Key Takeaways
– The two-fold mediator concept provides a fuller understanding of Christ’s divinity.
– Delving into the past offers insights for the future
– Christ always has been and always will be mediator between God and man
Point of Controversy
The focus of this discussion is not on the definition of the incarnation; as it is so, the incarnation concerns Christ taking residence in human flesh. Hereafter, theologians draw lines of division regarding the nature and implications this doctrine brings to man’s salvation. Although disagreement persists, the church has settled the lines of orthodoxy, and the involved parties remain content with their convictions. However, even amongst the orthodox, there remains a question about Adam’s sin and its relation to the incarnation. One side of orthodoxy is firm in stating that Adam’s disobedience is the reason for the incarnation, restricting its theological use( the use proper to the field of theology) to the economy.
Francis Turretin, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Petrus Van Mastricht are among the many who would be in favor of the position. On the other hand, the writings of highly respected theologians like Jerome Zanchi, Andrew Willet, Guillaume Bucanus, and Amandus Polanus seem to challenge this idea. As many have interpreted them, this group of men wandered into enemy territory and were left with damaged minds that believed there could be an incarnation prelapse (before the fall). Although this theory seems likely, these men might have sought to retrieve sacred teaching that heresy had obscured. To explore these matters further, I will use Lindholm’s journal article as a guide to help us grasp this gray area of theology.
A Place in History
Medieval Origins
As I hinted at earlier, for a long time, theologians have inquired into the possibility of a pre-fall incarnation. Rupert of Deutz was a trailblazer of this view, marking a path that Alexander of Hales, Albert Magnus, and especially John Dun Scotus would later traverse.[1] In a humble defense, Scotus argues that “the incarnation was ordained not as a consequence of sin but as a consequence of God’s willing it to happen because of its supreme goodness.”[2]
However, Thomas Aquinas would later challenge their journey.“Aquinas thought that this idea was not founded on revelation and would encourage improper speculation about God’s will. We simply do not know enough about God’s will in order to make the sort of claim that Deutz, Hales and Albert had.”[3] Nonetheless, it is important to mention that despite Aquinas’ strong rejection of this view, he doesn’t go as far as to posit a necessity of nature(as if to say there is something in God that demands or limits him from doing the contrary. “For God with His omnipotent power could have restored human nature in many other ways.”[4]
Reappearance in the Reformation
After Scotus, this view would be repurposed by Andreas Osiander, a Lutheran theologian. Osiander would embark on the path of Deutz because of his belief that Christ is the needed model to produce humans.[5] This claim received attention from John Calvin, whose response would shape Reformed responses. Although Calvin rejected Osiander’s claim, he was sure to clarify that this does not rule out the reality of Christ existing as our mediator apart from Adam’s sin.[6] “Had man remained free from all taint, he was of too humble a condition to penetrate to God without a Mediator. What, then, must it have been, when by fatal ruin he was plunged into death and hell, defiled by so many stains, made loathsome by corruption; in fine, overwhelmed with every curse?”[7]
Calvin and the Calvinists
In his passing, John Calvin left the Reformed tradition with a theological grenade: an elaborate orthodox view that can explode into heresy without careful distinctions. Numerous theologians pass on theological grenades for innumerable reasons. First, for clarity in polemics. Complex views can be cumbersome in a fight against heresy because they redirect the theologian from addressing the issue at hand to unpacking an abstract view properly. Second, some nuanced views are not worth the risk. If Calvin’s successors fail to deconstruct this doctrine, they risk joining the ranks of Socinians in affirming an incarnation independent of the fall. The damage done would be fatal, shredding their theological careers in pieces. Despite the risk, Zanchi, Bucanus, Willet, and Polanus accepted the challenge and labored to disarm the old warhead Calvin left behind.
