Latest / Reformed Thinking / The Glory of Christ in His Humble Condescension | John Owen

Transcript

The Glory of Christ in His Humble Condescension | John Owen · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Imagine trying to measure the exact weight of a human soul,
0:04
but you're using like a kitchen scale.
0:06
A kitchen scale. Yeah, a basic kitchen scale.
0:09
It's a, it's an absurd mental image, right?
0:11
You, you just have the completely wrong tool for the
0:14
reality you're trying to grasp. I mean, you could place a person
0:18
on the scale, look at the numbers, and think you've
0:20
gathered some, you know, meaningful data, but you've
0:23
missed the immaterial reality completely.
0:26
Yeah, you're measuring the wrong thing entirely.
0:28
Right so welcome to reform thinking.
0:30
Today we are taking a deep dive into a historical text that
0:34
argues our human logic is well, it's quite a bit like that
0:38
kitchen scale when it comes to understanding the creator of the
0:40
universe. Because, you know, when we talk
0:43
about measuring a historical event, we usually expect this
0:46
sort of engineering level precision.
0:48
Sure, we want the hard data. Yeah, like you look at a massive
0:50
bridge being built in the 19th century and you calculate the
0:53
stone used, the labor of the timeline, and the historian just
0:58
points and says there it is cause and effect.
1:01
And it's comforting for us to view the world that way.
1:03
We really like things to be visible, to be categorized.
1:06
We want to wrap our minds around the literal mechanics of how a
1:08
thing happened. You have the blueprints, you
1:10
have the materials, and boom, you get the results.
1:13
Cause and effect, Broken or not broken, it's clean.
1:16
But then you step into the world of 17th century theology,
1:20
specifically looking at the incarnation of the Creator, and
1:23
suddenly that measuring tape just it snaps in half.
1:27
It really does. We're looking at a theological
1:29
landscape that is completely murky to the human mind.
1:32
Our standard tools for measuring reality fail us, and they fail
1:37
spectacularly. So I'll be your host for this
1:40
conversation, and sitting across from me is our resident theology
1:43
expert. Today, our focus is on
1:46
extracting key insights from the writings of John Owen.
1:49
Specifically, we're analyzing A dense, fascinating text about
1:53
Christ's assumption of the Office of Mediator and focusing
1:56
on his extraordinary condescension.
1:58
And I'm thrilled to be here to work through this with you.
2:01
John Owen is. He's not an author.
2:03
You just skim while drinking your morning coffee.
2:05
Definitely not. No, he writes with the surgical
2:08
precision that demands your absolute, full attention.
2:11
Our goal with this material is to understand the sheer scale of
2:15
the Infinite Creator literally stepping into human history.
2:18
And we want to clear up centuries of misunderstandings
2:20
about how this actually happened and uncover the practical
2:23
implications for your daily faith.
2:25
Because if you're listening to this, the objective here is not
2:28
to solve a math equation. We are here to gaze upon a
2:31
mystery that defies human reason.
2:33
Right, so in our discussion today, we're going to look first
2:36
at the absolute necessity of a mediator.
2:38
From there, we need to define what this concept of self
2:42
emptying entails, and we'll spend a significant amount of
2:45
time defending what it is not. Which is huge.
2:48
It is because people have tried to force this mystery into
2:50
logical boxes for centuries and Owen just dismantles those boxes
2:54
1 by 1 and then finally it will close with the life altering
2:57
reality of finding a sanctuary in this truth.
3:00
Man, I am ready to get into it. Let's start with the fundamental
3:03
problem presented in the source. There is this vast unbridgeable
3:07
distance between the Creator and humanity, and it's not just a
3:11
distance of space like, you know, between here and the
3:14
Andromeda Galaxy. Right, it's not physical
3:16
distance. No.
3:17
It's a distance of nature, and it's exacerbated by human
3:19
apostasy. And apostasy is a heavy word,
3:24
but here it means a literal, legal and moral rebellion.
3:27
A total severance. Yeah, so imagine 2 warring
3:30
nations separated by an ocean. They possess no shared language,
3:34
they have no shared culture, and they share an intense mutual
3:38
hostility. A.
3:39
Total standoff. Right.
3:40
Who negotiates the peace in that scenario?
3:42
You can't just yell across the water.
