Foundations of the Christian Life. Chapter 7 - Christ thye Mediator of the New Covenant.

Foundations of the Christian Life.
Chapter 7: Christ the Mediator of the New Covenant.

We are looking at the concept of spiritual foundations.

We saw how this foundation had three parts:
1. The Objective historical foundation of the person and work of Christ
(1 Corinthians 3:10-11).
2. The Bible as the Word of God and
3. A foundation laid in our experience (Hebrews 6:1-3). The list there is repentance, faith, baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead and eternal judgement.

Then we saw how we need to do three things if we are to lay a correct spiritual foundation:
1. We must have the right materials. Correct belief is important – to be Christians we must believe Christian beliefs, not Buddhist or Hindu beliefs.
2. All of the materials must be there. God, the architect, decides what the foundation is – he has outlined it in the Word of God and we simply must agree with him and get on with the job of laying them.
3. The materials must be correctly fixed into place. Jesus said “Whoever hears these words of mine and does them is like a man who built his house upon a rock.”

Consider for a moment the building of a high rise office block or apartment block. The builders when they come to the site do not come with the site already prepared to build – there is a lot of work to be done before the foundations are even laid – a mountain of dirt is often moved to get down to the rock on which the building can be built.

Who is our Rock?
1 Corinthians 10:4
“(They) drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.”

It is like that with our lives – God want to build a high rise in our lives – but it is up to us whether in the end He builds a multi-storey high rise or a garage – it all depends on the foundation we lay in our lives. And that is our choice. He has outlined what the foundation must be – but we have to lay it.

In the next three chapters we want to look at the foundation of the work of Christ. In Chapter 2 we looked at the person of Christ – that he is both God and man. It would be a good idea to review that at this point of time to remind yourself of what was laid out there before pressing on with this chapter.

Note: What we are about to look at is central to the whole understanding of Christianity. There are a couple of points you may find a little difficult to understand at first – but grapple with them. It will be worth it in the end.

There are four key ideas that we need to grapple with if we are to understand the work of Christ and these will be the focus of the next four chapters:
1. Christ as Mediator of a New Covenant.
2. Christ our Substitute.
3. The Divine Exchange
4. Christ our Represenatative.

BACKGROUND:

At the time of Christ there was a dominant way of thinking, a world-view, that had begun in Greece about 500 years before with the Philosophers. As part of that world-view, the Greeks had come to some fixed beliefs about God (largely as a result of the work of Aristotle).

1. God, i.e. the infinite absolute being (if he exists) must be one. Monotheism was a philosophical necessity for the Greeks in the days of Christ. If there was an infinite absolute being there must be only one of them as it is a logical impossibility to have two infinite absolute beings.

2. God is perfect. But the idea of perfection they had was static. God could not do anything, because if he did that would imply change. In their thinking, change meant moving either from a lesser to a greater perfection or from a greater degree of perfection to a lesser. Such a movement in a perfect God was unthinkable, so God was deemed to be “the Unmoved Mover”. By definition, then, God could not speak or act in any way. One wonders if he could even think!

3. Dualism: By Greek definition Spirit is good; matter is evil. Because God is spirit, he is perfect. He is holy. Therefore he could not come into contact with that which is imperfect in case he became less than perfect, i.e. less than God – which is a logical impossibility. This world is imperfect so God could not come into contact with earth.

These three ideas were axiomatic to the Greeks. It is relatively easy to see that the Gospel message would be "foolishness to the Greeks" (1 Corinthians 1:23). The Gospel tells of a God who:
1. Acts, speaks, feels, thinks and
2. Who came to earth – not only coming to earth but became a man – a corrupt creature.
3. Created a material world that is fundamentally “good”, not evil.

To Greek thinking this was foolishness.

