The Sufferings of Christ's Soul

 

(notes based on Francis Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 2, pgs. 352-356)

Question: Did Christ in truth bear the spiritual and infernal punishments of sin themselves (in the superior as well as in the inferior part) properly in himself and from a sense of God's wrath? We affirm. 

Argument #1 - In John 12:27, Christ says "now is my soul troubled." In Matthew 26:38, He says "My soul is sorrowful (perilypos) even unto death." 

Bellarmine responds to this argument by citing a few different church fathers (Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Chrysostom). In this case, we confess that it is indeed true that these fathers interpret this passage to speak of things such as Christ's being sorrowful over the sin of Judas Iscariot and the Jews, as well as the disciples fleeing away from Him. However, this does not exclude that Christ also sorrowed out of dread of his bodily sufferings on the cross, which is why He began to sweat great drops of blood. We would have to disagree with Jerome when he says that Christ was not in any way sorrowful on account of death. 

Argument #2 - Just as man had sinned in both his body and soul, so Christ also must suffer in both the soul and body in order that they may both be redeemed. Hence Irenaeus says "The Lord thus has redeemed us through His own blood, giving His soul for our souls, and His flesh for our flesh" (Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 1)

Argument #3 - Christ was made a curse for us (Gal. 3:13), meaning that he undergoes the punishment for sin prescribed by the law. It is agreed (even by some of the papists, such as the Jesuit Juan Maldonatus) that Christ suffered the whole curse of the law. Since the curse of the law (cf. Gen. 2:17) pertained to both body and soul, therefore Christ also suffered in both His body and soul. 

Argument #4 - It is agreed upon by all that Psalm 22 is a prophecy of Christ's sufferings, the type of which are the sufferings of King David. But David also experienced suffering in his soul and heart (vv. 11, 14, 24), therefore Christ did as well. While it is true that the antitype is greater than the type even in this case, here it is not in respect of Christ supposedly suffering only in His body, but rather in respect of Christ's sufferings as having a far greater end than David's, namely the redemption and salvation of the elect. 

Answers to Objections

Objection #1 - "The Scriptures attribute our whole salvation to the bodily blood and death of Christ himself, and after his bodily death they acknowledge no further suffering (Philippians 2:8-9)." (Robert Bellarmine, On Christ)

Answer: When the Holy Scriptures attribute salvation to the cross and bodily death of Christ, this is not said to exclude his sufferings of soul. Rather it is said, by way of synecdoche denominating the whole the external aspect (the bodily sufferings). 

Objection #2 - "The animal sacrifices of the ceremonial OT law foreshadowed the sufferings of Christ. Since these were merely physical and external, such must also have been the case with the sufferings of Christ. Therefore, He did not experience any suffering in His soul. 

Answer: The sufferings of Christ's soul are contained in a general sense under the types of the OT. For example, fire is a symbol of divine wrath and it consumed the animal sacrifices. In this sense, it foreshadowed the sense of divine wrath which Christ experienced in His own soul.

Objection #3 - "Hebrews 10:10 says that Christ offered His body. It says nothing about His soul."

Answer: In this passage from Hebrews, there is not an antithesis between Christ's body and soul. Rather, the antithesis is between Christ's sacrifice and the Levitical sacrifices which were so often repeated, hence it emphasizes that Christ offered his body "once for all time."

Important Clarification/The Views of John Calvin

By this doctrine, we would never in any way teach that Christ despaired or damned. However, there are many Papists (such as Bellarmine and Taylor Marshall) who have accused Calvin of saying things like this, particular in Book 2, Chapter 16 of the Institutes.

Samuel Rutherford, Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himself [London: Andrew Crooke, 1647], pg. 6)

However, having read the Institutes myself, Calvin never said such a wicked thing. Here is the relevant passage from Calvin (as quoted by Dr. Marshall):

"But, apart from the Creed, we must seek for a surer exposition of Christ’s descent to hell: and the word of God furnishes us with one not only pious and holy, but replete with excellent consolation. Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death. In order to interpose between us and God’s anger, and satisfy his righteous judgement, it was necessary that he should feel the weight of divine vengeance. Whence also it was necessary that he should engage, as it were, at close quarters with the powers of hell and the horrors of eternal death [What!!! Christ suffered eternal death and the pains the hell!].We lately quoted from the Prophet, that the “chastisement of our peace was laid upon him” that he “was bruised for our iniquities” that he “bore our infirmities;” [the authors of Scripture and the Fathers apply these prophecies to the crucifixion–not to any penal condemnation in hell] expressions which intimate, that, like a sponsor and surety for the guilty, and, as it were, subjected to condemnation, he undertook and paid all the penalties which must have been exacted from them, the only exception being, that the pains of death could not hold him. Hence there is nothing strange in its being said that he descended to hell, seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God. It is frivolous and ridiculous to object that in this way the order is perverted, it being absurd that an event which preceded burial should be placed after it. But after explaining what Christ endured in the sight of man, the Creed appropriately adds the invisible and incomprehensible judgement [so the cross as visible judgment was not enough. Christ suffered in hell…] which he endured before God, to teach us that not only was the body of Christ given up as the price of redemption, but that there was a greater and more excellent price – that he bore in his soul the tortures of condemned and ruined man." (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Chapter 16)

There is nothing in this passage that says Christ was damned to hell. Calvin does not even use that word here at all.