3:44
The text points to the book of Job where Job cries out but the
3:47
desperate need for a daysman. The term daysman is fascinating.
3:50
It's an older legal term for an umpire or an arbitrator, someone
3:54
who can literally lay a hand on both parties.
3:56
Lay a hand on both parties. I like that.
3:58
Yeah, if you have two groups who refuse to even be in the same
4:01
room, you need an arbitrator who possesses standing with both
4:04
sides, someone who is trusted by the king of the First Nation,
4:08
but who also intimately understands the plight of the
4:11
second nation. Someone who can bridge the gap.
4:14
But this brings up a massive question for me.
4:17
Why couldn't the creator just declare peace unilaterally?
4:20
Like if he has all authority why the absolute necessity of this
4:25
days meant why couldn't he just wave a hand and say we're good
4:28
the war is over. Well, Owen makes a brilliant
4:30
theological argument right here based on the nature of mediation
4:34
itself, and he draws from the book of Galatians.
4:37
God, considered absolutely in His divine essence, could not
4:41
act as a mediator in the strictest sense of the word.
4:43
Wait, really? Why not?
4:44
Because a mediator by definition must represent 2 distinct
4:48
parties. A mediator is not of one, but
4:51
God is 1. OK, let me make sure I'm
4:53
following the logic. Because the creator is one party
4:55
in the dispute, he can't mediate his own dispute.
4:58
That is the core of it. Whatever the Creator might do in
5:01
a way of sovereign grace, he couldn't do it in the way of
5:04
mediation without a distinct office.
5:07
The justice required by the rebellion of humanity demanded A
5:11
righteous peace, and establishing that righteous
5:13
peace required a mediator to step into the gap, representing
5:17
both the offended Creator and the offending creature.
5:19
OK, so a mediator is structurally required.
5:21
You have to have a third party. But why couldn't we just, I
5:24
don't know, recruit a really good human or an Angel?
5:29
The text makes it clear that no created being could do this job.
5:33
If we just need an arbitrator, why not pick the highest
5:36
Archangel? This comes down to the concept
5:38
of selfsufficiency. Owen points out that all
5:41
creatures, whether it's an Archangel in heaven or the most
5:44
moral human on earth, they depend entirely on their creator
5:47
for their own blessedness. Right.
5:49
If you're a creature, you are inherently finite.
5:51
You are not self-sufficient. You draw your very existence
5:54
from outside of. Yourself you're dependent
5:56
variable. Yes, exactly.
5:57
Well, precisely. And because you are a dependent
6:00
finite creature, you lack the infinite capacity required to
6:04
negotiate a righteous peace between finite apostate humanity
6:09
and an infinite Creator. Because the offense against an
6:12
infinite being carries infinite weight, an Angel being finite
6:16
would just be crushed under the weight of that negotiation.
6:19
If an Angel tries to bridge an infinite chasm, they fall short.
6:22
It's mathematically impossible for the finite to span the
6:25
infinite. Man, so no creature can do it.
6:28
The task absolutely required the Son of God to take on a
6:31
completely new nature. He had to become the days man.
6:35
But this brings up a huge tension for me, and I want to
6:37
push back gently on the concept of the Creator caring for
6:40
humanity at all. OK, go for it.
6:41
If the creator is entirely self-sufficient, requiring
6:45
absolutely nothing for his own eternal satisfaction, why does
6:47
he care about us? The text uses some pretty stark
6:50
imagery, describing all nations as the drop of a bucket and the
6:54
small dust of the balance. Yeah, from Isaiah, Yeah.
6:57
So if we're just the dust on the scales, why bother with the
6:59
dust? This touches on the absolute
7:01
mystery of the divine will. Owen uses 3 specific terms to
7:05
describe the magnitude of what the Creator did.
7:08
The first is kinosis, a Greek word that means self emptying.
7:11
Kinosis. The second is a Latin derived
7:14
word exonition, which describes an emptied or exhausted
7:17
condition, and the third is subkatabasis, another Greek term
7:21
the ancient church used meaning to go down from a higher place
7:25
to a lower place. Subkatabasis.
