Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon - 1876 painting by Vasily Surikov
We are approaching near the Christmas season where we celebrate and remember the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, when the Son of God was born of a virgin and became flesh. This is a truth that we believe as a result of Biblical testimony, but it is also a question that the church wrestled with for many years. I thought it would be beneficial, then, to give a brief overview of the development of the churches understanding of the incarnation, by way of examining, in historical context, the ancient creeds of the church. It is my position that these ancient creeds speak truthfully and accurately concerning the Person of Christ, meaning that they reflect the Bible’s teaching, and that all Christians should be instructed to understand the incarnation accurately. Jesus has been building His church for the past 2,000 years, and modern Christians should not be ignorant of what our Lord has been doing for all of this time.
The Council Nicaea
The worst period of persecution in the early church began in the year AD 303 under the Roman Emperor Diocletian (284-305). Up until this time in the Roman Empire, toleration for Christians would wax and wane. The Christians were never loved very much in society, but from 303-304 Diocletian issued 4 edicts against the Christians, which banned Christian worship, ordered the destruction of churches and Bibles, tortured clergymen and required that all citizens who refused to offer sacrifice to the Roman gods were to be executed.
Persecution would continue for almost a decade, until Christianity was finally granted the official status of toleration under Emperor Constantine in the year 313 (Contrary to popular belief, it wasn’t until 380 under Theodosius that Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire) after his famous vision at the Milvian Bridge.
However, persecution from the state was not the only battle the primitive church was facing. There were also theological controversies and disputes that were raging at the time, bringing much destructive harm to the Christian people and to Christian teaching.
Arius and Arianism
Perhaps the single greatest theological controversy in the history of the Christian church was that of the Arian controversy. Fundamental questions about Christology (the doctrine of Christ) were being addressed. Who is Jesus? Is he God? Was he just a human being? You see, already settled in the minds of the Christian people was the belief in monotheism (that there is only one true God) which the Old Testament Scriptures were seeped in. But then they also had the New Testament revelation to reckon with, which describes the “logos being made flesh” (John 1:14) and the Lord of Glory being crucified (1 Corinthians 2:8). It was very difficult for the ancient fathers to wrestle with these questions.
A popular teacher by the name of Arius (256-336) arose, who, seeking to be consistent with monotheism, taught that the Father alone was God, whereas the Son, or logos, was a created being—formed before the universe began. In Arius’ teaching, there was a time when the Son was not. (His teaching is similar to the Jehovah’s Witnesses of today). The Arian teaching was causing an incredible divide in the Eastern part of the Christian church, as on the other side of the controversy Bishop of Alexandria (from 313) Alexander taught that the Son was truly God, in the same sense as the Father.
The Emperor Constantine became aware of this theological controversy in the year 324, when he conquered the Eastern half of the Roman Empire. Now espousing a belief in the Christian faith, Constantine becomes very interested in this discussion. He felt that it was his duty as a Christian emperor to settle this dispute (a decision that would serve as a stepping stone towards Roman supremacy in the west) and so in the year 325 he commissions a council to be held at Nicaea, in which around 300 bishops were gathered to debate the issue. This was, of course, the famous Council of Nicaea which produced for us the Creed of Nicaea which condemned Arius’ teaching, and reflected that of Alexander.
The earliest Christian creed was the Apostle’s Creed, which says of the Person of Jesus1:
“I believe in Jesus Christ, his only-begotten Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary”
There is no explicit statement of the deity of Christ made in this statement, although of course that should not be interpreted as a denial of the deity of Christ. After all, Jesus is still called the only-begotten Son of God. The Creed of Nicaea expands this, and more explicitly affirms the deity of Christ in this way:
“And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, very God of very God, begotten, not created, of the same substance as the Father”
This new formulation of Christian truth serves to explicitly deny the Arian teaching. Both Arius and Alexander believed Jesus was God’s Son but Arius would not be able to affirm the creed when it states, “begotten not created, being of one substance with the Father”.
The background for the phrase “begotten not made” lays in an understanding of the Greek term μονογενής (monogenes) which is found in the Gospel of John, where the King James translates “only begotten Son” (see John 3:16). A theologian by the name of Origen (185-254), who is somewhat of a mixed bag in terms of orthodoxy, understood the term to mean “begotten” in the sense of begetting an offspring. Most contemporary Greek scholars would not understand the term in this way, but would see it as meaning something like “one of a kind” (μόνος monos meaning “one” or “alone” and γένος genos referring to “kind” or “class”).