On the contrary, hear what Calvin says in his Harmony of the Gospels:

"The solution, is easy, although the sense apprehended the destruction of the flesh, still faith stood fixed in his heart, by which he beheld a present God, concerning whose absence he complained" (Calvin, Harmony of the Gospels [trans. A.W. Morrison 1972], 3:208) 

The Flaws of the Genealogical Method in Modern Text-Criticism of the NT

 

- F.J.A. Hort and most NT critics after them have applied what has been known as the “genealogical method” when it comes to the text of the New Testament.

- Hort defines this method as follows: “The proper method of Genealogy consists....in the more or less complete recovery of the texts of successive ancestors by analysis and comparison of the varying texts of their respective descendants, each ancestral text so recovered being in its turn used, in conjunction with other similar texts, for the recovery of the text of a yet earlier common ancestor.” (Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek: Introduction and Appendix [NY: Harper and Brothers, 1882], pg. 57)

- “As the justification of their rejection of the majority, Westcott and Hort found the possibilities of genealogical method invaluable. Suppose that there are only ten copies of a document and that nine are all copied from one; then the majority can be safely rejected. Or suppose that the nine are copied from a lost manuscript and that this lost manuscript and the other one were both copied from the original; then the vote of the majority would not outweigh that of the minority. These are the arguments with which Westcott and Hort opened their discussion of genealogical methods.” (E.C. Colwell, “Genealogical Method: Its Achievements and Its Limitations”)

- The problem is that many of the components in the genealogical graphs which often see from Westcott-Hort, and many other modern NT critics, are just imaginary, hypothetical manuscripts.

- “That Westcott and Hort did not apply this method to the manuscripts of the New Testament is obvious. Where are the charts which start with the majority of late manuscripts and climb back through diminishing generations of ancestors to the Neutral and Western texts? The answer is that they are nowhere. Look again at the first diagram, and you will see that a, b, c, etc. are not actual manuscripts of the New Testament, but hypothetical manuscripts. The demonstrations or illustrations of the genealogical method as applied to New Testament manuscripts by the followers of Hort, the "Horticuli" as Lake called them, likewise use hypothetical manuscripts, not actual codices. Note, for example, the diagrams and discussions in Kenyon' most popular work on textual criticism, including the most recent edition. All the manuscripts referred to are imaginary manuscripts, and the later of these charts was printed sixty years after Hort.” (EC Colwell)

- Another problem is mixture:

“The second limitation upon the application of the genealogical method to the manuscripts of the New Testament springs from the almost universal presence of mixture in these manuscripts. . . . The genealogical diagram printed above (p. 110) from Westcott and Hort shows what happens when there is no mixture. When there is mixture, and Westcott and Hort state that it is common, in fact almost universal in some degree, then the genealogical method as applied to manuscripts is useless. Without mixture a family tree is an ordinary tree-trunk with its branches—standing on the branches with the single trunk—the original text—at the top. The higher up—or the further back—you go from the mass of late manuscripts, the fewer ancestors you have! With mixture you reverse this in any series of generations. The number of possible combinations defies computation, let alone the drawing of diagrams”  (E.C. Colwell)

Text-Types and Recensions

- “The major mistake is made in thinking of the "old text-types" as frozen blocks, even after admitting that no one manuscript is a perfect witness to any text-type. If no one MS is a perfect witness to any type, then all witnesses are mixed in ancestry (or individually corrupted, and thus parents of mixture).” (E.C. Colwell)

- “The point is, although different manuscripts exhibit varying affinities, share certain peculiarities, they each differ substantially from all the others (especially the earlier ones) and therefore should not be lumped together. There is no such thing as the testimony of a "Western" or "Alexandrian" text-type (as an entity)—there is only the testimony of individual MSS, Fathers, Versions (or MSS of versions).” (Pickering)

- The following chart demonstrates this point with a few examples from manuscripts/uncials generally considered to belong to the “Alexandrian text-type”:

- Another huge problem is the way in which manuscripts are classified to one “text-type” or the other. For example, Gordon Fee did a study of P66 in which he plots the percentage of agreement between P66 and the TR, P75, א, B, A, C, D, and W respectively, chapter by chapter, through the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John. The agreements are erratic and go all over the place, showing a range of variation around 30%. Why should these texts be lumped together? Showing peculiar agreements between manuscripts is not enough to classify them as one “text-type”, the numerous disagreements must also be taken into account. 

Notes on the Union of the Two Natures in Christ

 

Different Types of Union in Aristotle and St. Cyril

Harry Wolfson identified three different types of union within Aristotelian metaphysics:

[1]. A union between two things which are not reciprocally active and passive. In this type of union, the two constituent elements remained unchanged, their union being, as it were, a "clump" or aggregate of two things. An example would the wheat and barley is what spoken of as a mixture of the two. Aristotle used the term synthesis to refer to this type of union. 

[2]. A union between reciprocally active and reciprocally passive bodies which are divisible. In such a union, each of the constituents changes out of its own nature towards the other, yet neither becomes the other. The product of such a thing is a tertium quid, a new (third) thing formed out of the constituents. 

