The Mediatorial Office of Christ
1. What are the different senses of the word Mediator, and in which of these senses is it used when applied to Christ?
Ist. In the sense of internuntius or messenger, to explain the will and to perform the commands of one or both the contracting parties, e. 9-5 Moses, Gal. ii. 19.
2d. In the sense of simple advocate or intercessor, pleading the cause of the offending in the presence of the offended party. 3d. In the sense of efficient peace-emaker. Christ, as Mediator, Ist, has all power and judgment committed to his hands, Matt. xxviii. 18, and ix. 6; John v. 22, 25, 26, 27; and, 2d, he efficiently makes reconciliation between God and man by an all-satisfactory expiation and meritorious obedience.
2. Why was it necessary that the Mediator should be possessed both of a divine and human nature?
1st. It was clearly necessary that the Mediator should be God. (1.) That he might be independent, and not the mere creature of either party, or otherwise he could not be the efficient maker of peace. (2.) That he might reveal God and his salvation to men, “For no man knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.” — Matt. xi. 27; John i. 18. (3.) That being, as to person, above all law, and as to dignity of nature, infinite, he might render to the law in behalf of his people a free obedience, which he did not otherwise owe for himself, and that his obedience and suffering might possess an infinite value. (4.) That he might possess the infinite wisdom, knowledge, and power requisite to administer the infinite realms of providence and grace, which are committed to his hands as mediatorial prince.
2d. It is clearly necessary that he should be man. (1.) That he might truly represent man as the second Adam. (2.) That he might be made under the law, in order to render obedience, suffering, and temptation possible. — Gal. iv. 4, 5; Luke iv. 1-13. (3.) “In all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest.” Heb. in 17,18, and viv,.15, 16. ots That in his glorified humanity he might be the head of the glorified church, the example and pattern to whom his people are “predestined to be conformed, that he might be the first-born among many brethren.” — Rom. vii. 29.
3. What diversity of opinion exists as to whether Christ acts as Mediator in one or both natures?
The Romanists hold that Christ was Mediator only in his human nature, arguing that it is impossible that God could mediate between man and himself.
The very opposite has been maintained, viz., that Christ was Mediator only in his divine nature.
The doctrine of the Bible is, that Christ was Mediator as the God-man, in both natures.
4. How may the acts of Christ be classified with reference to his two natures?
Theologians have properly distinguished (vide Turretin, in loco) between the person who acts and the nature or inward energy whereby he acts.
Thus we affirm of the one man, that he thinks and that he walks. The same person performs these two classes of action so radically distinct, in virtue of the two natures embraced in his single person. So the single person of the God-man performs all actions involving the attributes of a divine nature in virtue of his divine nature, and all actions involving the attributes of a human nature in virtue of his human nature.
5. How can tt be proved that he was Mediator, and acted as such both in his divine and human natures?
1st. From the fact that the discharge of each of the three great functions of the mediatorial office, the prophetical, priestly, and kingly, involves the attributes of both natures, as has been fully proved under Question 2.
2d. From the fact that the Bible attributes all his acts as Mediator to the one person, viewed as embracing both natures. The person is often designated by a term derived from the attributes of one nature, while the mediatorial action attributed to that person is plainly performed in virtue of the other nature embraced within it. — See Acts xx. 28; 1 Cor. ii. 8; Heb. ix. 14.
3d. From the fact that he was Mediator from the foundation of the earth (see Chapter XXII., Question 11), it 1s clear that he was not Mediator in his human nature alone; and from the fact that the Eternal Word became incarnate, in order to prepare himself for the full discharge of his mediatorial work (Heb. ii. 17, 18), it is equally plain that he was not Mediator in his divine nature alone,
6. In what sense do the Romanists regard saints and angels as mediators?
They do not attribute either to saints or angels the work of propitiation proper. Yet they hold that the merits of the saint are the ground and measure of the efficiency of his intercession, as in the case of Christ.