7:27
I'm guessing that's not just, you know, walking down a flight
7:29
of stairs. What does stepping down actually
7:31
look like for an infinite being? To understand the scale of the
7:34
Sigcata basis, you have to understand His complete
7:38
self-sufficiency. We call this siety, the concept
7:40
that God derives his existence completely from Himself.
7:43
The siety. Yeah, the entire creation
7:45
combined, every star, every Galaxy, every Angel, every
7:48
human, cannot add a single might to his satisfaction.
7:52
He lacks nothing. If the universe disappeared
7:55
tomorrow, he wouldn't be diminished by a fraction of a
7:57
percent. That is a staggering thought
8:00
because we usually think of relationships in terms of mutual
8:02
benefit. I bring something to the table,
8:04
you bring something to the table.
8:05
But here we bring literally nothing.
8:09
Right, and you hit the core issue there because he needs
8:12
nothing. Even a passing glance at the
8:14
most glorious rituals in heaven is an act of extreme self
8:18
humbling. The cicada basis.
8:21
He's stepping down from infinite majesty just to acknowledge the
8:24
existence of an Archangel. Wow.
8:27
If acknowledging an Archangel is a massive step down, then for
8:30
him to take on human nature. I'm trying to find a good
8:32
analogy. Think about a billionaire CEO
8:35
leaving the boardroom to go sweep the factory floor.
8:38
We would call that a humble act, but Owen is suggesting the gap
8:41
is much larger. It's more like a human
8:44
voluntarily choosing to become a microscopic amoeba to save a
8:47
puddle of water. Yeah, the scale of that
8:49
condescension is shocking. The human to amoeba analogy
8:52
starts to get at the scale, but honestly even that falls short
8:54
because a human and an amoeba are both finite creatures.
8:58
The gap between the infinite Creator and finite dust is
9:01
unquantifiable, and Owen highlights a crucial element
9:05
here, the voluntary nature of Christ's act.
9:08
Right. He wasn't forced into it.
9:09
No, this wasn't imposed on him by lot, by chance, or by any
9:13
necessity of nature. He didn't stand in need of this
9:16
office. It was a completely free act of
9:18
grace. He graciously condescended to
9:20
assume this office of his own accord.
9:22
That voluntary nature makes the self emptying infinitely more
9:26
glorious. He chose the dust.
9:28
Wow. And here's where the text gets
9:30
incredibly layered. Because to understand this
9:33
mystery, Owen spends a massive amount of time explaining what
9:36
did not happen. He defines the truth by denying
9:39
the historical misunderstandings that have plagued the Church for
9:41
centuries. Which is so helpful because it
9:43
makes sense that human reason would try to simplify this
9:46
puzzle. When faced with an infinite gap,
9:48
our logic tries to build a recognizable bridge.
9:51
Totally. Let me run a logical attempt by
9:53
you. Say I'm wearing a very heavy,
9:55
elaborate winter coat. If I take off that coat, I am
9:58
still myself. I've simply changed my outward
10:01
state. I'm just a guy without a coat
10:02
now. Did the Son of God just take off
10:05
his deity like a heavy coat to become human?
10:08
That is precisely the kind of logical trap human reason falls
10:11
into. We want to say he dropped the
10:13
God part to become the man part. Owen systematically dismantles
10:18
these logical shortcuts. He tackles 4 specific historical
10:22
errors that try to explain away the mystery.
10:25
Let's look at the first one, the Sicinian error.
10:27
I'm not super familiar with that term.
10:29
What does this Sicilian believe? So the text brings up this 16th
10:32
century idea which claims that Christ was simply a man who was
10:35
made into a God. They believe he was miraculously
10:38
born, lived a good life, and performed miracles, but he was
10:42
strictly human. In their view, the title of God
10:45
was basically an honorary promotion given to him after the
10:48
fact because he was so righteous.
10:50
Wait, so the Sicilian idea is basically saying he was just a
10:53
really good guy who earned a divine promotion?
10:55
It's a meritocracy. That's a spot on way to
10:57
summarize it. It turns the incarnation into a
11:00
meritocracy, and Owen destroys this by pointing out the
11:03
devastating mechanical flaw in that logic.
11:06
This view completely strips the entire action of its grace.
11:10
How so? Think about the mechanics of
11:12
grace. Grace involves stepping down to
11:15
lift someone else up. If Christ was only a man who got
11:18
promoted to divine status, he did it for his own sake.