To counter the influence of Greek philosophy the Church had to do some hard thinking. The crux of the debate centred around the person of Christ because the gospel meant that in Christ God (perfection) and matter (imperfection) came together. The events of the Gospel revealed Jesus as being both God and man – which was an impossible combination if one started from the assumptions of Greek thought. The whole future of the Christian message hinged on resolving the question of who was Jesus.

Many theories were put forward over a 500 year period about the exact nature of Christ. Basically all of the theories were trying to grapple with the concepts of Greek philosophy but many of them fell into one or other of two wrong solutions:
* Either the solution minimised the humanity of Christ in some way so that he was said to be “not really a man” but rather some form of divine being, or
* It minimised his divinity so that he was seen to be “only a man and not really God”.

These wrong solutions were the result of a wrong approach they started with Greek philosophy and tried to reconcile the Gospel to it. Such an approach never works. When we try to adapt the Gospel to the prevailing world-view we will always go wrong.

The whole debate came to a head in the 4th Century through a teaching originated by a man called Arius. Arius had adopted some ideas from Greek philosophy and mythology and grafted them on to the Gospel. Accepting the fundamental dualism of Greek thought, he argued that “Christ was homoiousios with the father” - the word homoiousios meaning “of like substance”. Thus his position was that Christ was not actually God in his essential being but was only in some way “like” God. This amounted to a complete denial of the gospel if followed through. It was axiomatic that “Only God can save” and if Christ was “not really God” then we are not saved. Christianity would therefore be just another religious myth - and as such could be discounted.

The definitive solution to the problem came at a Whole Church Council at Nicea in 325AD, primarily through the work of a man called Athanasius.

Athanasius recognised that the typical approach was never going to work so he began from a different starting point – not from the assumptions of Greek philosophy but beginning with the work of Christ.

For Athanasius the work of Christ and his person/nature were inseparable and he claimed we could only understand the Christ’s person/nature through an understanding of his work. As a result he arrived at some different conclusions and managed to resolve the fundamental theological and philosophical problems of Greek thinking.

Athanasius solution was accepted by the whole Church and was enshrined in the creed now known as the Nicene Creed – which is the only Creed which has been accepted by the whole Church, East and West.
This creed was the subject of debate over another 80 years but was finally ratified along with the understanding behind it at another council at Chalcedon in 451AD. By this time Athanasius was dead but three men known as the Cappadocian Fathers took up his position. They were Basil, Bishop of Caesarea, his Brother Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa and their friend Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus.

The Creed summarises a position known as the Orthodox position as it was the definition of Orthodox doctrine for the whole Church.

But we need to remember that there is a particular understanding of the work of Christ behind the words of the Creed.

Where did Athanasius start from?

Over the 2000 years since Christ came, many attempts have been made to explain his work. The Bible itself has many pictures, or metaphors, drawn from daily life and nature, to attempt to shed some light on the meaning of this event.

The problem with this approach is that we tend to end up taking one illustration of the work of Christ as the whole explanation. The result is that other aspects of his work are neglected - we over-emphasise one picture to the detriment of others. As a result we miss out on seeing the real meaning of Christ's work. What we end up with is a perversion of truth through overemphasis.

The Western Church has traditionally taken this approach, and has concentrated on the legal picture of the work of Christ, i.e. justification. This is because the Western or Latin Church was influenced greatly by the interests of secular Roman thinkers – who were very interested in law. So the legal picture of Christ’s work, justification, became the dominant idea in the Western Church. This has left the Western Church – both Catholic and Protestant - with a disturbing tendency to be legalistic at the very roots. This is hardly avoidable if the key concept one is working with is a legal one. This is very subtle but very real and most of you will have encountered and reacted to this legalism without knowing exactly what you are reacting to - because it is so subtle. At the same time you will probably have fallen prey to the same legalism without realising it. I did, and do, repeatedly.

The Eastern Church has taken quite a different approach and it is to this that many Western scholars are now returning, sometimes called the "Ontological" approach. This was the approach of Athanasius.

