The WESTMINSTER LARGER Catechism

WLC 39. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be man?

A. It was requisite that the Mediator should be man, that He might advance our nature,1 perform obedience to the law,2 suffer and make intercession for us in our nature,3 have a fellow-feeling of our infirmities;4 that we might receive the adoption of sons,5 and have comfort and access with boldness unto the throne of grace.6

Proofs

1Heb 2:16; 2Gal 4:4; 3Heb 2:14; 7:24–25; 4Heb 4:15; 5Gal 4:5; 6Heb 4:16.

Comments

We have seen why it is necessary for our Mediator to be God. It remains now to be shown why He must also be man. Our answer gives 6 reasons:

Firstly, it is so "that He might advance our nature." This simply means that He took on human nature in order that He may represent us and advance our cause. Even in ordinary human organisations, only members may properly act as representatives. Therefore, for Christ to represent us, He must be man, rather than say, an angel (cf. Heb 2:16), or only God. The apostle Paul puts it this way: "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead" (1 Cor 15:21). Since sin and ruin came by man, righteousness and restoration must also come by man.

Secondly, He must be man to "perform obedience to the law." God is the Law-Giver, It would be meaningless for Christ to obey the Law as God. Adam’s failure to perfectly obey the Law under the covenant of works brought the downfall of man. Christ came as the second Adam to fulfil the covenant of works on behalf of His elect (cf. Gal 4:4).

Thirdly, Christ must be man in order to "suffer." God cannot suffer. God can have sympathy for our sufferings, but as God He cannot sympathise with (or suffer with) our sufferings, for suffering implies limitations, while God is infinite. But our Mediator, in order to bear our iniquities (Isa 53:4-6,11), must suffer on our behalf. He therefore partook of flesh and blood with us "that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" (Heb 2:14).

Fourthly, our Mediator must be man in order to "have a fellow-feeling of our infirmities" and "to make intercession for us in our nature." As Mediator, He has to bring our cause before the throne of God. Unless He is able to feel something of our struggles, He cannot compassionately represent us. This is why the Scripture insists that true priests must be men (Hebrew 5:1-2). Thank God that the Lord Jesus Christ is man: "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Heb 4:15). And thank God He continues to be man even after His ascension, for as the apostle puts it: "this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them" (Heb 7:24-25).

Fifthly, our Mediator must be man, in order that "we might receive the adoption of sons." The apostle Paul teaches us that Christ was "made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons" (Gal 4:4b-5). The distance between God and man is infinitely great, and it is made even greater by sin. Notice the steps that God has appointed to make us His children. First, Christ took on human nature; secondly, Christ lived and died for us; and thirdly, we are made to conform to the image of Christ "that he might be the firstborn among many brethren" (Rom 8:29).

Sixthly, our Mediator must be man, so that we may "have comfort and access with boldness unto the throne of grace." This point is particularly related to the 4th point above. Because our Mediator was fully man and touched with all the feelings of our infirmities and was at all points tempted as we are, we have confidence to pour out our hearts at the throne of grace knowing that our Mediator understands us completely and is perfectly able to represent our case. To illustrate this point consider the relationship between a petitioner and his lawyer. Suppose the petitioner is a poor man struggling to eke out a living, and he is trying to make out a claim that is related to his poverty. Would he be comfortable having a lawyer who is living in opulence all his life represent him? Or would he be more confident having one who has struggled through poverty himself represent him? Thank God that our Mediator was perfectly man, for "though he was rich, yet for [our] sakes he became poor, that [we] through his poverty might be rich" (2 Cor 8:9). W