11:21
He acted to improve his own condition.
11:24
There's no condescension there. There's no kenosis.
11:26
It's just a man climbing the corporate ladder of the
11:28
universe. I see the problem.
11:30
If he's climbing the ladder, he's not a savior reaching down
11:33
to the dust. He's just the most successful
11:35
piece of dust. It completely ruins the entire
11:37
concept of a rescue mission. He didn't step down.
11:40
He stepped up. And if he only stepped up?
11:42
You have no days, men. You have no one laying a hand on
11:44
both parties out of sheer grace. You just have a success story.
11:47
That makes total sense. We can cross the Sesinian
11:50
promotion off the list. What is the second logical trap
11:53
Owen attacks? The second is the Aryan error,
11:56
which Owen also compares to the doctrine of transubstantiation.
12:00
This is the idea that the divine essence was literally turned
12:03
into flesh. Like a magic trick.
12:05
Yeah, Think of the miracle where water was turned into wine.
12:08
The water ceased to be water. Its substance was completely
12:12
converted into wine. This error suggests the divine
12:15
nature was converted into human nature.
12:18
OK, so the coat wasn't taken off.
12:20
The coat literally morphed into a different material.
12:23
Why is Owen so opposed to this idea?
12:25
Owen has a very strong reaction to this.
12:27
He calls this view Ichabod, which is a Hebrew term meaning
12:31
the glory has departed. He argues this idea has no glory
12:35
in it whatsoever because it destroys both natures entirely.
12:39
Walk me through the destruction of both natures.
12:41
How does conversion destroy them?
12:42
If the divine essence is changed into flesh, it ceases to be
12:46
divine. God ceases to be God.
12:48
That violates the fundamental immutability of the Creator.
12:51
God cannot change his core essence, so boom, you lose the
12:55
divine party. Right.
12:56
And what about the human nature? If he turned into a human, do we
12:59
not at least have a human representative?
13:02
No, and this is the brilliant part of Owen's argument.
13:05
The resulting human nature has no real kindred or alliance to
13:09
our human nature because it was made out of the substance of the
13:12
divine Word, not derived from a human lineage.
13:15
It's a completely alien substance.
13:17
You're left with a third thing that is neither truly God nor
13:20
truly man. Wow.
13:22
You lose the days man again because the days man has to be
13:24
fully God to represent the Creator and fully man derived
13:28
from our actual lineage to represent us.
13:31
If he's just a converted third substance, he has standing with
13:35
nobody. That nails it.
13:36
You lose the mediator entirely. OK, we've ruled out the
13:39
promotion theory and we've ruled out the conversion theory.
13:41
What is the third error? The Utician error.
13:44
This comes from a thinker in the 5th century.
13:46
His idea was that the two natures of Christ, the Divine
13:48
and the human, were mixed or compounded together into one new
13:52
blended nature. Like blending blue paint and
13:55
yellow paint to get green paint. The blue and yellow are both in
13:58
there, but now you just have a bucket of green.
13:59
That's a great visual, and Owen rebuts this by looking again at
14:03
the immutable nature of the Creator.
14:05
The divine essence has, as the text says, no variableness nor
14:10
shadow of turning. It cannot be mixed, diluted, or
14:13
altered. It remained the exact same in
14:16
Him in all its essential properties from eternity past.
14:19
So if you mix blue and yellow to get green, the green can't
14:23
relate perfectly to pure blue or pure yellow.
14:26
The days min is compromised. Furthermore, mixing the natures
14:29
would mean the divine nature suffered a change and the divine
14:32
nature suffered nothing in itself.
14:34
It cannot be acted upon or altered by the physical world.
14:37
Making a blended nature means altering the divine essence,
14:41
making it something it was not. The logic is rigorous.
14:44
Every time human reason tries to make it mathematically clean by
14:47
promoting, converting or mixing, we end up destroying the very
14:50
mechanism that make salvation possible.
14:52
Exactly. Wait, I mean, yes, absolutely.
14:53
What's the 4th and final error Owen addresses?
14:56
The 4th is the error. This is often called the first
14:59
major heresy in church history. The dosatists operated on a
15:03
Greek philosophical assumption that all physical matter was
15:07
inherently evil or corrupt. So, they reasoned, the pure Son
15:11
of God couldn't possibly take on a real physical, biological
15:15
body. They thought a physical body was
15:17
beneath. Him, yes.
