What is meant by WLC 38?

[TryingToLearn]

"It was requisite that the mediator should be God, that he might sustain and keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God"

What is meant when WLC 38 says that Christ must be God so that he might "sustain and keep the human nature from sinking"? I don't know what it means for a human nature to "sink" under the wrath or God. Nor do I know what it means for it to be "sustained" that it might not do this.

A couple years back I asked this question to a pastor who had written much on the standards and he answered that he believes this means that Christ had to be God so that he might be impeccable when bearing the judicial wrath of God so that He would not sin against Him whilst bearing God's displeasure, something no mere human in our peccable moral weakness could have accomplished—a creative answer to be sure, but I very much doubt that this is what the divines meant by this phrase.

Similar phrasing is found in theologians like Turretin, but it is never explained what is meant by this phrase.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

The latest in a series on Hebrews being preached by Rev. Rob McCurley. He speaks directly on this in the course of the sermon (hear the whole sermon, as he builds context). https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=710221056593

 

[Joshua]

One with merely a human nature could never withstand the wrath of God, and so our Mediator had to be both God and man -according to God’s decree of how justice may be satisfied- to accomplish all that only the perfect Mediator could. Human nature, being finite, would sink under God’s wrath, which is infinite.

 

[TryingToLearn]

One with merely a human nature could never withstand the wrath of God, and so our Mediator had to be both God and man -according to God’s decree of how justice may be satisfied- to accomplish all that only the perfect Mediator could. Human nature, being finite, would sink under God’s wrath, which is infinite.

Yes, you just repeated the language back to me, "Human nature, being finite, would sink under God's wrath, which is infinite". My very question regards what this means. What does "sinking" under God's wrath mean?

You have added in the idea of justice being satisfied though, but is this what the divines meant by it? It seems unlikely, as the entire answer says:

It was requisite that the Mediator should be God, that he might sustain and keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God, and the power of death; give worth and efficacy to his sufferings, obedience and intercession; ***and to satisfy God’s justice***

It seems redundant for the divines to say Christ must be God to "sustain and keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God" ***and*** "to satisfy God’s justice" if they mean the same thing.

Now, I don't know if they did mean the same thing, but that's why I'm asking.

 

[Joshua]

I think you’re over thinking it. Not sinking under the infinite wrath of God is comprehended within satisfying God’s justice, but it is not everything needed for such. There is an order to the catechetical method in the individual questions, but grouped categorically, that is giving you the framework needed to understand the parts and the whole.

Why must the mediator be man?
Why must the mediator be God?
Why must the mediator be God and man?

You’re getting too bogged down into an isolated concept of your own making, when the WLC framers are trying to help you think systematically of all the Scriptures teach on the subject of the matter.

Christ needed to have a true body and reasonable soul taken to Himself, that He might be the second Adam, and succeed, federally, where the first Adam failed. Besides that, He had also to do this as God, because the first Adam, though created upright, was mutable, subject to fall. Christ, as God, is immutable. Both of the aforementioned were needed in God‘s decree of how men should be justified from sin and death and God’s infinite wrath. Two natures in one person.

 

[TryingToLearn]

I think you’re over thinking it. Not sinking under the infinite wrath of God is comprehended within satisfying God’s justice, but it is not everything needed for such. There is an order to the catechetical method in the individual questions, but grouped categorically, that is giving you the framework needed to understand the parts and the whole.

Why must the mediator be man?
Why must the mediator be God?
Why must the mediator be God and man?

You’re getting too bogged down into an isolated concept of your own making, when the WLC framers are trying to help you think systematically of all the Scriptures teach on the subject of the matter.

Christ needed to have a true body and reasonable soul taken to Himself, that He might be the second Adam, and succeed, federally, where the first Adam failed. Besides that, He had also to do this as God, because the first Adam, though created upright, was mutable, subject to fall. Christ, as God, is immutable. Both of the aforementioned were needed in God‘s decree of how men should be justified from sin and death and God’s infinite wrath. Two natures in one person.

I think you're missing the point of what I'm asking here. It's a simple question of definition. When you say, "Not sinking under the infinite wrath of God is comprehended within satisfying God’s justice", my question is simply, what does "sinking" refer to here? What does it mean to "sink under the infinite wrath of God"?

Were someone to ask what the meaning of "died" is in the phrase, "Jesus died for our sins", the correct answer isn't "You’re getting too bogged down into an isolated concept of your own making, when the WLC framers are trying to help you think systematically of all the Scriptures teach on the subject of the matter", but it's to explain what "died" means (i.e. the departure of the soul from the body).

 

[Phil D.]

The Heidelberg Catechism (Q.17) deals with this same issue in very similar language. In that instance we have a very full exposition of what is meant in a commentary by its chief author, Zacharias Ursinus (actually, a commentary compiled by one of his students, David Pareus, based on Ursinus' lectures). It would be difficult to suppose the Westminster divines differed in any significant way in their intent when stating the same thing. The commentary can be read here (starting on page 87).

 

[TryingToLearn]

The Heidelberg Catechism (Q.17) deals with this same issue in very similar language. In that instance we have a very full exposition of what is meant in a commentary by its chief author, Zacharias Ursinus (actually, a commentary compiled by one of his students, David Pareus, based on Ursinus' lectures). It would be difficult to suppose the Westminster divines differed in any significant way in their intent when stating the same thing. The commentary can be read here (starting on page 87).

Thank you for this!

Question, when it says:

If our Mediator had been
only a man, and had taken upon himself the burden of God's wrath, he would have been crushed under its weight. It was necessary, therefore, that he should be possessed of infinite strength, and for this reason be God, that he might endure an infinite punishment, without sinking into despair, or being crushed under it.