7. How far do they ascribe a mediatorial character to their priests?
The Protestant holds that the church is composed of a company of men united to one another in virtue of the immediate union of each with Christ the head. The Romanist holds, on the contrary, that each individual member is united immediately to the church, and through the church to Christ. Their priests, therefore, of the true apostolic succession, subject to apostolic bishops, being the only authorized dispensers of the sacraments, and through them of Christ’s grace, are mediators —
1st. Between the individual and Christ, the necessary link of union with him.
2d. In their offering the sacrifice of the Mass, and making therein a true propitiation for the venial sins of the people. Christ’s great sacrifice having atoned for original sin, and laid the foundation for the propitiatory virtue which belongs to the Mass.
3d. In their being eminent intercessors.
8. How can it be proved that Christ is our only Mediator in the preper sense of the term?
Ist. Direct testimony of Scripture. — 1 Tim. ii. 5.
2d. Because the Scriptures show forth Christ as fulfilling in our behalf every mediatorial function that is necessary, alike propitiation and advocacy, 1 John ii. 1; on earth and in heaven, — Heb. ix. 12, 24, and vii. 25.
3d. Because in virtue of the infinite dignity of his person and perfection of his nature, all these functions were discharged by him exhaustively. — Heb. x. 14; Col. ii. 10.
4th. Because there is “complete” salvation in him, and no salvation in any other, and no man can come to the Father except through him. — John xiv. 6; Acts iv. 12.
5th. There is no room for any mediator between the individual and Christ — (1) because he is our “brother” and “symathizing high priest,’ who invites every man immediately to Pimesle Matt. xi. 28; ©) because the work of drawing men to Christ belongs to the Holy Ghost. — John vi. 44, and xvi. 14.
9. What relation do the Scriptures represent the Holy Ghost as sustaining to the mediatorial work of Christ?
Ist. Begetting and replenishing his human nature. — Luke i. 35; 11. 40; John ii. 34; Ps. xlv. 7..
2d. All Christ’s mediatorial functions were fulfilled in the Spirit; his prophetical teachings, his priestly sacrifice, and his kingly administrations. The Spirit descended upon him at his baptism, Luke iii. 22; and led him into the wilderness to be tempted, Matt. iv. 1; he returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, Luke iv. 14; through the ae Spirit he offered him self without spot to God. — Heb. ix. 14.
3d. The dispensation of the Spirit, as “the Spirit of truth,” “the Sanctifier,” and “the Comforter,” vests in Christ as Mediator, as part of the condition of the covenant of grace. — John xv. 26, and xvi. 7; and vii. 39; Acts 11. 33.
4th. The Holy Spirit thus dispensed by Christ as Mediator acts for him, and leads to him in teaching, quickening, sanctifying, preserving, and acting all grace in his people. As Christ when on earth led only to the Father, so the Holy Ghost now leads only to Christ. — John xv. 26, and xvi. 13, 14; Acts v. 32; 1 Cor. xu. 3.
5th. While Christ as Mediator is said to be our “zapaxdnros,” “advocate,” with the Father (1 John ii. 1), the Holy Ghost is said to be our “zapaxdAnros,” “advocate,” translated ‘‘ Comforter” on earth, to abide with us forever, to teach us the things of Christ, and to hold a controversy with the world. — John xiv. 16, 26, and xv. 26, and xvi. 7-9.
6th. While Christ is said to be our Mediator to make intercession for us in heaven, Heb. vii. 25; Rom. viii. 34, the Holy Ghost, by forming thoughts and desires within us according to the will of God, is said to make intercession for us with unutterable groanings. — Rom. viii. 26, 27. %th. The sum of the whole is, ‘‘We have introduction to the Father through the Son by the Spirit.” — -Eph. ii. 18.
10. On what ground are the threefold offices of prophet, priest, and king applied to Christ?
Ist. Because these three functions are all equally necessary, and together exhaust the whole mediatorial work.
2d. Because the Bible ascribes all of these functions to Christ. Prophetical, Deut. xviii 15, 18; compare Acts iii. 22, and vii. 37;
Heb. i. 2; priestly, Ps. cx. 4, and the whole Epistle to the Hebrews; kingly, Acts v. 31; 1 Tim. vi. 15; Rev. xvii. 14.