15:18
Therefore, they argued, his human body was just a phantasm,
15:22
an illusion. It was an appearance, much like
15:24
an Angel appearing in the shape of a man in the Old Testament
15:27
accounts. So he only appeared to eat,
15:30
drink and suffer. It's like a hologram.
15:32
A physical hologram, yes, and Owen points out the catastrophic
15:35
consequence of this view. The ancient Christians told the
15:38
dosatists if you feign an imaginary physical body, you're
15:42
left with an imaginary crucifixion.
15:44
Man, that is a chilling phrase, an imaginary crucifixion.
15:47
It gets worse. If you have an imaginary
15:49
crucifixion where no real blood is shed and no real physical
15:53
death occurs, you have an imaginary salvation.
15:55
That hits hard. If he didn't genuinely assume
15:58
our actual physical nature, he couldn't pay the actual physical
16:02
price for our actual apostasy. A hologram can't die.
16:06
A hologram can't be a substitute for a human being.
16:08
The debt was real, the rebellion was real, so the days men had to
16:11
be incredibly physically real. Let's pause and consolidate
16:15
where we are. The text is guarding the mystery
16:17
by putting up fences. The Son of God didn't climb a
16:21
ladder to earn deity, His divine nature didn't morph or convert
16:25
into flesh. He didn't mix the two natures
16:27
into a third green paint substance and his physical body
16:31
was definitely not a hologram. We have denied all the ways
16:35
human logic tries to simplify the incarnation.
16:38
So what is the positive reality? What actually happened according
16:41
to John Owens text the text? Lays out the true mechanics of
16:44
this condescension in three distinct components.
16:47
It's crucial to understand these three pillars.
16:50
The first component is the assumption of human nature into
16:52
an individual subsistence. Assumption of human nature into
16:55
an individual subsistence. That is a dense phrase.
16:57
Walk me through what that means. Owen uses the analogy of Adam to
17:00
explain this. When Adam was first created,
17:03
human nature existed in him alone.
17:05
The entirety of what it meant to be human was wrapped up in one
17:08
person, but he was a specific individual man.
17:12
Every person listening to us right now possesses human
17:14
nature, but that nature is appropriated to you by your
17:17
individual subsistence. You are a specific person, not
17:21
just a generic concept of a human floating in the ether.
17:24
I have my own thoughts, my own body, my own specific existence.
17:29
In the same way, the eternal Person of the Son of God took
17:31
that human nature which is common to all of us into a
17:34
peculiar subsistence in His own divine person.
17:37
He didn't just inhabit a man who already existed, like a spirit
17:40
possessing a host, He took the nature itself and made it
17:43
uniquely his own. He became the specific man,
17:46
Christ Jesus. So the divine person assumed a
17:48
human nature, creating one person with two distinct
17:51
natures. Yes, whatever was done in that
17:52
human nature was done by the person of the Son of God.
17:55
The natures remain distinct, but they are united in one single
17:58
individual. That leads right into the second
18:00
component, which is fascinating when you think about the daily
18:03
reality of his life. The second component is the
18:06
veiling of his glory. The text points out that he made
18:09
himself of no reputation. He hid his infinite Majesty so
18:12
thoroughly that the world didn't even regard him as a good man.
18:16
The effectiveness of that veil is staggering.
18:19
Think about the scene in the Gospel of John chapter 8.
18:22
Jesus is debating with the religious leaders and he tells
18:25
them before Abraham was I am. He uses the divine name.
18:29
He explicitly claims to be the eternal Creator.
18:32
And the immediate reaction of the crowd wasn't worship, it was
18:35
to pick up stones to execute him.
18:37
Right, and they explicitly state their reason later.
18:40
Because you, being a man, make yourself God.
18:44
It shows how utterly normal and physically ordinary he appeared
18:47
to the naked eye. If he was glowing or floating
18:50
slightly off the ground, or projecting a visible aura of
18:53
infinite majesty, the crowd would have fallen on their faces
18:56
in terror. Oh, without a doubt.
18:58
But they looked at him and saw a completely ordinary blue collar
19:02
construction worker from Nazareth.