For Athanasius the only way to understand the person of Christ was through his work. The work of the gospel was the key to understanding who Christ was. And the key idea to understand in the work of Christ is the idea of Mediator.

The purpose of Christ coming to earth was to establish a New Covenant between God and man. Everything else was part of the process of doing this. All the other pictures of the work of Christ are explanations of part of this. But this idea, mediation, is the key idea.

Key Texts:
Hebrews 8:6.
“But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.”

Hebrews 9:15
“For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance- now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.”

Now here we need to jump out of our way of thinking into the Jewish mind for a moment to understand what the writer is saying.

When we Westerners hear the word “Mediator” these are the ideas that we come up with:
1. Two parties are in dispute (or, at war) and cannot get an agreement.
2. A Mediator is called in to arbitrate between them.
3. Qualifications of the Mediator: He must be an independent, neutral, third party (So he has no bias).

So when we hear the phrase “Christ is mediator” what we typically hear, in our heads, is “Christ came as an independent and neutral third party to bring God and Man together”.

It is right here that the Hebrew idea of mediation and ours’ are completely different – right at this point of being an “independent third party”. That is exactly not the idea of Hebrew mediation. And if we don’t see the difference then we totally misunderstand the whole Christian doctrine of the person and work of Christ.

The Bible concept of mediation is different from ours’ in that it does not envisage an independent third party bringing two warring parties together rather it sees the mediator as being one who embodies in himself the two parties at war. He is thus not a third party but is, in himself, both parties.

This is the starting point of Athanasius’ doctrine and the foundation of the Doctrine behind the Nicene Creed.

The first mediator in the Bible perfectly illustrates this. Adam was created to be priest and king in creation. As priest he partook of the nature of the physical realm – he had a physical body, but he also had breathed into him the Divine Spirit so that he was able to partake of the spiritual realm. In himself he embodied both the physical and the spiritual and so was able to be priest of Creation for God, to be God’s image.

Since Adam fell there had never been a true mediator, a true priest, until Christ came. This is the message of the book of Hebrews: the Aaronic priesthood, though appointed by God, was actually not up to the real task of Priesthood so God planned to replace them with the true priesthood, of which Christ is High Priest. For this reason Paul calls Jesus by two significant titles in 1 Corinthians 15:45-47 – the "last Adam"and "the second man". The title “second man” is now understandable – only Christ and Adam have been men in the true sense: uniting as priests, as mediators, in their own person the physical and the spiritual realms in the fullest possible way. The rest of us are less than men: fallen and spiritually dead. It is only as we receive Christ we become again, “Priests unto God.” We only become priests "in him".

Thus Christ is mediator of a New Covenant between God and man, and through man of all creation. One aspect of his work of mediation was justification, another was reconciliation, another was redemption and so on, but Athanasius saw that the overriding idea that summed up all the other pictures of Christ’s work was that of Mediator. So instead of following the Western Church and seeing what was only a partial picture as the whole and thus missing the point, Athanasius made a better, more comprehensive starting point.

So Christ is a mediator, not in the modern sense of a third party drawing two warring parties together, but in the sense that he, in Himself, embodies the two parties of the New Covenant. He is both God and Man; thus he effects the reconciliation within his own being. He is only able to do the work of mediation because he is, in himself, already the mediator, uniting God and man in the one person.

This is the key idea – he can only be mediator because in himself he already embodies both parties. If he did not embody both parties he would be an independent third party and thus could not be mediator at all. Do you see the total difference between our idea and God’s idea of mediation?

He came to be mediator between God and man. This purpose governs who he had to be in his person. He had to be both God and man in one person.

This was the conclusion Athanasias came to and it was enshrined in the Nicene Creed and accepted by the whole Church as being the Orthodox and correct way to understand Christ.

We looked at a key text governing this understanding in Chapter 2:

Philippians 2:5-8.
“Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death- even death on a cross!”

It is clear from this verse that Jesus had, in himself, perfectly preserved both the nature of God and the nature of man.