It is always to be remembered that these are not three offices, but three functions of the one indivisible office of mediator. These functions are abstractly most distinguishable, but in the concrete and in their exercise they qualify one another in every act. Thus, when he teaches, he is essentially a royal and priestly teacher, and when he rules he is a priestly and prophetical king, and when he either atones or intercedes he is a prophetical and kingly priest.
These were first grouped together as belonging to Christ by Eusebius (261-340), Bk. I, ch. 1ii — “So that all these have a reference to the true Christ, the divine and heavenly Word, the only high priest of all men, the only king of all creation, and the Father s only supreme Prophet of prophets.”
11. What ts the Scriptural sense of the word prophet?
Its general sense is one who speaks for another with authority as interpreter. Thus Moses was prophet for his brother Aaron. — Ex. vil. 1.
A prophet of God is one qualified and authorized to speak for God to men. Foretelling future events is only incidental.
12. How does Christ execute the office of a prophet?
I. Immediately in his own person, as when (1) on earth with his disciples, and (2) the light of the new Jerusalem in the midst of the throne. — Rev. xxi. 23.
II. Mediately, 1st, through his Spirit, (1) by inspiration, (2) by spiritual illumination. 2d. Through the officers of his church, (1) those inspired as apostles and prophets, and (2) those naturally endowed, as the stated ministry. — Eph, iv. 11.
III. Both externally, as through his word and works addressed to the understanding, and,
IV. Internally, by the spiritual illumination of the heart. — 1 John ii. 20, and v. 20.
V. In three grand successive stages of development. (a.) Before his incarnation; (0) since his incarnation; (c) throughout eternity in glory. — RKev. vii. 17, and xxi. 23.
13. How can it be proved that he acted as such before his incarnation?
1st. His divine title of Logos, “Word,” as by nature as well as office the eternal Revealer.
2d. It has been before proved (Chap. XXII., Question 11, and Chap. IX., Question 14) that he was the Jehovah of the Old
Testament economy. Called Counsellor. — Is. ix. 6. Angel of the Covenant. — Mal. iii. 1. Interpreter. — Job xxxii. 23.
3d. The fact is directly affirmed in the New Testament. — l Pet. i. 11.
14. What is essential to the priestly office, or what is a priest in the Scriptural sense of that term?
As the general idea of a prophet is, one qualified and authorized to speak for God to men, so the general idea of a priest is, one qualified and authorized to treat in behalf of men with God..
A priest, therefore, must —
Ist. Be taken from among men to represent them. — Heb. v. 1) 2; lix xxv. 9,12, 21; 29.
2d. Chosen by God as his special election and property. — Num. xvi. 5; Heb. v..4.
3d. Holy, morally pure and consecrated to the Lord. — Lev. xxi. 6, 8; Ps. evi. 16; Ex. xxxix. 30, 31.
4th. They have a right to draw near to Jehovah, and to bring near, or offer sacrifice, and to make intercession. — Num. SVico 7x, wix, 22% Levexvi.13).7,.12015.
The priest, therefore, was essentially a mediator, admitted from among men to stand before God, for the purpose, Ist, of propitiation by sacrifice, Heb. v. 1, 2, 3; and, 2d, of intercession, Luke i. 10; Ex. xxx. 8; Rev. v. 8, and vi. 3, 4. Taken from Fairbairn’s “Typology,” Vol. IL, Part III., Chap. ii.
15. Prove from the Old Testament that Christ was truly a priest.
Ist. It is expressly declared. — Compare Ps. cx. 4, with Heb. v. 6, and vi. 20; Zech. vi. 13.
2d. Priestly functions are ascribed to him. — Is. liii. 10, 12; Dan. ix. 24, 25.
3d. The whole meaning and virtue of the temple, of its services, and of the Levitical priesthood, lay in the tact that they were all typical of Christ and his work as priest. This Paul clearly. proves in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
16. Show from the New Testament that all the requisites of a priest were found in him.
Ist. Christ was a man taken from among men to represent them before God. — Heb. ii. 16, and iv. 15.
2d. He was chosen by God. — Heb. v. 5, 6.