Am I correct to interpret this as meaning the same thing he says in the next few paragraphs: namely, that he is speaking of the necessity of an infinitely valuable satisfaction (and the ability to raise oneself from the dead)? The above paragraph quoted is hard for me to understand as it is clearly figurative language which if taken literally makes it sound like the "wrath of God" has some sort of ontology and literal weight that would physically crush a human body

 

[Joshua]

You’re probably right that I’m misunderstanding what you’re asking, because I can’t comprehend why one would make it so hard upon themselves to grasp it. It’s the human nature that would sink under God’s wrath. How one gets from that to human body, I cannot say. I maintain, though, that I believe you’re complicating the matter by isolating that phrase peering into minutia.

What does it mean to sink? To fall. What is God’s infinite wrath? His anger and hatred and subsequent punishment against sin. Humans will spend all eternity sinking under his wrath, because it can never be extinguished by a mere human. Only the God man, Jesus Christ, as perfect Mediator could extinguish that, in the Triune God’s design of it all.

 

[Phil D.]

The above paragraph quoted is hard for me to understand as it is clearly figurative language which if taken literally makes it sound like the "wrath of God" has some sort of ontology and literal weight that would physically crush a human body

Figurative language is simply a way to helpfully describe a reality. Rather than just the human body, it may be helpful to think in terms inclusive of the soul or human nature, which, as Ursinus also alludes to, is the primary subject of God's infinite wrath that leads to "eternal death". To then speak of the entire human being, body and soul, as subject to being crushed (or sinking) under the weight of God's just wrath, seems a quite natural and intuitive description.

 

[TryingToLearn]

Figurative language is simply a way to helpfully describe a reality. Rather than just the human body, it may be helpful to think in terms inclusive of the soul or human nature, which, as Ursinus also alludes to, is the primary subject of God's infinite wrath that leads to "eternal death". To then speak of the entire human being, body and soul, as subject to being crushed (or sinking) under the weight of God's just wrath, seems a quite natural and intuitive description.

To be clear here, what is being said is that Christ needed to be God because the value of His sacrifice (which is of infinite value by virtue of His divinity) was needed in order to satisfy God's justice? And were He not God, then, He would "sink" under His wrath in the sense that He would have to spend an eternity in Hell satisfying it?

 

[py3ak]

The expression "sink under" can be used literally in a case of drowning. In a more metaphorical way it can speak of failure or despair. Christ did not sink under the weight of our sins in that he didn't give up or turn aside from satisfying for them, but successfully purged them by himself.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Here is Ridgly's exposition.

 

[RamistThomist]

Justice and wrath aren't the same concept. Wrath denotes God's punishment of sin et al. Justice speaks more of a setting to rights, what is God's due. Those things. If that is the case, then it isn't redundant for the divines to speak that way.

 

[Jack K]

For years, I looked at the similar language in the Heidelberg Catechism and found it equally unclear. The Ursinus commentary helped me (assuming I understand him correctly), particularly the part where he compares what would have happened to a mere man under God's wrath to what has happened to the devils under God's wrath. Yes, they survive, in a sense—but not in a way that they ever satisfy God's justice and come out of their punishment. No finite person, even a sinless one, could ever satisfy our infinite God's justice and be able to "come up for air" again at some point. That mere man would be forever under God's wrath (he would "sink" under it rather than be able to swim through it). And so, he would be unable to perform the other acts of our perfect Mediator: ascending to glory, sending the Spirit, coming again to complete our salvation, etc. The Q&A in the Heidelberg emphasizes this, speaking of how our Mediator makes satisfaction for sin so that he might go on to restore to us righteousness and life.

I suspect the authors of both confessions were addressing the question, "If Christ suffered the full wrath of God, how could he possibly go on to be our living, ever-helping, always-with-us, coming-again, complete Savior?" Their answer is that he did indeed suffer that full wrath, but he did not "sink" under its eternal and infinite weight, because he is infinite God and is able to bear such a weight—and so he came out of that wrath to be all these things for us.

I'm open to learning more fully what they meant if anyone has further resources/explanations. But that's where my understanding ended up.

 

[TryingToLearn]

The expression "sink under" can be used literally in a case of drowning. In a more metaphorical way it can speak of failure or despair. Christ did not sink under the weight of our sins in that he didn't give up or turn aside from satisfying for them, but successfully purged them by himself.

Interesting. That's fairly close to the explanation I got a couple years back.

For years, I looked at the similar language in the Heidelberg Catechism and found it equally unclear. The Ursinus commentary helped me (assuming I understand him correctly), particularly the part where he compares what would have happened to a mere man under God's wrath to what has happened to the devils under God's wrath. Yes, they survive, in a sense—but not in a way that they ever satisfy God's justice and come out of their punishment. No finite person, even a sinless one, could ever satisfy our infinite God's justice and be able to "come up for air" again at some point. That mere man would be forever under God's wrath (he would "sink" under it rather than be able to swim through it). And so, he would be unable to perform the other acts of our perfect Mediator: ascending to glory, sending the Spirit, coming again to complete our salvation, etc. The Q&A in the Heidelberg emphasizes this, speaking of how our Mediator makes satisfaction for sin so that he might go on to restore to us righteousness and life.

I suspect the authors of both confessions were addressing the question, "If Christ suffered the full wrath of God, how could he possibly go on to be our living, ever-helping, always-with-us, coming-again, complete Savior?" Their answer is that he did indeed suffer that full wrath, but he did not "sink" under its eternal and infinite weight, because he is infinite God and is able to bear such a weight—and so he came out of that wrath to be all these things for us.

I'm open to learning more fully what they meant if anyone has further resources/explanations. But that's where my understanding ended up.

This is the way that I understand it as well