Thus the Bible and the Creeds state clearly that:
Christ is the possessor of two natures - divine and human. He is both God and man.

Question: How much of a man did Christ Become?

The Fathers of the Church debated this also. Their response, affirmed at the Church Councils, is clear:

Christ became a real man, fully identifying with the Adamic race in every way.

The key word used at Nicea by Athanasius was the Greek word, “Homoousios” which means “of the same substance”. Thus the Orthodox position was that Christ is “of the same substance as the Father”, i.e. he is in his essential nature exactly the same as God.

Arius, on the other hand, said Christ was "Homoiousios with the Father". The Difference between "Homoousios" ands "Homoiousios" is only the letter "i", or "iota" in the Greek. It is written as a dot. Hence the statement arose, "There is only an iota between them", or "There is only a dot between them". In writing the word this seems unimportant, but for Athanasius it was the difference between the truth of the gospel and denying the gospel altogether.

But Athanasius’ view was that Christ is not only homoousios with God – he is also homoousios with mankind, i.e. he is, in his human nature, authentically human.

The king pin idea of the Creed was the homoousion - the affirmation of:
(1) The oneness-in-being of the Father and the Son.
(2) The oneness-in-being of the Son with mankind.
Thus the Son, as mediator, fully participates in both Godhead and Humanity.

Athanasias developed this understanding from the idea of mediation – the mediator has to embody in himself both parties requiring mediation.

THE WORK OF THE MEDIATOR:

Athanasius starting point was the fact of the Gospel – Christ saves us from our sins – this the fact of Christian experience. But he argued from there. He combines the idea of mediation together with the facts of the gospel.

1. Only God can save.

This is axiomatic – only God can save. But Christ saves us from our sins. Therefore he must be God. If Jesus is not God then we are not saved, for only God can save.

T.F.Torrance:
“If Christ were not one with the Father, all he did would have no ultimate significance for us, and God himself would be utterly indifferent to the suffering of mankind.”

2. Only man can be saved.

As Mediator of Salvation then Christ had to take on full human nature. It was the nature of the man who needed to be saved that Christ has to take on if he was to save him.

The Gospel says:

3. Only God can save, but he saves as a man.

T.F.Torrance:
“We are to understand the incarnation as God becoming man, acting as man for our sake. Not God IN man, but God AS man.”

In Christ, God is not just inside a man (as the Holy Spirit is in us) motivating and directing him. Rather, in Christ, God has really become man.”

4. Christ became fully man, perfectly identified with us in our humanity, in order to save us.

Christ came to bring into being a New Covenant between God and Man - to re-establish the relationship broken through the Fall of Adam. Being already God he had to take on human nature in order to effectively be the mediator.


Here again we have to see the differences between our view of mediation and the Hebrew/Bible view.

We tend to think of a Mediator as one working with the two warring parties bringing them to an agreement on things that each one of them should do in the pursuit of peace and reconciliation. In this scenario the two parties do the things required to make reconciliation, the mediator himself does nothing. He is only a broker of words.

This is as far removed from the Bible concept of mediation as you can be.

In the Bible the Mediator actually completely fulfils all of the requirements for reconciliation for both parties himself. He does the work for them. In actual fact the warring parties do nothing to create the reconciliation – they simply receive it as a gift from the mediator. It is for this reason that he has to embody in himself the two warring parties. Only such a mediator can fully understand the point of view of both parties in such a way as to make proper allowances.

Hebrews 4:15.
“For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are- yet was without sin.”

He was already God so he fully understood the “God side” of the equation.
He became man so that he might understand our side of the equation.

Things were required of man – but look at God’s grace:
Covenants have two parties and both parties have things they must do to make the covenant operational. God could do the things necessary from his end, but man was incapable of doing the things required of him from his end. Thus God himself became man to do the things required of man to fulfill the covenant terms and conditions.

