FIRST. He took upon him our flesh. I showed you before that he came in our flesh, and now I must show you the reason of it—namely, because that was the way to address himself to the work of our redemption.
Wherefore, when the apostle treated of the incarnation of Christ, he added withal the reason—to wit, that he might be capable to work out the redemption of men.
There are three things to be considered in this first head. First. That he took our flesh for this reason—that he might be a Saviour. Second. How he took flesh, that he might be our Saviour. Third. That it was necessary that he should take our flesh, if indeed he will be our Saviour.
[He took our flesh, that he might be a Saviour.]
[First.] For the first. That he took our flesh for this reason—that he might be a Saviour: ‘For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh’ (Rom 8:3).
The sum of the words is, Forasmuch as the law could do us no good, by reason of the inability that is in our flesh to do it—for the law can do us no good until it be fulfilled—and because God had a desire that good should come to us, therefore did he send his Son in our likeness, clothed with flesh, to destroy, by his doing the law, the tendency of the sin that dwells in our flesh. He therefore took our flesh, that our sin, with its effects, might by him be condemned and overcome.
The reason, therefore, why he took flesh is, because he would be our Saviour—‘Forasmuch, then, as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage’ (Heb 2:14,15).
In these words it is asserted that he took our flesh for certain reasons.
1. Because the children, the heirs of heaven, are partakers of flesh and blood—‘Forasmuch, then, as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took part of the same.’ Had the children, the heirs, been without flesh, he himself had not taken it upon him; had the children been angels, he had taken upon him the nature of angels; but because the children were partakers of flesh, therefore leaving angels, or refusing to take hold of angels, he took flesh and blood, the nature of the children, that he might put himself into a capacity to save and deliver the children; therefore it follows, that ‘through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.’
2. This, therefore, was another reason—that he might destroy the devil.