3d. He was perfectly holy. — Luke i. 35; Heb. vii. 26.
4th. He had the right of the nearest access, and the greatest influence with the Father. — John xvi. 28, and xi. 42; Heb. i. 3, and ix, 115/12, 13, 14, 24.
17. Show that he actually performed ail the duties of the office.
The duty of the priest is to mediate by (1) propitiation, (2) intercession.
Ist. He mediated in the general sense of the word — John xiv. 6; 1 Tim. 11. 5; Heb. viii. 6, and xii. 24.
2d. He offered propitiation Eph. v. 2; Heb. ix. 26, and xe; Ivonn uso
3d. He offered intercession. — Rom. viii. 34; Heb. vii. 25; 1 John ii. 1.
That this propitiatory work of Christ was real, and not metaphorical, is evident from the fact that it superseded the temple services, which were only typical of it. A type and shadow necessarily presupposes a literal substance. — Heb. ix. 10-12, and x. 1; Col. u. 17.
18. What part of his priestly work did Christ execute on earth, and what part in heaven?
On earth he rendered obedience, propitiation, intercession. Heb. v. 7-9, and ix. 26, 28; Rom. v. 19.
In heaven he has presented his sacrifice in the most holy place, and ever liveth to make intercession for us. — Heb. vii. 24, 25, and ix. 12, 24.
19. In what respects did the priesthood of Christ excel the
Aaronic?
Ist. In the dignity of his person. They were mere men. He was the eternal Son. They were sinners who had first to. make atonement for their own sin, and afterwards for the sin of the people. He was holy, harmless and undefiled. — Heb. vii. 26, 27. He was perfect man, and yet his access to God was infinitely nearer than that of any other being. — John x. 30; Zech. xiii. 7.
2d. In the infinite value of his sacrifice. Theirs could not cleanse from sin, Heb. x. 4, and were repeated continually. — Heb. x. 1-3. His sacrifice was perfectly efficacious, and once for all. — Heb. x. 10-14. Thus theirs were only the shadow of his. — Heb. x. 1.
3d. In the manner of their consecration. They without, he with an oath. — Heb. vii. 20-22.
4th. They, being many, succeeded each other by generation. He continueth forever. — Heb. vii. 24.
5th. Christ’s priesthood is connected ‘with a “greater and more perfect tabernacle,” earth the outer court, heaven the true sanctuary. — Heb. ix. 11-24.
6th. Christ’s intercession is offered from a throne. — Rom, viii. 34, and Heb. viii. 1, 2.
7th. While several of the Old Testament servants of God were at once both prophet and king, as David; and others both prophet and priest, as Ezra; Christ alone, and that in divine perfection, was at once prophet, priest, and king. Thus his divine, prophetical, and kingly perfections qualified and enhanced the transcendent virtue of every priestly act. — Zech. vi. 13.
20. In what sense was Christ a priest after the order of Melchizedec?
The Aaronic priesthood was typical of Christ, but in two principal respects it failed in representing the great antitype.
Ist. It consisted of succeeding generations of mortal men.
2d. It consisted of priests not royal.
The Holy Ghost, on the other hand, suddenly brings Melchizedec before us in the patriarchal history, a royal priest, with the significant names “King of Righteousness” and “King of Peace,” Gen. xiv. 18-20, and as suddenly withdraws him. Whence he. comes and whither he goes we know not. As a private man he had an unwritten history, like others. But as a royal priest he ever remains without father, without mother, without origin, succession, or end; and therefore, as Paul says, Heb. vii. 3, made beforehand of God, an exact type of the eternity of the priesthood of Christ, Ps. cx. 4. The prophecy was, “Thou shalt be a priest forever,” or an eternal priest “after the order of Melchizedec.”
The similitude of this type, therefore, included two things: Ist, an everlasting priesthood; 2d, the union of the kingly and oe functions in one person. — Fairbairn’s “Typology,” Vol.
L, Part IIL., Chap. iii.
21. How can tt be proved that the Christian ministry ts not a priesthood?
Ist. Human priests were ever possible only as types, but types are foaatils only before the revelation of the antitype. The purpose of the Aaronic priesthood was fulfilled in Christ, and therefore the institution was forever abolished by Christ. Heb. x. 1, 9, 18.