[3]. A union between reciprocally active and passive bodies, which are divisible, but are of unequal power of action and passion. The resultant union is not a tertium quid, but rather one of the constituents, namely the one which is of greater power of action.

We also should note the other types of union listed by the scholastics (Bernard, in particular):

[1]. A conjugal unity which takes place in marriage, when the husband and wife are no longer two, but one flesh (Gen. 2:24). 

[2]. The native union whereby the soul and body make up the human person. 

Ultimately, we label the union between the two natures as a "hypostatic union", because the Logos assumed human nature into His hypostasis, so that the two natures subsisted in the one person of Christ, while remaining distinct from one another according their respective properties. Yet must not divide Christ, as the Nestorians do, by saying that the human nature of Christ has a hypostasis in and of itself which is separate from the hypostasis of the Logos. Rather, both the divine and the human subsist in the one person of the Word. 

At the end of the day, this union is ineffable and incomprehensible, and beyond human understanding. We are content only with the teaching of Scripture on this subject, and the teaching of the historic church which explicates the biblical faith concerning the person of Christ.

"When therefore we say that the Word of God was united to our nature, the mode of union is clearly above man's understanding; for it is not like one of those mentioned, but wholly ineffable and known to no one of those who are, save only to God Who knoweth all things" (St. Cyril of Alexandria, Scholia on the Incarnation, § 8)

The union of the two natures in Christ is not a natural union (as that between the soul and the body, though it has been rightly used as an analogy in explaining the hypostatic union, it is not the same and comparable in every respect), for the following reasons:

1st, things that are united naturally are such that neither is complete without the other. However, the Logos was a complete person before the incarnation. 

2nd, things that are united naturally are such that there are some third thing from them, a tertium quid. However, Christ is not ετέρων ετερον, a different thing from different things. 

The union of the two natures in Christ is not an essential union either, because this would mean that the two natures combine or are the same in essence, which is the heresy of the Monophysites. 

"For there is no predicable form of Christlihood, so to speak, that He possesses. And therefore we hold that there has been a union of two perfect natures, one divine and one human; not with disorder or confusion, or intermixture , or commingling, as is said by the God-accursed Dioscorus and by Eutyches and Severus, and all that impious company: and not in a personal or relative manner, or as a matter of dignity or agreement in will, or equality in honour, or identity in name, or good pleasure, as Nestorius, hated of God, said, and Diodorus and Theodorus of Mopsuestia, and their diabolical tribe: but by synthesis; that is, in subsistence, without change or confusion or alteration or difference or separation, and we confess that in two perfect natures there is but one subsistence of the Son of God incarnate ; holding that there is one and the same subsistence belonging to His divinity and His humanity, and granting that the two natures are preserved in Him after the union, but we do not hold that each is separate and by itself, but that they are united to each other in one compound subsistence. For we look upon the union as essential, that is, as true and not imaginary. We say that it is essential , moreover, not in the sense of two natures resulting in one compound nature, but in the sense of a true union of them in one compound subsistence of the Son of God, and we hold that their essential difference is preserved. For the created remains created, and the uncreated, uncreated: the mortal remains mortal; the immortal, immortal: the circumscribed, circumscribed: the uncircumscribed, uncircumscribed: the visible, visible: the invisible, invisible." (John of Damascus, Exposition on the Orthodox Faith, Book III, Chapter 3)

The Efficient Cause of the Union

"The efficient cause of the incarnation is, in diverse respects, both the entire Holy Trinity and the Son alone, or the Second Person of the Trinity." (Johann Gerhard, Theological Commonplaces - On Christ, pg. 95)

When it comes to speaking of the efficient cause of the incarnation, we may speak of it in two ways, either (1) inchoatively, with regard to its effecting and beginning, or (2) terminatively, with regard to the formal relationship and termination. 

With regard to the beginning and effecting of the work of the incarnation, it is attributed to the entire Trinity. But when it comes to the termination of the incarnation, it is to be attributed to the Son alone. 

"that created thing which the Virgin conceived and brought forth though it was united only to the person of the Son, was made by the whole Trinity (for the works of the Trinity are not separable)" (Augustine, Enchiridion, chapter 38)

"The work of incarnation is said to be proper to the entire Trinity as far as the act is concerned but to the Son alone as far as the terminus is concerned, the assumed flesh that belongs to the hypostasis of the Word. It is called an essential and external work [opus ad extra], or common to the entire Trinity, as far as the acting or production is concerned; it is called a personal or internal work [opus ad intra], or proper to the Son, as far as its termination or relation is concerned." (Johann Gerhard)

Question: Why did the Son, rather than the Father or the Holy Spirit, become incarnate, taking on human flesh?

Answer: For the following reasons:

[1]. "The Father could not be incarnated, for as he was the first in order he could not be sent by anyone or act as mediator to the Son and the Holy Spirit. Nor was it fitting that he, who was the Father in divine things, should become the Son in human things by being born of a virgin. The Holy Spirit could not, who was to be sent by the Mediator to the church (John 16:7), and yet he could not be sent by himself. Thus there would have been two sons, the second person by eternal generation and the third by an incarnation in time." (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 2:305)

[2]. The Son, who was between the Father and the Holy Spirit, should be Mediator between God and man.