Bucanus’ treatment
In response to whether Christ is still needed as a mediator if Adam(man) remained in his original righteousness, “Not that he might be reconciled to God and be healed of his sin (which he had not yet committed), but through whom, as long as he was willing, he might be kept in God’s favor and be preserved from sin. For Christ’s statement is always true: ‘Without me, you can do nothing’ (John 15:5)[8]
Zanchi’s treatment
Here is Jerome Zanchi’s account of Christ as mediator:
We teach that even in the state before the fall the work performed by Christ the mediator did not merely reconcile us to the Father and cleanse us from sin not yet committed but through it we are preserved from sin and conserved in the grace before the Father… For just as it is the office of the medical doctor not only to cure us but also to preserve us from illnesses and keep us in good health so is also Christ’s meditorial office. It does not merely take away our sins and reconcile us to the Father but also preserves us from them, conserving us in the grace of the Father. Adam also needed this mode of the grace of Christ. This notion about Christ extends to the Apostle: “Without me you can do nothing” and to all humans, as well as Adam in his innocent state. The reason is that since all things were made through Christ it is not even possible that there is anything that is not constituted through Christ— indeed, whatever its state.[9]
The failure of some interpretations
After the ink dried, an explosion followed shortly after: the theological grenade that was Christ’s pre-incarnate mediatorship detonated. Although it is easy to blame the writers, negligence can only be found in secondary sources. Scholars observed the phrases “mediator” and “before the fall” and concluded that Zanchi and others affirmed that the incarnation is independent of sin.
Likewise, I fell into this error during my initial study. I believed that Bucanus’ position provided a solution to a problem that did not exist. Christ came to absolve Adam’s sin, but if Adam did not sin, then Christ would not need to take on flesh. There is no need for another representative if the present one serves its purpose. Traditionally, this is a proper understanding because the theological use of ‘mediator’ primarily refers to Christ dying for our sins. Consequently, it is difficult for many to conceive of Christ as a mediator in any other context outside of sin.
While there is grace for our mistakes, having such a narrow understanding of the incarnation can be harmful. A rigid understanding of this mystical truth can lead one to discount the Lord’s omnipotence and sovereignty. As Aquinas states, “For God with His omnipotent power could have restored human nature in many other ways.”[10] This is aligned with the Scriptures, which teaches “Whatever the Lord pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps.”[11]
The Lord Almighty cannot be said to be restrained in His decision-making because he is omnipotent. He wants for nothing, having every resource at his disposal to bring about His desired end. This eliminates the possibility of an absolute necessity since the Lord could have produced a different answer to sin by His omnipotence. The incarnation as a solution can be said to be necessary insofar as “when the end is attained better and more conveniently.”[12]
Therefore, there is nothing in God or outside of God that demanded the incarnation as the answer to Adam’s sin. His decision to dwell in the flesh was entirely free, according to his most holy wise counsel. When we are unable to leave room for things like omnipotence in the incarnation, this can lead us to make God contingent or unintentionally ostracize orthodox brethren as Van Mastricht did with Aquinas and the mentioned Reformed authors.[13]
Nonetheless, Lindolhm’s findings show the false dichotomy created by previous scholarship. The false dichotomy that Christ’s mediatorship without sin results in an incarnation that is not contingent upon sin. As Lindolhm states, “Just because something is possible it does not mean that it would have been counterfactually true. It is possible that I could have married someone else, but that does not mean that, had things been different, I would have.”[14]
Similarly, if there had been no sin, then Jesus would not have become human, even if Christ is a mediator without sin. The reason why this holds true is because the Reformed understands mediator in a twofold sense. First, as non-incarnate, Christ is the Keeper of the World, separate from sin. Second, as incarnate, Christ is the Redeemer because of man’s sin. Thus, it is wrong to place these men in the company of Socinius, especially when they go out of their way to emphasize the salvific motive for the incarnation. “Zanchi is keen to explicitly stress the salvific motive for the incarnation. This is clear from the fact that he often inserts phrases like “for our salvation.” Such phrases are everywhere present in his treatment of the Person of Christ.”[15]
The Reformed intent revealed
Although it does not seem like it, Zanchi, Bucanus, Willet, and Polanus present an entirely separate point with the idea of mediator. Zanchi, Bucanus, Willlet, and Polanus articulate a distinct perspective on Christ as a mediator using a two-fold distinction: mediator non-incarnate and mediator incarnate. With mediator non-incarnate, the Reformed aims to highlight two forgotten aspects of His divinity from the battle of heresy.