2d. Christ exhaustively discharges all the duties and purposes of the priestly office, so that any human priest (so-called) is an antichrist. — Heb. x. 14; Col. ii. 10.
3d. There can be no need of any priest to open the way for us to Christ. Because, while the Scriptures teach us that we can only go to God by Christ, John xiv. 6, they teach us no less emphatically that we must come immediately to Christ, Matt. xi. 28; J Bi v. 40, and vii. 37; Rev. iii. 20, and xxii. 17.
4th. No priestly function is ever attributed to any New Testament officer, inspired or uninspired, extraordinary or ordinary. The whole duty of all these officers of every kind is comprised in the functions of teaching and ruling. — 1 Cor. xii 28; Eph. iv. 11, 12; 1 Tim. iii. 1-13; 1 Pet. v. 2.
5th. They are constantly called by different designations, expressive of an entirely different class of functions, as “messengers, watchmen, heralds of salvation, teachers, rulers, overseers, shepherds, and elders.” — See “Bib. Repertory,” Jan., 1845
22. In what sense are all believers priests?
Although there can not be in the Christian church any class of priests standing between their brethren and Christ, yet in consequence of the union, both federal and vital, which every Christian sustains to Christ, which involves fellowship with him in all of his human graces, and in all of his mediatorial functions and prerogatives, every believer has part in the priesthood of his head in such a sense that he has immediate access to God through Christ, even into the holiest of all, Heb. x. 19-22; and that being sanctified and spiritually qualified, he may there offer up, as a “holy priest,” a “royal priest,” spiritual sacrifices, not expiatory, but the oblation of praise, supplication, and thanksgiving, through Jesus Christ, and intercession for living friends, Heb. xiii. 15; 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2; 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9.
They are by equal reason also prophets and kings in fellowship with Christ. — 1 John 11. 20; John xvi. 13; Rev. 1. 6, and v. 10.
AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENTS.
Catholic Doctrine of the Christian Priesthood. — ‘*‘ Council of Trent,” Sess. 23, ch. 1. — ‘‘Sacrifice and priesthood are, by the ordinance of God, in such wise conjoined, as that both have existed in every law. Whereas, therefore, in the New Testament, the Catholic Church has received, from the institution of Christ, the holy visible sacrifice of the Eucharist; it must needs also be confessed, that there is, in that church, a new, visible, and external priesthood, into which the old has been translated. And the sacred Scriptures show, and the traditions of the Catholic Church has always taught, that this priesthood was instituted by the same Lord our Saviour, and that to the apostles, and their successors in the priesthood, was the power delivered of consecrating, offering, and administering his body and blood, as also of forgiving and of retaining sins.”
Protestant Doctrine. — ‘‘ Conf. Helv.,” ii. cap. 18. — ‘‘ The priestly office and the ministerial office differ exceedingly from each other. The former is common to all Christians, the latter is not..... In the
New Testament of Christ there is no more such a priesthood as that which existed among the ancient people, which had an external unction, sacred vestments, and numerous ceremonies, which were types of Christ, who by coming and fulfilling them has abrogated all these things. But he remains eternally the only priest, and lest we should derogate aught from him, we give the name of priest to none of the class of ministers. For our Lord himself has not ordained in the church of the New Testament any priests to offer daily the sacrifice of his body and blood... but only ministers to preach and to administer the sacraments.”
Socinian Doctrine as to the Mediatorial Offices of Christ. — The Racovian Catechism teaches that Christ is both Prophet, Priest, and King. But it occupies one hundred and eighty pages (Section v.) in discussing his Prophetical office, and only eleven pages (Section vi.) in discussing his Priestly, and nine pages (Section vii.) his Kingly office. His death and the manner in which it contributes to our salvation is discussed (Sec. v. ch. 8.) under the head of his Prophetical office, while his Priestly work, though vaguely stated, is made to consist chiefly in his appearing in heaven as our advocate, his intercession being rendered prevalent with God by his virtues and sufferings as a martyr.