[3]. It was proper that He who was Son by nature (eternal generation) should make us adoptive sons by grace.

[4]. Through the Son, all things were created in the beginning (John 1:3), therefore it is fitting that the Son should also perform the work of recreating and restoring what had been corrupted through sin. Athanasius says "The Son was sent that the re-creating might be the work of Him to whom belonged the creating. For that reason we are called ‘new creatures’ in Christ (Gal. 6:15)." (Epistle to Epictetus)

Question: In Luke 1:35, the angel says to the blessed virgin Mary "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee." The Greek term for "overshadowing" is episkiasmos. What is meant by this?

Answer: It is to be confessed that the entirety of this work of the Holy Spirit is indescribable and incomprehensible, yet we may say the following things about it. It included the work of protection and and gracious presence of Christ, lest Mary be consumed by the divine majesty, just as God covered Moses (Exodus 33:22) when He passed by him whilst he was in the cleft of the rock. 

Some of the ancients, such as Rufinus and John Damascene, refer this work to the Son, who took up the flesh into the unity of His person. 

"So, then, after the holy Virgin assented, she was overshadowed by God Most High’s wisdom and power subsisting in His own hypostasis [enhypostatos], the Son of God, consubstantial with the Father, as the divine seed; and from her chaste and very pure blood He constructed flesh endowed with a soul." (John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book III, Chapter 2)

This is also a plausible interpretation, since the Son is referred to in Scripture as the "power of God" (1 Cor. 1:24). 

Rules of Predication when Speaking of Christ

- The properties of one nature cannot be predicated of the other nature, neither by abstractive names or concretive names, when the other nature is signified in abstractive names. For example, it would be wrong for us to say "Christ's human nature is divine" or that "Christ's divinity is human". 

- In Scripture, there are places when the acts and properties of one nature are attributed to the person, denominated by the other nature (Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 2:8). We can in a sense say "God died", not that the deity suffered (for it is impassible), but that the person who is God is also man. To deny this, would be to fall into Nestorianism.  

 

The Necessity of the Incarnation

 

The question and dispute concerning the necessity of Christ's incarnation can be further divided into three separate questions which are as follows:

First, would the Son of God have become incarnate even if man had never sinned?

Second, was it absolutely necessary for the Son to take on our human nature, or could the salvation of men been accomplished some other way?

Third, was it necessary that the Mediator be both God and man?

Would Christ have become incarnate even if man never sinned?

If man had never sinned, there would have not been any need for Christ to have become incarnate (contrary to the opinion of some of the scholastics, such as Alexander of Hales and William of Ockham), for the following reason: In Scripture, the end of Christ's incarnation is said to be the salvation of men from sin (Matt. 1:21; Matt. 20:28; Lk. 1:67-79; Lk. 2:30; John 1:29; Gal. 4:4-5; 1 Tim. 1:15; Heb. 2:14). Therefore, if man had never sinned, Christ would not have become incarnate. 

Was the Incarnation the only possible means of man's salvation after the Fall?

This question is not about God's decree, for all would rightly grant that once God had decreed the incarnation, it would by necessity have been done, since the decree of God is immutable (Isaiah 46:10). 

Rather, the point under dispute is whether or not the incarnation was necessary for the justice of God to have been satisfied and the salvation of men to be accomplished. The Reformed church affirms this proposition as biblical and true. 

[1]. The Surety of the covenant of grace, who is Christ, ought to have been man, in respect of God's justice, which requires that sin should be punished according to the same nature in which it was committed, for Ezekiel 18:4 says "The soul that sinneth it shall die". 

[2]. The Scriptures clearly teach that one of the ends of Christ's incarnation was so that He might be subject to the law (Gal. 4:4). The law requires that man love God with all His soul, body, mind, and strength (cf. Deut. 6:5), in short that man should love God with his entire nature. Now Christ could not have done this, if He had not taken human nature to Himself into the unity of His person. 

[3]. It is also required that the Surety should be God, since the Scriptures teach that man's salvation is a prerogative of God alone (Is. 41:14; Is. 43:11). 

[4]. It is further required that the Savior be God-Man, for, as Herman Witsius says "And therefore it behoved our surety to be man, that he might be capable to submit, obey, and suffer; and at the same time God, that the subjection, obedience, and suffering of this person, God-man, might, on account of his infinite dignity, be imputed to others, and be sufficient for saving all to whom it is imputed. Moreover, a mere creature could not support himself under the load of divine wrath, so as to remove it, and rise again when he had done. "Who knoweth the power of thine anger? even according to thy fear, so is thy wrath," Ps. 90:11; see Nah. 1:6. It was therefore necessary for our surety to be more than man, that, by the infinite power of his Godhead, he might support the assumed human nature, and so be able to bear the fierceness of divine wrath, and conquer every kind of death" (The Economy of the Covenants, Vol. 1, pg. 200)

"Nonetheless he made the things of the flesh his own so that the suffering could be said to be his." (Cyril of Alexandria, Letter to the Monks of Egypt)

Jesuit Theologian Jean Galot Teaches the Kenotic Heresy

 

It is astonishing that Ignatius Press (a Romanist publishing company which produces many works attacking the Reformed church), also publishes the writings of the Jesuit writer and theologian Jean Galot, who has taught that in Christ's incarnation, there was a real change in the divine nature:

"The divine dynamism of the Incarnation thus demands the affirmation of an authentic innovation in God himself, and thus obliges us to accept shades of difference in divine immutability." (Galot, Who is Christ? A Theology of the Incarnation [Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1981], pg. 270)

Important Questions about the Conception of Christ in the Womb of the Virgin Mary

Question: Why is the conception of Christ attributed to the Holy Spirit in particular?

