?" If speaking of the nature of mankind in general, it is a
little more acceptable, but then since it is only effective for the elect, it doesn’t
seem to be the nature of mankind in general is in sight here, but of the man Christ.
The ending of the question is a list of truths that the sacrifice of Christ
accomplished, but I don’t think He had to be God for these to be true in and of
themselves, only that God accept the sacrifice as meeting the requirement of the covenant
and satisfying His justice. I think the only way to get a handle on this is to view it
from the "legality" of the covenant. God required a price in the covenant that
man could not effect. God graciously provided the cost by way of His Son. We need to
retrieve a couple of facts we have discussed in earlier questions. First Christ was
sinless, to include the nature of sin that comes with being human renders the perfect
union of man and God impossible. He was sinless because of a unique "creation"
just like the first Adam. Second, the covenant had been designed and the compact made with
the Son from the foundation of the world, none other but the Son could have met its
requirements. "To satisfy God’s justice. . .." then is a valid part of the
answer. The covenant was made, and it would take this manifestation of God in the flesh to
bring it to completion. Then since we know the covenant was intended to be efficacious
only for the elect, and it was with the Son, the ending things in the Divines answer are a
result of the acceptance of His Son as the perfect vicarious sacrifice, not because the
Son of Man was God.
In my view there is no doubt that Christ knew this as well as He knew the outcome and
thus could say "I lay my life down, no man takes it, but I lay it down willingly, and
I will take it up again." Being aware of the divine nature that was also His, He
could speak with a sureness that the rest of us mortal men strive for. The ultimate
expression of faith being available in a way that is not available to mankind in general.
We also see Him receive the fulness of the Spirit in an abundance I don’t think mere
mortal can. This knowledge of his dual nature, and the abundant presence of the third
person of the Trinity worked in the flesh, what could not happen otherwise. Yet we see
this does nothing to raise the physical human body and nature of Christ above what is
available to all of us were we as certain of the presence of God and the indwelling
Spirit, which cannot be as full because of the sinful nature we are born with. The
doctrine fully man and fully God is maintained and God’s justice fulfilled as only
God in the flesh could do. Thus the necessity of the incarnation of Christ is proved
without poking holes in another side of our theological balloon in the process.
We have seen here the necessity of "covenant theology" and the laying of the
foundation in just the order laid out in the LC by the Divines. This will become even more
apparent as we dig into the deeper things of God. The revelation is progressive and the
end of the story doesn’t make sense without this foundation, just as no other
theology can bear the weight outside the covenant, and an understanding of first things
first.
We will see a portion of this is also interwoven into why it is necessary for the
mediator to be man in the next question. Finally the Divines will deal with the why of the
dual nature required for the Mediator. Thus this and the next two questions really need to
be read and understood as a unit. It is difficult to explain one portion without some
redundancy in commenting on the other aspect of the Mediator man and God in one person.
Dr. Chuck Baynard - 246 Rainbow Circle, Clover SC 29710 February 1998
LC Index
Observer Home Page
1st EPC Home Page
