1. Introduction
1. Introduction
The Surety (Mediator) of the Covenant of Grace
The Name “Surety” or “Mediator”
1. Of the two designations, “Surety” or “Mediator,” which is most suitable to highlight the relationship of Christ to the covenant of grace?
The name “Surety” has this advantage: that it renders more accurately what is meant by μεσίτης in most places in the New Testament—that is, one who, by assuming obligations and the guaranteeing of their fulfillment, brings about unity between separated parties. The name “Mediator” does emphasize the establishing of unity but leaves indefinite the manner in which this takes place (namely, by assuming obligations). Conversely, the meaning of the word “surety” in legal usage contains an element that suggests only the payment of an outstanding debt and loses sight of the other aspects of the work of Christ. It is therefore important with the use of both words to emphasize constantly that element that does not yet become clear in the usage of the word in itself. When one speaks of Christ as Surety, then one should remember that He does more than pay the outstanding penalty for the guilt of His people. When one speaks of Him as the Mediator, then one should accent that He is more than a means of mediation and only mediates by putting Himself in the place of the members of His body as their covenant Head. Thus both terms serve to supplement and explain each other.
2. How can one develop the notion of Surety (Mediator) from the concept of the covenant of grace, as described above? In other words, how can you derive from the covenant of grace what Christ must be as Savior?
a) The covenant of grace was established with the Son, not as Logos apart from His incarnation, but as the Son to-become-incarnate. Thus one must deal here with the Logos as incarnated Logos. We must speak of the incarnation and the God-human existence of the person of the Son of God.
b) As God-man, Christ is the Head of the covenant who not only effects the covenantal unity between God and man but must also possess it as a reality in Himself. There is thus a close connection between the concept of unity that must be established through the covenant of grace and the concept that one must form concerning the person of Christ in relation to His divine and human natures. On this point, too, Christology may not be detached from the doctrine of the covenant of grace but must stand in a living relationship with it.
c) Christ is not the natural covenant Head of His people but the covenant Head in a covenant of grace. He does not begin His work as something completely new that has nothing to do with what was earlier. In back of the covenant of grace lies the covenant of works, which may not just be pushed aside but must be removed judicially—that is, the debt incurred through the breaking of the covenant of works must be discharged. At the same time, however, this covenant of works, which was violated by Adam, must be carried out. The benefits of the covenant of works must be obtained. This gives us the distinction between the passive and active obedience of Christ.
d) Both passive and active obedience, taken together, entail a state of humiliation for Christ that He, as God-man, must enter into according to His human nature. If now Christ were only the procurer of covenant unity in a judicial sense, then one could speak only of a state of humiliation, and after having endured that, the Mediator would have to put off His humanity in order to retain only the state of divine glory belonging to Him from eternity. This, however, is by no means the case. There is more than a judicial representative unity between Christ and His people. On the basis of this, there is also a life-unity. He must not only establish covenant unity with God in a judicial sense, but also possess it in Himself and transmit it from Himself to the members of His body.
From this it follows that according to His humanity Christ must move on to a second state besides that of humiliation. All the benefits of the covenant, as they were acquired in the state of humiliation, must be exhibited in His human nature. The state in which this takes place is called the state of exaltation. According to this view, the doctrine of the states of Christ follows directly from the concept of the covenant of grace. It follows from the consideration that Christ is not the founder of the covenant but in a strict sense the Head of the covenant and thus, according to His human nature, shares in the benefits of the covenant.
Usually, the doctrine of the states of the Mediator is derived from the doctrine of redemption or salvation in general, in that one says: In the state of humiliation Christ had to earn salvation for us; in the state of exaltation He had to apply it. This explanation no doubt has great value for practical and catechetical use, and is perhaps more useful and transparent than that just given. It is, however, not completely logical. After all, it still by no means follows in itself from the fact that Christ must apply the accomplished salvation that He Himself must possess the benefits of the covenant to be applied. As far as we can judge, He could apply them without that. On the other hand, it follows from Christ’s attribute as covenant Head that His human nature must be exalted. Naturally, then, this exaltation is connected with the application of salvation to the members of His body, but the application in its full extent cannot be explained from exaltation. The state of exaltation does not follow from application in general, but from the particular manner of the application of the merits of Christ (from the Head to the members). And the two states of Christ will also have to be treated in connection with the doctrine of the covenant, as a consequence of what has been said.
e) From the consideration that the Mediator must not only earn but also apply salvation, something else follows directly. If He were merely Mediator of reconciliation, debt-paying Surety, then He could appear exclusively as Priest and there would be one office. Now, however, the Mediator does much more than that. He does not stand at a distance, in between God and man, but as covenant-head of the covenant He has a personal interest in the further realization of the covenant, for which His atoning sacrifice has laid the basis. He has, in relation to the Father, taken upon Himself this further realization and, conversely, received the promise of a glorious body.
From this it immediately follows that His role as Mediator has a much wider scope than only that which flows directly from the payment of debt. In other words, there is a multiplicity of offices: Christ, besides priest, must also be prophet and king.
We find, therefore, that the doctrine of the offices of Christ, as well as that of the states, may be developed from the concept of the covenant of grace. Further support for the threefold division of the offices and the relationship of the three offices to each other can only be discussed later.
3. Which topics must be dealt with, in succession, in this area of doctrine?
a) The names.
b) The God-human existence, that is, the person and the natures.
c) The states.
d) The offices of the Mediator.