Answer: First of all, this was for the purpose of a holy conception. The mass out of which Christ was conceived, needed to have been a sanctified mass, and pure from all stain of sin. And since sanctification is particularly the work of the Holy Spirit (Romans 1:4), therefore is the Holy Spirit said to have effected the work of Christ's conception in the womb of the blessed Virgin. 

Second, it is befitting on the part of the human nature, which was assumed, that it be attributed to the Holy Spirit. We are then to understand that human nature was assumed into the unity of Person, not because of merits, but because of grace, which is attributed to the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:4). St. Augustine said "For it was by this grace that a man, without any antecedent merit, was at the very commencement of His existence as man, so united in one person with the Word of God, that the very person who was Son of man was at the same time Son of God, and the very person who was Son of God was at the same time Son of man;" (The Enchiridion, Chapter 40).

The Holy Spirit here does not act materially, but rather efficiently, so that Christ was conceived from the power of the Spirit, but not from the substance of the Spirit, not by generation, but by blessing and consecration. In brief, Christ was conceived from the power of the Spirit, not the Spirit's substance.

The Holy Spirit's action of effecting the conception of Christ may be referred to in three heads - 1) the immediate work wherein the Spirit gave the Virgin the ability to conceive apart from intercourse; 2) the work of consecration in which the Spirit sanctified that mass from which the body of the Son of God was formed, cleansing it from sin; 3) the uniting of the divine and human natures in the single Person. 

“After the assent of the holy Virgin, the Holy Spirit came down upon her and purified her, giving her the power to receive the divinity of the Word and the power to procreate.” (John Damascene, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book III, Chapter 2)

Question: Can the Holy Spirit then be called the father of Christ, since he effected the work of Christ's conception?

Answer: No, because, as was stated above, the flesh of Christ was not begotten from the substance of the Holy Spirit, but from the substance of the Virgin Mary. 

To say that Christ was begotten from the substance of the Holy Spirit  would lead to Eutychianism, inasmuch as the Holy Spirit, like each of the divine persons, possesses the divine essence, thus the human nature would be of the substance of the divine essence, which is a plain contradiction.

"For that which is of [ex] any one is either of his substance or of his power. Of his substance, as the Son, Who says: I came forth of the Mouth of the Most High; Sirach 24:3 as the Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father; John 15:20 of Whom the Son says: He shall glorify Me, for He shall receive of Mine. John 16:14 But of the power, as in the passage: One God the Father, of Whom are all things. How, then, was Mary with child of the Holy Spirit? If as of her substance, was the Spirit, then, changed into flesh and bones? Certainly not. But if the Virgin conceived as of His operation and power, who can deny that the Holy Spirit is Creator?" (Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit, Book II, Chapter 5)

Question: Was the body of Christ formed in the womb of the Virgin in a moment or successively?

Answer: Three things occur in this act of the Holy Spirit:

[1]. The preparation of the material (or "mass") from which the body of Christ was formed.

[2]. The formation of the body from the material that was prepared.

[3]. The perfection of the same body brought to a "just quantity" by its own increase, little by little. 

Gregory the Great and Thomas Aquinas believed that the body of Christ was formed in the womb of the Virgin in an instant, whereas the Reformed church (with exception of Jerome Zanchius) has historically taught that the body of Christ was formed by succession, rather than instantaneously, as part of preserving the true humanity of Christ. 

First of all, I would concur with Johann Gerhard (one of the Lutheran scholastics), that we must distinguish between the formation of the members and the increase of the formed members. The former occurred in an instant moment, but the latter was successive in time. 

The following position I take to be the most safe middle ground in this debate amongst theologians concerning the gestation of Christ:

“In the very womb of the mother there was a growing of the mass and of the quantity of the body and members of our Lord over a period of days, just as also after His birth, so that those which at first were smaller then, through the coming of nourishment, gradually became larger. Nevertheless the formation of the parts according to shape and distinction happened at the very first moment of the sacred conception, and this was perfected by the power of the Holy Spirit, the accomplisher of this work.” (cited in Johann Gerhard, Theological Commonplaces - On Christ, pg. 108)

The Nestorian Controversy and the Council of Ephesus (Notes on Church History) - Part 2

 

- From November 430 to June 431 (when the council officially opened session), the Syrian churches had as their main spokesman John of Antioch. Theodoret went along with him. Andrew of Samosata was not in attendance at the council of Ephesus. For the rest, John of Antioch restricted his representatives to his metropolitan archbishops. They were repeatedly delayed on their travel way to Ephesus. 

- Nestorius brought 16 bishops from Constantinople with him to the council. He was surrounded by imperial guards when he arrived in Ephesus. 

-Memnon, metropolitan bishop of Ephesus, was to be the closest ally of St. Cyril of Alexandria during the council itself.