First, even if humanity had remained untainted by sin, a mediator was necessary due to the vast ontological gap between God and man. As Lindolhm quotes from Calvin’s Institutes, “Even if man had remained free from all pollution, his condition would have been too humble for him to reach through to God without a Mediator.”[16] God does not cast us off in Christ, nor did He cast off Adam before the fall, yet we remain as distant from God as we are from the moon. Though it can be seen, the moon is not in our realm. The scriptures and Fathers state that the Lord God is infinitely above his creation. According to the designation of being(hierarchy of beings including humans, angels, etc.), God is literally in a class of His own. “Who is like the Lord our God, who is seated on high.”[17] However, it is because of this ontological gap that the Lord can uphold all of His creation.
Far from a distant onlooker, Jesus continues to monitor and maintain the world by His divine governance. He initiated our fellowship with the divine at our creation, taking us from nonexistence to walking with the Lord in the cool breeze. He has caused us to be and continues to sustain our current state. This is how we have come to know Christ as the world’s bridge to the divine, and He continues to be this bridge as long as He maintains it. In the unthinkable case that Jesus retires, our connection to the divine would cease to exist, as would our lives.
Concerning the second forgotten aspect, Jesus’ mediation is grounded in the eternal procession, not His temporal mission. Briefly, eternal procession refers to “the origin of a Divine person from another through the communication of the numerically one Divine Essence.”[18] These eternal processions inform us of who God is and always was, and this identity is confirmed by the temporal mission. The perfect example of this relationship is the baptism of Jesus. Thus, temporal missions are dependent on eternal processions.
Subsequently, Christ’s mediation is not merely a response to human need or a temporary assignment; it is intrinsic to His eternal identity as the Son begotten of the Father. His mediation on the cross is a manifestation of the eternal plan rooted in the eternal processions. Before He was mockingly called the king of the Jews, He was the king of the world—a benevolent ruler who cared about the welfare of his kingdom residents and gave them all they needed. The mediator we find before the incarnation is truly God: creator and sustainer of all things.
Therefore, as we confess that “what was not assumed did not get healed,” let us remember that “what He was He remained, and what He was not He assumed.”[19] Christ has been holding everything together, even during His mission. On the other hand, when discussing Christ as mediator incarnate, they stand with the orthodox in proclaiming “He is called Mediator (inasmuch as he gave himself a ransom [antilytron] for us, 1 Tim. 2:6) who, having made peace (eirēnopoiēsas) through the blood of his cross, reconciled God to us (Col. 1:20).”[20]
Conclusion
Challenging as it may be, digging into the past can bring gems to shine into our future. The Reformed view of a two-fold mediator gives a robust understanding of Christ’s divinity that can correct our habit of stripping Christ down to his human nature. Contrary to some interpreters, Zanchi and others were imploring us to momentarily step back from the cross to see Christ in all His glory. At the core of this two-fold distinction is the union between God and man, initiated when Jesus created Adam. This act established a profound relationship, leading man to a new association with God. Christ is the linchpin of this connection, ensuring its continuity and sustenance. The very essence of this relationship hinges on Christ, who not only brought these elements together but also perpetuates their unity, embodying the principle that “he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion.”[21] So in Christ incarnate, the one who initially brought access to God, is the one mends that connection when it is disrupted by sin.
NOTES
[1] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006), 278-279. Bavinck also includes John Wessel, Catharinus, Pighius, and Suárez.
[2] Stefan Lindholm, “Would Christ Have Become Incarnate Had Adam Not Fallen?,” Journal of Reformed Theology 9, no. 1 (2015): 21, https://doi.org/10.1163/15697312-00901016.
[3] Stefan Lindholm, “Would Christ Have Become Incarnate Had Adam Not Fallen?,” 21.
[4] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, 2nd rev. ed. (New Advent, 2017), III, Q. 1, Art. 2, https://www.newadvent.org/summa/.
