• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Gerber 1
THE BENEFITS OF CHRIST'S MEDIATIONACCORDING TO CALVINBy Jacob D. Gerber IntroductionJohn Calvin's theology of Christ as Mediator stands at the heart of his
 Institutes
, and notmerely as an abstract theological speculation. Calvin goes beyond theory to articulate actual benefits that Christ's mediation brings to believers. While Calvin in no way approacheschristology from an anthropocentric standpoint, as though Christ existed mainly for the benefit of  believers, he nevertheless exults in the gracious nature of Christ's mediatorial role. In this paper,we will examine the characteristics of Christ's mediation, the benefits for believers comprised inChrist's mediation, and the means by which believers gain possession of these benefits.The Characteristics of Christ's Mediation
The Role of the Mediator 
When Calvin uses the term “Mediator” in reference to Christ, he is following the biblical precedent. Paul, in 1 Tim. 2:5-6, writes, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator  between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is thetestimony given at the proper time.” Furthermore, in Heb. 9:15 and 12:24, the author calls Jesusthe “mediator of a new covenant,” who brings a fuller quality of redemption and salvation thanthe Old Testament church had explicitly known. Even before his incarnation, however, Calvinspeaks of Christ's mediatorial role in the Old Testament. For example, Calvin condemnsServetus for (among other things) denying that the chief angel who came to Abraham was “God'sWord, who already at that time, as a sort of foretaste, began to fulfill the office of Mediator. For even though he was not yet clothed with flesh, he came down, so to speak, as an intermediary, in
 
Gerber 2
order to approach believers more intimately.”
1
 Although Christ's role as Mediator becameclearer in the New Testament, Calvin is insistent the Hebrew people in the Old Testament “hadand knew Christ as Mediator, through whom they were joined to God and were to share his promises.
2
The difference to Calvin, therefore, is not in the identity of the Mediator or even thesubstance of the covenant, but only in the “mode of dispensation.”
3
In other words, the churchesof the Old and New Testaments shared a covenant and a Christ, but, for the Old TestamentChurch, “in the absence of the reality, it showed but an image and shadow in place of thesubstance; the New Testament reveals the very substance of the truth as present.”
4
Christ is theonly Mediator for all the people of God, past, present, and future, even if it is only those of usliving on this side of his incarnation who can see that clearly.In terms of Christ's actual function as Mediator, Calvin especially follows the language of Paul in 1 Timothy, emphasizing Christ's role “between God [the Father] and men.” The need for a mediator arises chiefly because of humanity's sinfulness, but Calvin also notes that even our “lowly” condition, considered in itself, requires a mediator in order to come near to God:Hence it was necessary for the Son of God to become for us “Immanuel, that is,God with us” [Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:23], and in such a way that his divinity and our human nature might by mutual connection grow together. Otherwise the nearnesswould not have been near enough, nor the affinity sufficiently firm, for us to hopethat God might dwell with us. So great was the disagreement between our uncleanness and God's perfect purity! Even if man had remained free from allstain, his condition would have been too lowly for him to reach God without aMediator.
5
Pay careful attention here to the many facets of what Christ accomplishes in his role as Mediator.
1John Calvin,
 Institutes of the Christian Religion
, trans. Ford L. Battles, ed. John T. McNeill (Louisville:Westminster John Knox Press, 1960), 1.13.10, p. 133.2
 Ibid 
., 2.10.2, p. 430.3
 Ibid 
., 2.10.2, p. 429.4
 Ibid 
., 2.11.4, p. 453.5
 Ibid 
., 2.12.1, p. 465.
 
Gerber 3
First, Calvin speaks of Christ's incarnation—that is, that Christ united two distinct natures (“hisdivinity and our humanity”) in his own person. Second, Calvin writes that this incarnation hasmade our union with him (“mutual connection”) possible. Third, Calvin refers to the humanneed for close proximity (“nearness”) to God, a need that Christ meets when he becomes“Immanuel, that is, God with us”; by virtue of this nearness to God, we “reach” him. Finally,Calvin suggests that Christ has settled the great “disagreement between our uncleanness andGod's perfect purity,” alluding to the forgiveness of sins that we have in Christ's name. We willtake up the last three aspects of Christ's mediation in the section on the benefits for believerscomprised in Christ's mediation; however, we will now take up the issue of Christ's two natures.
Christ's Two Natures
Calvin's christology epitomizes “Chalcedonian orthodoxy,” which is evident when hewrites that “he who was the Son of God became the Son of man—not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For we affirm his divinity so joined and united with his humanity thateach retains its distinctive nature unimpaired, and yet these two natures constitute on Christ.”
6
Of course, by emphasizing the full divinity and humanity contained in Christ's person, yetacknowledging that each nature remains distinct from the other, Calvin does nothing original.Still, Stephen Edmondson points out that, in one particular area, Calvin's christology washighly original because he argued, against a man named Francesco Stancaro, that Christ'shumanity
as well as
his divinity played a role in his mediation between God and humankind:A wandering Italian theologian, Francesco Stancaro, was teaching that Christmediated between humanity and God only in his human nature and not in hiscomplete person as the God-man....Thus, Stancaro, while acknowledging that both a divine and human nature are united in Christ's one person, argued that thedivine nature, because it was shared equally and fully by the three persons of the
6
 Ibid 
., 2.14.1, p. 482. As for the phrase “Chalcedonian orthodoxy,” see McNeill's note 1 on p. 482.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...