- Juvenal of Jerusalem also brought 16 bishops with him to the council. They aligned themselves with St. Cyril and Memnon of Ephesus.

- Memnon had closed the churches to Nestorius, in order to make him feel as though the council was going to be an examination of him (Nestorius), rather than St. Cyril. 

- There was lots of upheaval in the city of Ephesus during the period of preparation for the council, while the Syrian bishops were delayed. Both the Cyrillians and Nestorians sought to get the "neutral" bishops onto their side of the debate.

- At his lodging house, Nestorius had public debates with Theodotus of Ancyra and Acacius of Melitene. These two oriental bishops siding against Nestorius was one of the events that "secured" the condemnation of Nestorius. 

- Cyril, being told by John of Antioch to begin the council without him if he was further delayed, officially opened the council on June 21, 431. Count Candidian and 68 bishops protested this action, but they were shown the door. The council was in session.

- Nestorius was asked multiple times to attend the council in person, but he continued to refuse or at least implicitly do so. The debates proceeded without him. 

- Juvenal of Jerusalem said that the Nicene Creed should be proclaimed. Peter of Alexandria (the notary and secretary who has given us the official acts of the council) read out loud the Creed, and this was followed by a reading of Cyril's Second Letter to Nestorius. Cyril asked the bishops to declare his letter orthodox, and being in agreement with the Nicene Creed. Juvenal lead all the bishops in declaring that this was their faith.

- Nestorius' reply to St. Cyril was then read out loud. The bishops voted that the theology of Nestorius was blasphemous and opposed to Nicaea. 

- Juvenal then requested that the letter of Pope Celestine be read. Peter of Alexandria then read out another letter of St. Cyril to Nestorius. A group of bishops testified that they had delivered these letters to Nestorius in person, but that he refused to listen and remained obstinate. 

- Theodotus of Ancyra and Acacius of Melitene then reported some of the statements that Nestorius had said to them, when they were in his lodge-house a couple days' prior to the opening of the council. Nestorius said that he could not accept as God one who was at one time two or three months old. 

- After this, a collection of patristic quotations and extracts from Nestorius' writings were read aloud, to demonstrate what was the ancient belief of the church of the previous centuries. It was shown that the testimony of the historic church was against Nestorius, and that he had many blasphemous statements regarding the person of Christ. 

- Peter of Alexandria then read out loud a letter from Capreolus, bishop of Carthage. 

- At last, an official condemnation of Nestorius was made, being signed by 197 bishops. St. Cyril was victorious and sent a report of the proceedings to the emperor Theodosius II. 

- Nestorius and his supporters were angry and protested the proceedings and deposition. Count Candidian declared all of the proceedings to be void, and urged the council to wait for the instructions of the emperor. 

- Soon after, John of Antioch and the Syrian bishops finally arrived in Ephesus. They convoked their own council in John's hotel and received the reports from Count Candidian. 

- 43 bishops signed a creed which was produced by John of Antioch, that condemned Cyril, Memnon of Ephesus, and their supporters.

- On June 29, the emperor annulled the actions of the June 22 session, and forbid any bishop to leave Ephesus. 

- Soon, the papal legates (Arcadius, Projectus, and Philip) arrived in Ephesus. They were instructed to defer all things to St. Cyril.

- The council assembled at Memnon's residence for its second session and accepted a letter from Pope Celestine. The next day, the proceedings were read to the papal legates and they agreed to the deposition of Nestorius. 

- In the early days of August, the imperial commissioner Count John arrived and confirmed the deposition of Nestorius. Both the Nestorians and the Cyrillians realized they need imperial confirmation for their party for any progress to be made.

- The emperor convened a conference of eight bishops in Chalcedon, with representatives from both sides of the debate. In the end, the Nestorians lost and failed to officially condemn Cyril, Memnon, and the orthodox. 

- The emperor broke off the discussions and invited the Cyillians to the consecration of Maximilian as the new patriarch of Constantinople. Nestorius had lost. 

The Abrogation of the Covenant of Works

 

(the following notes are based on Herman Witsius' The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, Vol. 1, pgs. 151-162)

Before any discussion is made of what is abrogated concerning the covenant of works, it must be stated what is not abrogated. 

The following things in the covenant of works are universally and eternally binding:

[1]. The precepts of the covenant of works oblige every man to perfect obedience, whatsoever state he is in (cf. Galatians 5:3). 

[2]. Eternal life, as promised by the covenant of work, can be obtained by no other condition than perfect and complete obedience.

[3]. Death will always be the due punishment of sin, and no act of sin escapes God's vengeance. 

However, these statements and axioms do not exclude the surety, the Lord Jesus Christ, who performs the condition of the law and undergoes the penalty in the place of man.

Sin, is be definition (1 John 3:4), "the transgression of the law". Therefore where there is no law, no act of disobedience can truly be reckoned or designated as sin, any longer. Thus, this aspect of the covenant of works is still binding. 

Furthermore, the law of the covenant of works, as inscribed on the conscience of man (Rom. 2:14-15), is a transcript and revelation of the image and nature of God, which is no less immutable than God Himself. Since the law reflects the nature of God, which is immutable, therefore the law is also immutable, otherwise it would not be a perfect reflection of God. 

