In his sermon on the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession, Eric Bechler discusses Christ as the mediator, emphasizing that Christ's work of mediation is performed according to both His divine and human natures. The sermon explains the necessity of these dual natures: Christ's human nature was essential for bearing the penalty of sin and experiencing human suffering, while His divine nature was crucial for offering a sacrifice of infinite value and applying the fruits of His work to believers. Bechler highlights the importance of understanding the communicatio idiomatum, the theological concept that the attributes of Christ's two natures are united in His single person. He addresses historical heresies, such as Eutychianism and Nestorianism, which misconstrue this doctrine. Reformed theology, following the Council of Chalcedon, maintains that Christ's natures are united without confusion or change, allowing Him to act fully as both God and man in His mediatory role. The sermon concludes by stressing the importance of understanding this doctrine for a correct view of Christ's identity and work.

A reading this morning from the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 comes from chapter 8 again of Christ the Mediator paragraph 7 Christ in the work of mediation acteth according to both natures by each nature doing that which is proper to itself, yet by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in Scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature. This morning we continue with chapter 8 of Christ the Mediator. The main point of our previous paragraph emphasized that Christ's work on the cross was for the elect in all ages, even those prior to the cross. Old Testament believers were not held in a temporary place after dying. Old Testament believers were justified not by satisfying the law, but by faith alone in Jesus Christ, just as New Testament believers were and just as today's believers are.

Our topic this morning focuses on Christ's acting according to both His divine and His human nature in the work of mediation. Quickly, let's remember what is mediation and what is Christ's work of mediation. Noah Webster tells us that mediation is the interposition, the intervention agency between parties at variance with a view to reconcile them. Robert Shaw comments that after the fall, man was alienated from God and subjected to his judicial displeasure, and his man was unable to satisfy the claims of the divine law which he had violated. If he was to be restored to the favor of his offended sovereign, the interposition of another person was requisite to atone for his guilt and lay the foundation of peace.

This is the office and the work assigned to Jesus Christ, the one mediator between God and man. We see this from Paul's letter to Timothy in 1 Timothy 2, 5, for there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man, Jesus Christ. Both natures mentioned here are Christ's natures as divine and human. Why though is it important to mention both natures of Christ in his work of mediation? I will read an excerpt from Bergkopf's Systematic Theology addressing not only the importance, but the necessity of both of Christ's natures in his work of mediation.

Regarding the necessity of his manhood. Since man sinned, it was necessary that the penalty should be borne by man. Moreover, the paying of the penalty involves suffering of body and soul, such as only man is capable of bearing. We see this in John 12, Acts 3, Hebrews 2, and Hebrews 9. It was necessary that Christ should assume human nature not only with all its essential properties, but also with all the infirmities to which it is liable after the fall, and should thus descend to the depths of degradation to which man had fallen." Hebrews 2, 17, and 18.

At the same time, he had to be a sinless man, for a man who was himself a sinner and who had forfeited his own life certainly could not atone for others. Hebrews 7 26. Only such a truly human mediator who had experimental knowledge of the woes of mankind and rose superior to all temptations could enter sympathetically into all the experiences, the trials, and the temptations of man and be a perfect human example for his followers. Regarding the necessity of his Godhead, in the divine plan of salvation it was absolutely essential that the mediator should also be very God. This was necessary in order that one, he might bring a sacrifice of infinite value and render perfect obedience to the law of God.

Two, that he might bear the wrath of God redemptively, that is, so as to free others from the curse of the law. And three, he might be able to apply the fruits of his accomplished work to those who accepted him by faith. Man with his bankrupt life can neither pay the penalty of sin nor render perfect obedience to God. He can bear the wrath of God and except for the redeeming grace of God will have to bear it eternally, but he cannot bear it so as to open a way of escape. So we have here a case for the necessity of the manhood and the necessity of the Godhead of Christ, two natures yet one person doing the work of mediation between God and man.

It is the Lord Jesus, one person, who is truly God and truly man doing this work. Our paragraph this morning is a little bit confusing and deals with two different aspects of how scripture handles both natures. The first is straightforward, it's by each nature doing that which is proper to itself. This was covered also already in what I read about Berkoff with respect to Christ's manhood and Christ's Godhead. The second is that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.