[5] Osiander’s account is presented and refuted by Francis Turretin in his Elenctic Theology and Petrus Van Mastricht in his Theoretical-Practical Theology. See Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison, trans. George Musgrave Giger, vol. 2 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1997), Topic XIII, Q. III, VIII; Petrus van Mastricht, Theoretical-Practical Theology: Redemption in Christ, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Todd M. Rester, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2023), Book V, chap. 4, XVII.
[6] Stefan Lindholm, 21-22.
[7] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), Book II, chap. 12, sec. I.
[8] William Bucanus, Institutions of Christian Religion Framed out of Gods Word, and the Writings of the Best Diuines, Methodically Handled by Questions and Answers, Fit for All Such as Desire to Know, or Practise the Will of God, trans. Robert Hill (London: George Snowdon, Leonell Snowdon, and R. Field, 1606), paraphrased by Perplexity AI, accessed October 29, 2024.
[9] Stefan Lindholm, 24-25.
[10] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, Q. 1, Art. 2.
[11] English Standard Version Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Psalm 135:6, https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/English-Standard-Version-ESV-Bible/.
[12] Thomas Aquinas, III, Q. 1, Art. 2.
[13] Petrus van Mastricht interpreted “Even if sin not existed, God could have become incarnate” from Aquinas’ Summa III, Q. 1, Art. 3 and concluded that he is among the scholastics like Scotus who held to an incarnation independent from the fall. A likely explanation for this misunderstanding is that van Mastricht interacted with this portion of the Summa through Andreas Osiander, who only included the last line of the response to support his position. So, Osiander ripped this section of Aquinas out of context. However, it should be noted that Turretin did not make this mistake when recounting the opposition. See Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, Q. 1, Art. 3, https://www.newadvent.org/summa/; Petrus van Mastricht, Book V, chap. 4, XVII; Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Topic XIII, Q. III, III.
[14] Stefan Lindholm, 26.
[15] Stefan Lindholm, 26.
[16] Stefan Lindholm, 32.
[17] ESV, Psalm 113:5.
[18] Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, ed. James Canon Bastible, trans. Patrick Lynch (London: Baronius Press, 2018), Book 1, Part 2, Chap. 10. Originally published in 1955 by The Mercier Press.
[19] A statement made by St Gregory of Nazianzus that summarizes the teachings of the fathers regarding the hypostatic union. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius, trans. Lionel Wickham and Frederick Williams (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2002), 104, e-book.
[20] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison, trans. George Musgrave Giger, vol. 2 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1997), Topic XIV, Q.I, VIII
[21] ESV, Philippians 1:6.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. 2nd rev. ed. New Advent, 2017. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/. Originally published in 1920 by Burns Oates & Washbourne.
Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006.
Bucanus, William. Institutions of Christian Religion Framed out of Gods Word, and the Writings of the Best Diuines, Methodically Handled by Questions and Answers, Fit for All Such as Desire to Know, or Practise the Will of God. Translated by Robert Hill. London: George Snowdon, Leonell Snowdon, and R. Field, 1606. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A69010.0001.001/1:7.10.3?rgn=div3;view=fulltext.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008.
English Standard Version Bible. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016. https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/English-Standard-Version-ESV-Bible/. Originally published in 2001.
Lindholm, Stefan. “Would Christ Have Become Incarnate Had Adam Not Fallen?” Journal of Reformed Theology 9, no. 1 (2015): 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1163/15697312-00901016.
Lindholm, Stefan. Jerome Zanchi (1516–90) and the Analysis of Reformed Scholastic Christology. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016.
Mastricht, Petrus van. Theoretical-Practical Theology: Redemption in Christ. Edited by Joel R. Beeke. Translated by Todd M. Rester. Vol. 4. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2023.
Nazianzus, St Gregory . On God and Christ : The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius. Translated by Lionel Wickham and Frederick Williams . Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2002, 104, e-book.
Ott, Ludwig. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Edited by James Canon Bastible. Translated by Patrick Lynch. London: Baronius Press, 2018. Originally published in 1955 by The Mercier Press.
Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Edited by James T. Dennison. Translated by George Musgrave Giger. Vol. 2. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1997. Originally published in 1679.