T.F.Torrance:
“For Athanasius, the mediating action of Christ was twofold - God to man and man to God, and that both divine and human activity must be regarded as issuing from one person. In order that there be perfect mediation it requires that both sides in the mediation be fully reconciled and fulfil all that is required of them. Because man is already fallen, God took on himself fallen humanity in order that he might fulfil our part of the mediation, thus providing a perfect salvation for us.”

Athanasius:
“As Mediator, Jesus ministered the things of God to man and the things of man to God. Christ fulfilled both the divine and human sides of the covenant.”

Now we understand this to be true: the New Covenant was completed by Christ. It is completed, sealed - Christ has fulfilled all of the requirements of the Covenant both from the divine side and the human side. The New Covenant was established by Christ 2000 years ago – it is fully operational. He did it all. It required absolutely nothing from any other man to make it fully operational. It requires nothing from me to make it operational for me.
The Covenant is already sealed. It was sealed by Christ acting as God for God and acting as man for man. The human responsibility for completing the covenant was undertaken by him. He was our representative.

Jesus thus fulfilled the covenant from both sides - he is “our God”, and he is “God's people.”

This is Athanasius’ position and it was accepted by the whole Church as being the correct doctrine.

WHAT ABOUT OUR RESPONSE?

T.F.Torrance:
“In him (Christ), our human response is taken up, purified, and addressed to God the Father as our very own. We come to the Father, not in our own words or right, but "in Him" as our advocate…
“Therefore we do not approach God in our own right or merit but only “in Christ”. It is his mediating work that God responds to, not ours’…
“We appear before God as accepted, inseparably united with Christ, in his eternal self-presentation to the Father.”

Thus there is nothing we can do to enter the covenant. Rather participation in the covenant is to be received simply as a gift.
It is grace not works.

A FINAL NOTE:

T.F. Torrance:
“Redemption is not something that is an external legal transaction that takes place outside of Christ, but is something which happens in the inner person of his being."

It is here that the differences between the Western and Eastern views start to manifest.
* The West tends to see redemption as something Christ did that was, in a sense, external to himself. It is thus seen in purely legal terms and described in purely external and legal terms.
* The East sees it, not in legal terms, but in personal terms; not as external to Christ, but as intrinsic to his very being as a person.

The flow on effects from these varying understandings lead to quite different approaches to religious life and spirituality:
* The West (both Catholic and Protestant – and Pentecostal!) tends to rules and legalism – and to judgement. We continually fall into the error of thinking, "Have I done enough?" "Have I repented properly or enough?" "Do I have enough faith?" and so on. Inevitably the question becomes one of "my performance, my works" and not a question of "the perfected work of Christ on my behalf".
* The East tends to an inner, personal, subjective spirituality based on relationship.

I know which one I would rather have!

Note:
T.F.Torrance has written several books on this subject including, “Trinitarian Faith”, “The Mediation of Christ” and “The Incarnation”. For the life of me, I can’t remember where these particular quotes came from. However I warmly recommend his books. “The Mediation of Christ” and “The Incarnation” are quite readable. “Trinitarian Faith” is quite heavy going, but well worth the effort.

HOMEWORK:
This week have a break. Except make sure you understand clearly what the chapter is about as I will build on it in the next several chapters.

If you have not taken the time to read chapters 1-6 in a single sitting please do so as God will open up new things to you through the interaction of ideas in the studies.

TRANSFORMER VERSES:
Hebrews 8:6.
“But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.”

Hebrews 9:15
“For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance- now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.”

PRAYER:
Father God,
I thank you for the New Covenant you have given us whereby we can enter into relationship with you again.
I thank you that you sent Jesus, your own Son, God of God, to become man so that as the perfect “God-man” he could perfectly fulfill all of the requirements of the covenant – both from your side as God, and from our side as man.
I thank you that because of Christ’s work the covenant is sealed, complete and we can receive it as a gift.
Father I receive your covenant with thanks. I receive the relationship you freely offer me through Christ.
In Jesus name, Amen.