It's maybe a little bit confusing, but I'll give some examples. Sometimes in the Bible accounts we see Jesus, the man, performing divine works. In the Gospel of John we read that the Son of Man descended from heaven in John 3.13 which was read, and no man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven. Here Jesus is claiming to have descended from heaven. For this to be true, Jesus must have been pre-existent in some way.

There is no teaching in the Bible for man, for people, to exist before they were born. Next we read that Jesus turned water into wine in John 2, 1 through 11. We read in many places that Jesus healed the sick and raised the dead. In these cases, we see the divine nature being attributed to the person of Christ, or we see it as the human nature. Now, from the other side, let's look at some examples where the human nature was attributed to the divine nature.

We read in Paul's letter to the Corinthians that the Lord of glory was crucified, yet only the human nature could suffer and die. In 1 Corinthians 2, 8, which none of the princes of this world knew, for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. In the Acts of the Apostles, where we read of Paul's farewell to the Ephesian elders, we read of his own blood, where his is referring to God. But we know God doesn't have blood. We read in Acts 20, 28, take heed therefore unto yourselves and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost has made you overseers to feed the Church of God, which he had purchased with his own blood.

Thus we have the one person Christ acting according to both his human nature and his divine nature in doing the work of mediation. So the question that comes up is why is this here in our confession? Why is this important for us to understand and study? There are actually a lot of disagreements, really a lot of disagreements over this communication of the attributes of the two natures of Christ. For those who like Latin phrases, this is called communicatio idiomatum.

Maybe. Pronounced like that, maybe. The CARM.org website lists a number of these disagreements or heresies, and there are many more than what I'm going to mention today. The first one here is Eudachaeanism. It's a heresy from the fourth and fifth century that states that Christ's natures were so thoroughly combined, in a sense scrambled together, that the result was that Christ was not really truly able to relate to us as humans.

The problem is that this implies that Jesus was not truly God nor man. Therefore, he would be unable to act as a mediator and unable to truly atone for our sins. Monophysitism is a theological error regarding the two natures of Jesus. It states that Jesus' two natures are combined into one new one. The problem here is that neither God nor man was represented in Christ with this idea, but a new third thing.

Nestorianism is a theological error concerning the two natures of Christ, which states the divine and the human natures of Christ were so separated from each other that they were not in contact. The problem here is that worship of the human Jesus would then not be allowed. And previously I mentioned some exchanges of the natures to the person of Christ. R. Scott Clark describes another view in that the properties of one nature are communicated to the other nature.

There is the genus majestaticum, whereby the infinite attributes of the divine nature, such as omnipresence and omnipotence, omnipotence, are ascribed to the human nature. In the genus tapien noticum, whereby the finite attributes of the human nature are ascribed to the divine. So this is a little bit confusing because we mentioned before that Christ is one person with two natures. So when we talked about the natures being properly described in Scripture and then we see other Scriptures where the properties were described to the other. So these are positions where they say, oh clearly it's this way or it's this way.

What we believe is there's one person, Christ, with two natures, and we see his person can exhibit both divine or human natures. Not that the human nature can have infinite properties or the divine nature have human properties. It all goes back to the one person of Christ. So Ligonier Ministries offered a response to these opinions. Reform theology rejects the views that I mentioned here of the communication of the attributes as violating historic orthodox Christology.

According to the Council of Chalcedon, the two natures of Christ are inseparably united in the one divine person of the Son of God without confusion, without mixture, without change. The divine nature remains truly divine and the human nature remains truly human, each retaining its own attributes. This must be so. If Christ's humanity acquires a divine attribute, Jesus is no longer truly human and cannot represent other human beings before God or atone for their sin. For Reformed theology, the communicatio idiometum means the attributes of each of Christ's natures are communicated to the person of Christ.

We can predicate what is true of each nature to Christ's person. So the person of Christ is omnipresent, but not according to his human nature. He is omnipresent according to his divine nature because only deity is omnipresent. Likewise the person of Christ died on the cross but Jesus experienced death according to his human nature for the divine nature is not subject to death nor decay. Again we have the one person, Jesus Christ, acting according to both his human nature and his divine nature in doing the work of mediation.

Both are necessary. This was a short paragraph, but it was important and I think there was some difficulties in understanding what it was saying. I hope what I've explained today helps clarify some of that. It's important that we understand this paragraph because it's really important to understand who is Christ and the work that he has done.