19:05
His glory was veiled so completely that their human
19:08
reason couldn't compute the idea that He was the infinite
19:11
Creator. This is the massive stumbling
19:14
block for human reason. The world couldn't bear the
19:17
intimation of His divine nature because they suppose themselves
19:20
secure and what they saw with their own two eyes, they trusted
19:23
their kitchen scale. They looked at the scale, saw an
19:26
ordinary man and thought it was absolute madness for a sober man
19:29
to claim to be God. The veil was flawless, yeah.
19:32
And what is the third component of the true mechanics?
19:34
The third is the preservation of the human nature in its
19:36
entirety. When he assumed our nature, he
19:39
didn't change it into something purely spiritual or divine.
19:42
He didn't upgrade the human nature so that it was immune to
19:45
pain. He preserved it entirely in all
19:48
its essential properties. So he experienced the world
19:50
exactly as we do. He faced genuine temptation.
19:53
He felt real physical thirst. He experienced crushing
19:57
emotional sorrow and betrayal. That human nature was exposed to
20:01
the exact temporary evils that any other person would face in a
20:05
fallen world. He was tried, tempted and
20:08
forsaken, just as the same nature and any other man might
20:11
be. He didn't use his divine nature
20:13
as a cheat code to bypass human suffering.
20:15
Not at all. If he had bypassed the suffering
20:18
he wouldn't be a true days man. He had to lay his hand on our
20:21
actual reality. Let's bring this massive
20:23
theological framework right down to the immediate reality of the
20:26
person listening to this right now.
20:28
We've been discussing heavy ancient theological
20:30
distinctions, hypostatic union, individual subsistence, refuting
20:35
5th century heresies. If you were listening to this
20:37
while driving to a job you hate, or sitting in a hospital waiting
20:40
room dealing with a health crisis, or carrying a crushing
20:43
burden of modern anxiety, you're probably asking why does any of
20:47
this matter to me today? The text introduces a concept
20:50
from Isaiah chapter 8 and Peter's epistles, the idea of
20:53
Christ being a sanctuary versus a rock of a fence.
20:56
This is where Owens highly technical theology becomes
20:59
intensely, practically pastoral. He analyzes the dual response to
21:03
the incarnation. Let's consider the person you
21:06
just mentioned, someone in deep distress.
21:09
Owen asks a very practical question.
21:11
What is it that any person in distress looks for in a
21:14
sanctuary? When I think of a sanctuary, I
21:16
think of a fortified room, a place where the noise stops and
21:20
you are safe. Owen breaks it down into three
21:22
specific provisions. If you flee to a sanctuary, you
21:26
are looking for three things. First, a supply of all your
21:29
wants. Second, a deliverance from all
21:31
your fears. And 3rd, a defense against all
21:34
your dangers. Supply, deliverance and defense.
21:37
That covers pretty much every category of human anxiety.
21:39
It does, and Owen connects this directly to the two absolute
21:43
prerequisites you need when you seek relief from anyone.
21:46
Think about going to a friend for help.
21:48
You need to know two things about that friend, their will to
21:50
help you and their ability to help you.
21:52
That makes sense. If I go to a billionaire friend
21:55
for financial help, he has the ability, but if he's stingy, he
21:58
lacks the will. He won't help me.
22:00
Conversely, if you go to a deeply compassionate friend who
22:03
is currently bankrupt, they possess the will to help you,
22:07
but they lack the ability. In either scenario, you remain
22:10
in distress. You need both will and ability
22:14
to find a true sanctuary. So how does the deep theology of
22:17
the incarnation prove both of those things?
22:19
The will of Christ is proven beyond any shadow of a doubt by
22:22
the sheer fact of his Sigcata basis, His condescension.
22:26
Think about what we established. The Infinite Creator who needs
22:30
nothing, voluntarily emptied Himself.
22:33
He stepped down from the prerogative of His eternal glory
22:36
to take on our frail physical nature, exposing Himself to
22:39
sorrow, thirst and death for the sole purpose of acting as a
22:42
mediator for His enemies. If you went to those
22:44
unimaginable, mathematically impossible lengths to bridge the
22:47
gap, the question of His willingness is settled forever.
22:50
Settled entirely, will He not relieve us in our distress?