Jacob Arminius (in Præstantium ac eruditorum virorum epistolæ ecclesiasticæ et theologicæ, pg. 173), outright denies that God requires the obligation of obedience from man after his fall into sin, using the following arguments to prove his teaching:

Argument #1 - When man is in a state of sin, he is not in covenant with God, therefore there is no contract between God and man whereby God can require his obedience to the covenant. 

Response: Man's obligation to obedience is primarily founded on the holiness and majesty of God, rather than the covenant itself. God would not be absolutely sovereign if any of His creatures were not bound to obey Him, and thus not truly subject to Him. 

Argument #2 - Because of sin, God has taken away man's ability and power to obey the law. Therefore, He no longer requires man to fulfill it. 

Response: Man is both the meritorious and physical cause of his own impotency, just as a servant who drinks alcohol excessively renders himself unfit for his master's service. 

Though God has deprived man of his ability to obey the law, yet He can still require man's obedience of it. This is because no sin of man, however wicked it may be, and justly punished by God, can in the slightest decrease or diminish God's authority over him. 

It is the blasphemously absurd to say that man by his disobedience, obtained exemption and freedom from the authority of his Creator God. If this were the case, then the serpent would have been to tell Eve, that should would become "like God", for her to have eaten of the forbidden tree. 

Argument #3 - The nature of the law, is that one who performs it should have a true love to God and honor Him with affection. But since fallen man is not in such a state, therefore he is not obligated by God to obey the law.

Response: The sum of God's law to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. Man's conscience bears witness that God is the chief and highest good and supremely amiable and beautiful, and therefore ought to be loved as such. To say that man is not obligated to love God, because he is in a fallen state, is contradictory to the nature of God. For can God be unwilling that His creatures should acknowledge Him as what He truly is, namely the highest good?

Therefore we conclude that the law, the promise, as well as the threatening of the covenant of works are still binding upon all of mankind without exception. 

Nonetheless, there are some aspects of the covenant of works, which on the part of God, have indeed been abrogated. It is consists in this - God has revealed that no man can, by this law, any longer have true fellowship and communion with Him. Galatians 3:21 says "Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law."

After Christ paid the satisfaction unto the law of this covenant and fulfilled its law on our behalf (His active obedience), the covenant of works became the law of Christ. I can not put it better than as follows:

"In a word, the same law, which was to man in innocence a commandment to life, and is to man in sin the law of sin, giving him up to the dominion and guilt of sin, becomes again in the Redeemer the law of the spirit of life, testifying that satisfaction was made to it by the Redeemer, and bestowing on man, who by faith is become one with the Redeemer, all the fruits of righteousness for justification, sanctification, and glorification." (Herman Witsius)

The Promises of the Covenant of Works

 

(The following is a paraphrase and summary of Francis Turretin's comments upon this subject in Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 1, pgs. 583-586)

Question: Whether Adam had the promise of eternal and heavenly life so that (his course of obedience being finished) he would have been carried to heaven. We affirm.

The Socinians believed that Adam would have died regardless of whether he sinned or not, thus denying that death was a consequence of the fall. 

The orthodox view of the Reformed church is that the promise of a happy life given to Adam was not just to continue in the earthly paradise of Eden, but he would also, after a course of obedience and perseverance, be carried to heaven for a more fuller and intimate enjoyment of God, the highest and chief good and source of human happiness and joy. 

Argument #1 - The law of works given to Moses (which was the same law as the covenant of works) contained the promise of eternal life based on obedience to the law (Leviticus 18:5, Matthew 19:16-17; Romans 7:10). 

Argument #2 - The doctrine of Christ's active obedience as well as "second Adam" (Rom. 5) Christology presupposes that eternal life in heaven was promised to Adam. Christ purchased eternal life for His church in that, being born under the law, he fulfilled the law for us (Galatians 4:4). This would not make sense if the law had not promised eternal life in the first place. 

Argument #3 - This tree conferred eternal life, inasmuch as it signified Christ and His benefits (Gen. 3:22). The fact that it existed prior to the fall (Gen. 2:9) shows that expectation of eternal life likewise existed before the fall. 

Argument #4 - The most noble part of man is his spirit, which has the desire for the highest good, who is God. The highest good cannot be fully enjoyed in any other way than the beatific vision which occurs in heaven. Thus, man in the state of innocence would eventually enjoy God in the beatific vision, which required Adam to be taken into heaven and eternal life. 

The Sacraments of the Covenant of Works

Throughout redemptive history, God has used external signs and seals in all of His covenants to confirm His promises and remind man (the other party in the covenant) of his duty and obligation to his Creator by way of covenant. God has appointed the use of signs, which the Church has called "sacraments", for a number of reasons. 1st, that He might strengthen our faith in His promises. For, though the Word is an infallible foundation for our faith, yet God has confirmed our faith further by giving outward signs, since what we see with our eyes often feels "more real" than what we might see with our ears. 2nd, the sacraments remind us of our duty that we owe to God. 3rd, through these outward signs and sights, man has, in essence, a foretaste of the reality that he will experience in heaven, which is what is signified in the sacraments. 

This He did in the covenant of grace by way of sacraments such as circumcision, baptism, and the Holy Eucharist. However, lesser known amongst many of the Reformed today are the sacraments of the covenant of Works made with Adam, who represented the human race by way of federal headship. These are what we must consider now in this section. 

