Westminster Larger Catechism # 39
Commentary by Dr. Chuck Baynard
Q39. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be man?
Answer: It was requisite that the Mediator should be man, that he might advance our
nature, perform obedience to the law, suffer and make intercession for us in our nature,
have a fellow-feeling of our infirmities; that we might receive the adoption of sons, and
have comfort and access with boldness unto the throne of grace.
References: Heb. 2:16; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 2:14; Heb. 4:15; Gal. 4:5; Heb. 4:16.
Once more I find a disturbance in my soul as I do not think the Divines did this
question justice. As they have in other places, the references are not conclusive and they
have given us some great truths that are a result of Christ’s atonement in general,
but do not apply to His human nature. I have too great a respect for the Divines and their
work not to take deviation from their line of thought very seriously, or to do anything
that would cast any shadows upon their finished work.
Nonetheless their response still begs the question. The proof texts are valid for the
statements made, not the question which requires a "theological" answer derived
from the logic of man for his benefit in understanding. Though I think it is easy to reach
this conclusion by normal and reasonable means, it is not addressed directly in Scripture.
Thus, as a positive statement, "It was of a necessity that Christ be man," I
have no problem receiving as being of Scripture and God. To present that, so all might
understand and accept it is another thing altogether.
The lack of direct Scripture support along with the tremendous diversity within the
body of the Divines resulted in the answer provided. I am not sure that we can do much
better today and still have an answer that will be embraced by all. As noted before, there
are areas where we are dealing with things that must be received by faith, and the
acceptance of the fact that with God all things are possible. Scripture fully supports
that Christ was God and man. We have touched on this in question thirty-eight. We will
deal with it at length in question forty.
First let me deal with the portion of the statement that I find unacceptable in my
"theory" concerning the necessity of the Christ being man of a necessity.
". . . that he might advance our nature . . .." is not supported in the Holy
Writ in my opinion. From the historical (pragmatic), (experiential) and Scriptural support
I do not agree that the nature of man has been advanced. Just like Adam, there has been
none before nor since that were created like Christ without this sinful nature that
remains in the flesh even of the regenerated. I think this question then must be addressed
from the ontological (metaphysical) perspective, whereby because His Son has the nature of
man, God no longer sees the totally depraved "nature" of man, but the image of
His beloved Son. ". . . perform obedience to the law . . ..," is to me one of
the key elements here. If He was to maintain the sinless nature in which He was created,
as a man, under the law, Christ had to perfectly obey the law because transgression of the
law is the definition of sin. It was a necessity then for Christ to be man and obey the
law with no more ability to do so than is available to all men. This does not mean we have
"perfect saints" today, for unlike Christ men do carry with them the sinful
flesh, even after regeneration and await their own glorification and a resurrection body
to be freed from the curse placed on all of creation because of sin. This one fact is all
the reason needed to make the statement that it was a necessity that Christ be man.
Was it necessary that Christ be able to "feel" our infirmities? I don’t
think so, for He was also God and is as perfect in empathy as all other aspects of His
being God. That He did is great comfort to man. The best counselors among men are those
who have stood in the shoes of the one they would counsel that their understanding would
be first person and they might establish a bond with the other person. Knowing Christ is
like man, able to suffer and feel the same temptations eases the mind of man as He comes
to Christ as his divine Counselor. But I do not think the issue of empathy with His
creation would make His being man a necessity.
The rest of the answer is the result of His being man and the "perfect"
sacrifice being accepted and are not related to the necessity of the issue at all. His
sinless condition as a man and thus the "perfect" sacrifice, that it might be
acceptable to God is a necessity, and this could only be accomplished in this God-man
which we can not touch with these finite minds of ours.
This question is interleaved with the covenant also. The incarnation and God as man can
cause much confusion in trying to properly understand covenant theology. There we found
that the covenant was made with Christ in the eternal counsel of God with His eternal Son
Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is eternal, and it is not improper to use that name, which is
only a synonym for Messiah or Son of God. However, we have a hard time understanding since
Christ also has a physical body and a place in time (history). Yet, this is true and the
covenant was made before the foundation of the world with Jesus Christ. This should be no
more of a mystery than God elected us before the world was created, or that the covenant
was created for our benefit when we (the elect) were no more than a speck in the divine
counsel of God with Himself. God has declared the end from the beginning, and that which
He has proposed He will do.
Perhaps our problem in understanding is that we see eternity as an infinite continuum
of time. God works apart from time and eternity is much more than just an infinite span of
time. There is no time line with God who sees generation after generation as present,
being in communion with the total of humanity past, present, and future. Yet we are bound
by time, created by God for just this purpose. It was God who gave us the means to track
and record this time. God speaks of the past in dealing with the present generation. All
this does not bring God within the boundaries of time. Thus God could and did make the
covenant with Jesus Christ in the fullness of His nature as the God-man from the
foundation of the earth.
For our purpose at this moment though, I think we have seen that because of the need
for a perfect and sinless sacrifice, acceptable to God, it was necessary that Jesus Christ
be man, which is the question in hand. Question forty should tie all this up in a package
we can understand and use.
Dr. Chuck Baynard - 246 rainbow Circle, Clover, SC 29710 February 1998