22:52
Will he not do all that we stand in need of?
22:54
The self emptying is the ultimate proof of His will to
22:57
save. The logic there is deeply
22:59
comforting. You don't have to wonder if he
23:01
cares about the dust. He became the dust.
23:04
He is not going to abandon you when you were terrified or
23:06
anxious. But what about his ability?
23:09
How does the theology secure that?
23:10
This is why rejecting those historical errors is so vital.
23:15
Because He preserved His divine essence entirely, because there
23:19
was no transubstantiation, no mixing into green pain, no loss
23:24
of deity, He retained His complete, unadulterated
23:28
omnipotence. He lost nothing of His divine
23:30
capacity. He could still do all that he
23:32
could do as God from eternity past.
23:34
Let me make sure I'm grasping the weight of this.
23:36
Owen is saying that in Christ Jesus you have a coalescency of
23:39
infinite capacity with infinite condescension.
23:41
Let's unpack that phrase because it is the linchpin of the whole
23:43
text. Coalescency of infinite capacity
23:46
with infinite condescension. It means the bringing together
23:49
of two massive realities. Let.
23:51
Me see if I have this right, Infinite capacity means he has
23:54
the absolute raw muscle to stop whatever I'm terrified of.
23:56
He commands the universe. Infinite condescension means he
23:59
has the proven humility to actually care about my specific
24:02
tiny terror. That is the precise combination.
24:05
That combination is what constitutes an indestructible
24:08
sanctuary for a distressed soul. You have a mediator who has the
24:11
might to defeat death itself and the willingness to listen to
24:14
yourself. Smallest anxiety?
24:16
But the text says this exact same truth acts as a stumbling
24:20
block to the world, a rock of offense.
24:23
If it's such a perfect sanctuary, why does it offend
24:25
people? It offends human pride.
24:28
Human reason rebels against the idea of an infinite Creator
24:32
subjecting himself to physical limitations.
24:34
Unbelieving minds stumble at the word because they can't and
24:37
weren't see the glory in this condescension.
24:40
They look at the cross and think it's absurd.
24:41
It looks weak to them. They choose to utterly deny his
24:44
divine person rather than allow that he would abase himself to
24:47
such a degree. Human pride wants a God who
24:50
stays comfortably far away in the heavens, acting as a distant
24:53
clockmaker. Or alternatively, they want a
24:56
human teacher who just gives good moral advice so they can
24:59
earn their own way up the ladder, like the Sicinian error.
25:01
We want to be the ones climbing the ladder.
25:04
We don't want a guy who climbs down into the dirt because that
25:07
implies we are utterly incapable of saving ourselves.
25:10
The idea of the creator in a Manger or hanging on a cross is
25:13
deeply offensive to a society built on self-reliance.
25:17
It forces you to admit your own total inability.
25:20
So people reject the entire concept.
25:22
They choose a refined philosophical heathenism over
25:25
the mystery of the Gospel. Which brings us to Oman's
25:28
intensely practical application. It's remarkably blunt, and it
25:31
gets right to the heart of human selfishness.
25:33
This is the ultimate cure for our tendency to hoard and cling
25:37
to things. This section raises A deeply
25:39
uncomfortable question for you to reflect on.
25:41
What are the things you clutch most tightly in this life?
25:44
The things we white knuckle Owen list them out.
25:47
Our goods, our liberties, our relations, our lives.
25:50
The things we pretend to have a sovereign right to my house, my
25:53
bank account, my reputation, my physical health.
25:56
And Owen provides a stark, almost jarring reality check.
26:00
He calls all of these things perishing things.
26:03
He points out that whether we want to admit it or not, within
26:06
a few days, death will give us an everlasting separation from
26:09
every single one of them. It's a morbid thought, but it's
26:12
undeniably true. I can spend 80 years building an
26:15
empire, but a microscopic virus or a failing heart valve will
26:19
eventually separate me from my bank account, my house and my
26:22
social standing. Owen says it will happen under
26:24
the grip of a fever or an asthma attack or something similar.
26:28
Your grip will fail. So how does the contemplation of
26:31
Christ's extreme condescension act as the primary motivation
26:35
for Christian self denial? I see where he's going with
26:38
this. If the Creator of the Universe
26:39
voluntarily parted the outward manifestation of His infinite
26:42
glory, if He let go of the prerogative of His Excellency
26:46
and made Himself of no reputation, how can I fiercely
26:49
clutch my temporary fading possessions?