There were four sacraments contained in the covenant of works, 1st, Paradise; 2nd, the Tree of Life; 3rd, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; 4th, the Sabbath. In discussing the first three of these, we will learn what each of them signified and how they reminded man of His duty to God. 

Paradise

The garden of Eden, which most grant was located near Mesopotamia, is what we intend by the name "Paradise" here in this discourse. This signified to Adam and Eve, in all of its enjoyments, a reflection of the ultimate source of joy, goodness, and beauty; namely, God Himself. It also moved man to expect a more delightful place in the future, where he would enjoy God in a more intimate and immediate way than at that time. This is shown from the places in Scripture that the use the term "paradise" to signify heaven, which is obviously the most blissful state of human and spiritual existence:

"And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. " (Luke 23:43)

"How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." (2 Corinthians 12:4)

There is indeed, as Witsius says, a "suitable analogy" between heaven and the garden of Eden. 1st, Both heaven and Eden were made by God Himself for the residence of man, who was created in His image. Though heaven is more particularly made for man who been restored in the image of God, after having lost it in the fall (cf. Colossians 3:10). 2nd, Paradise was far greater in its splendor and beauty than all other places of the created Earth. This is especially shown forth by that glorious promise of Isaiah 51:3 - "For the LORD shall comfort Zion: he will comfort all her waste places; and he will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the LORD; joy and gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving, and the voice of melody." 3rd, there were rivers in Eden (Gen. 2:10), which fertilized the entire garden, just as in heaven there is a "pure river of the water of life" (Rev. 22:1). 4th, there were many precious minerals, stones, and other materials to be found in the garden of Eden (Gen. 2:11-12), just as in heaven there will be spiritual treasures with which no material wealth could ever compare. 5th, when man fell into sin, he was expelled from this garden (Gen. 3:23). In the same way, nothing sinful or defiled can enter heaven (Rev. 21:27). 

Paradise also set forth to man the duties which God required of him; since man was commissioned by God to care and maintain the garden, as well as the animals living therein (Gen. 2:15, 19), this reminded him that God sought from active and willing obedience, and not sloth. 

The Tree of Life

The second sacrament of the covenant of works which we must now inquire into is the Tree of Life, which was planted in the garden. There has been some debate amongst the Reformed divines as to whether the Tree of Life was one particular tree, or rather a species of trees. The common opinion is that it was a single tree, but the proponents of the latter opinion, that the Tree of Life was a species of multiple trees, allege a couple arguments in their favour. First, they bring forth Gen. 1:11-12, where God gives all trees the ability to multiply of themselves. Second, they insist on Rev. 22:2, where the Tree of Life is located on either side of the river. Those who believe that the Tree of Life was a single tree respond to the argument from Rev. 22:2, by saying that the single tree extended its branches and roots to either side of the river, rather than being two distinct trees. They also allege that Moses (the writer of Genesis) did not use the universal particular כל ("all") to modify when speaking of the Tree of Life, which is what he would do if he intended to designate the Tree of Life as a species of multiple trees. But the most forceful argument in favor of the common view, in my opinion, is that since the Tree of Life was a type of Christ, and since Christ was one, therefore it should be concluded that the Tree of Life was also a single tree, rather than a species of distinct trees scattered throughout the garden of Eden. 

The Tree of Life was a type of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. However, this is not respect of Christ as Mediator, since that is a part of the covenant of grace, but the tree signifies Christ as the fountain of all life and happiness (Revelation 22:1-2). Just as the tree of life was in the midst of the garden (Gen. 3:3), so also the Lord Jesus is in the midst of His church (Rev. 2:7). 

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

There is some debate amongst divines as to whether or not the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil should be considered a sacrament of the covenant of works or not. Witsius is in favor of it being designated a sacrament and gives the following reason; that all the components of the sacrament are to be found in this tree; an external sign, the thing signified, and the analogy between the two. 

The external sign was obviously the tree itself, which was located in the middle of the garden (Gen. 3:3), and was "pleasant to the eyes" (3:6). 

The thing signified is twofold, containing both the promise and threatening of the covenant of works. It is called "the tree of the knowledge of good", because it intimates that if man obeyed this command, he should come to the full knowledge of that which is truly good; it is called "the tree of the knowledge of evil", because man, upon his disobedience and sin, would experience the full knowledge of evil and wretchedness. 

This tree also reminded man of his duty, in several ways; 1st, man was only to endeavor after the chief good in the way(s) prescribed by God; 2nd, that God was the supreme Creator and Ruler of man, who was bound to render loving obedience to Him. 

As for the analogy and relationship between the sign and the thing signified in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, I can think of no better to put it than Zanchius did, one of the most learned divines of the Reformed church: "Moreover, these two trees, in the midst of Paradise and near each other, were very evident types of the law and Gospel, or of Christ. The law declares what is good, and what is evil: Christ is the true and eternal life. Both were in the midst of Paradise, because the law and Christ, in the midst of the church, are always to be proposed to the posterity of Adam. One near the other, because the law leads to Christ." (Jerome Zanchius, De Creat. Hom., 1.1.8, cited by Herman Witsius)