Having discussed the offices of the Lord Jesus Christ, we will now proceed to consider the states wherein the Lord Jesus has administered these offices. We will do so particularly in regard to the high- priestly office which He administered in the state of humiliation by way of sacrifice, and thus meritoriously, and in the state of His exaltation by way of intercession, and thus by way of application.
There are two states: the state of humiliation and the state of exaltation. Both are joined together in the Old Testament. “He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall He lift up the head” (Ps 110:7); “When thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand” (Isa 53:10). This is also true in the New Testament. “Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory” (Luke 24:26); “But made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant … wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a Name which is above every name” (Phil 2:7-9).
The Incarnation of Christ: Not a Step of His Humiliation
The act of humiliation relates to the person of the Lord Jesus and not to one of His natures. Being a divine Person, His entire suffering was therefore a work of divine efficacy and value. The Person of the God-man as such did not humble Himself according to His divine nature. This is impossible, since His divine nature is immutable and incorruptible. He has, however, concealed His divine glory behind His assumed humanity, so that men did not perceive Him as He was, namely, as God; and thus they had the audacity to kill Him. Therefore the assumption of the human nature as such was not a humiliation in and of itself, but rather qualified His Person to be Mediator.
The God-man Christ was born in poverty, had no reputation or beauty, but had the form of a servant, that is, of the most insignificant of men, yes, of all men. Due to the sinfulness of all humanity, He was likewise viewed as a sinner and considered to be one of them. All of this truly constituted a step of the humiliation of the God-man Christ. The assumption of the human nature itself, however, considered apart from those humbling circumstances, neither did nor can constitute the essential nature of His humiliation, for:
(1) Christ, prior to His incarnation, was not yet God-man; therefore He could not be humbled as such. According to His divine nature this humiliation, properly speaking, could not take place.
(2) Furthermore, the union of the divine and human natures will continue in His state of glory—yes, to all eternity. Thus, the incarnation itself, without these humiliating circumstances (which should not be considered here at all), was not a humiliation. It was rather a qualifying of His Person, enabling Him to be Mediator.
In 2 Cor 8:9 we read, “Though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor.” The reference here is not to the fact of the incarnation, but to the humbling circumstance of poverty: “… made of a woman, made under the law” (Gal 4:4). Here is no mention of humiliation, even though being made under the law is humiliating. This does not imply that being made of a woman is an act of humiliation. “But made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant” (Phil 2:7). Here His humiliation is defined, not as the assumption of the human nature, but as consisting of humble circumstances: to be in the form of a servant, and to be obedient to the Father to the very death on the cross.
The State of Humiliation: His Suffering and Submission to the Law
The humiliation of Christ has two elements: His suffering for the purpose of making satisfaction, and the placing of Himself under the law in order to merit salvation for His elect. His suffering can further be subdivided into His suffering of soul and His suffering in body—to which the suffering of the soul was conjoined. According to His divine nature He neither can suffer nor has suffered.
Christ did not only suffer in His body, but especially in His soul. He did so rationally, and thus not merely by identifying and sympathizing with the suffering of the body. He who considers the suffering of the soul to be no more than a sympathizing with the suffering of the body is exceedingly ignorant. The sense of God’s wrath in the soul is the soul of suffering, even when the body does not suffer.