26:52
Our unwillingness to part with these things reveals what Owen
26:55
calls a sinful distemper. It's a sickness of the soul.
26:59
We think our tiny pile of dust is more valuable than the
27:02
eternal glory the Son of God voluntarily set aside.
27:05
It's embarrassing when you frame it that way.
27:07
He gave up Infinite majesty and I am losing my mind with anxiety
27:11
over a slight dip in my retirement account or a
27:13
perceived insult to my reputation.
27:15
When we view by faith the glory of what Christ parted from, it
27:19
acts as an effectual cure for that sinful sickness.
27:22
You begin to contrast the eternal weight of His sacrifice
27:25
with the fleeting nature of your worldly attachments.
27:28
It puts everything into a staggering, mathematically
27:32
undeniable perspective. If he can let go of heaven to
27:34
become a servant, I can let go of my pride to serve my
27:37
neighbor. I can let go of my obsessive
27:39
grip on my finances. To be generous, the theology
27:42
directly fuels the ethics. The theology is the engine
27:45
without the reality of the succotyphus.
27:47
Self denial is just another form of moral self improvement, but
27:51
with it, self denial becomes a responsive worship.
27:53
We've covered a massive amount of ground today, spanning
27:56
theology, history, and deeply personal application.
27:59
Let's recap the vast scope of the material we've pulled from
28:02
Owen's text. We started by looking at the
28:04
unbridgeable chasm of human apostasy, the legal and moral
28:08
rebellion that necessitated a days man, an arbitrator, who
28:11
could lay a hand on both parties.
28:13
We examine the shocking scale of the Creator's self emptying.
28:17
We just. We then detailed the true
28:18
mechanics of the incarnation, the assumption of our nature
28:21
into his individual subsistence, the complete veiling of His
28:25
glory so that He appeared as a normal man, and the preservation
28:29
of his human nature through genuine suffering and
28:31
temptation. And we applied that massive
28:34
theological framework to the distressed soul.
28:37
We showed how His condescension proves His absolute will to
28:40
save, and His retained deity proves His omnipotent ability to
28:45
save. Together, will and ability
28:47
combined to form an indestructible sanctuary.
28:50
And finally, we face the start call for self denial,
28:53
recognizing that if the Creator let go of His outward glory, we
28:57
can let go of our perishing goods.
28:59
The sheer awe of this subject matter really does stretch the
29:02
mind to its breaking point. It demands everything your
29:04
intellect has and then requires more.
29:06
And that leads to a final provocative thought built upon
29:08
Owens text. Owen actually admits that
29:10
looking directly at this mystery will quickly overwhelm our human
29:13
reason. He says contemplating the
29:15
incarnation will bring our understanding to a total loss.
29:18
A total loss of understanding. We usually view a loss of
29:21
understanding as a failure. We do.
29:23
But consider this. What if the highest peak of
29:25
human intellect is not comprehending every mechanical
29:28
detail of the universe? What if the highest peak is
29:31
actually reaching the absolute limit of your own understanding,
29:35
only to find that the boundary line between logic and mystery
29:38
is the exact place where true worship begins?
29:42
When faith can no longer act in comprehension, it issues in holy
29:45
admiration. We started this deep dive
29:48
talking about historical measurement.
29:49
We talked about how we love to use logic and cause and effect
29:52
to build a clean, visible understanding of reality.
29:54
We want to measure the stones of the bridge.
29:56
We want that comforting kitchen scale to tell us exactly how
29:59
things work. We want to comprehend the
30:01
blueprints so we feel in control.
30:03
But the incarnation breaks the scale.
30:05
It's murky waters for our logic. Yet what we've discovered today
30:09
is that stepping into those unmeasurable waters is not a
30:13
surrender of truth. It's stepping into a sanctuary
30:16
when you finally drop the need to mathematically solve the
30:18
Creator's condescension. You are left with something far
30:21
better than an equation. You are left with the days man
30:24
who has laid his hand on you. Keep thinking about that
30:26
boundary line between logic and mystery this week.
30:28
Thank you for listening to Reformed Thinking.