Origen also believed in what could essentially be considered eternal actions of God. And so he developed the doctrine of the eternal begetting of the Son, such that the Son was not begotten at a particular point in history, but that the Son is eternally begotten. While we do not need to understand the term μονογενής (monogenes) in this same way, we can still affirm that the Son of God has existed in an eternal relationship with the Father as His Son. The point which the Creed of Nicaea seeks to make, and which all Christians believe, is that the Son of God exists as God’s Son in such a way that He is not created. Biblical support for this can be found in places like John 1:3 which states that “all things were made through him [the logos or the Son], and without him was not anything made that was made”. Colossians 1:16-17 says,
“by [Christ] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, in in him all things hold together”.
If all things were made through the Son, and without Him nothing was made that is made (John 1:3) then this of necessity excludes the Son from being created.
The other very explicit, anti-Arian, statement made by the creed is that the Lord Jesus Christ is “God of God, Light of Light, very [or, truly] God of very God… of one substance with the Father”.
These statements explicitly make Christ out to be God, in the same way that God the Father is God. And this is not without Biblical support either. John 1:1 states it quite simply, “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God”. Later in John’s Gospel, Jesus will pray, “Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed” (John 17:5). In Jesus’ understanding, He had a shared glory with the Father (who is the only true God, see John 17:3) before the world was created. We think of the many “I am” statements in John’s Gospel (which are reflective of the Old Testament name of God, “I AM THAT I AM”—Exodus 3:14), which resulted in the Jews seeking to stone Jesus (John 8:58-59). We also see in the New Testament, that the divine name of God, Yahweh (YHWH - יהוה) is applied to Christ (see for example, John 12:41, Hebrews 1:8-9).
The creed states that Christ is “of one substance with the Father” (ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί). The key term here, ὁμοούσιον (homoousios) means “of the same essence”, “essence”, referring to the innermost reality of an object. So, the Creed is saying that, that which the Father is, in terms of essence, substance, being, reality etc. is that which the Son is. Put simply, the Son is God in the same way the Father is God. Arius taught that the Son was ἑτεροούσιος (heteroousios), of a different substance, and his teaching was outright condemned at Nicaea.
The Arian Resurgence
We might be tempted to think that after the Council of Nicaea, everything was solved, perfectly rosy, and the church never argued ever again. But such an idea would be only a mere pipe-dream. Especially in the East, debates and argument would rage on for another 50 years, including a period of time in which Nicene orthodoxy was in the minority.
Three parties arose after Nicaea which differed on the nature of the essence of the Son in comparison to the essence of the Father, namely the Arian party, the Nicene party and the Origenist party. The Arian belief and the Nicene belief have already been explained (Arius held that the Son was of a different substance, whereas Nicaea held that the Son is of the same substance). The Origenist party held the view that the Son was neither ἑτεροούσιος (heteroousios) nor ὁμοούσιον (homoousios), but that He was ὁμοιούσιος (homoiousios)—that is, “of a like, or similar, substance”. If you think that this language is somewhat confusing, you are not alone. It is essentially a difference of mere syllables, but it is because of this confusion that the Arians (who were truly heretics) were able to set the Nicene party against the Origenist, and this resulted in the Nicaeans being in the minority, with the majority of bishops being Origenist, who sided with the true heretics, the Arians.
In the year 328, Athanasius (296-373) becomes bishop of Alexandria (where Arius was initially disposed in the first place). Athanasius becomes the key defender of Nicene orthodoxy during this period of time. He realizes that he can’t simply quote the Creed of Nicaea over and against his opponents, who would simply dismiss the creed as being the result of human error, and so he is forced to make Biblical arguments in favor of the deity of Christ, utilizing texts such as John 1:1, John 10:30, Hebrews 1:3, 2 Peter 1:4 and many others.
Eventually, the year 353 sees Constantius II (337-361) assuming control of the entire Roman Empire, Constantius was an Arian. Constantius uses political power and violence to enforce Arianism throughout the land. Now, even the Origenists were being persecuted along with the Nicaeans, which led Athanasius to seek an alliance with them over and against the Arians. Athanasius is viewed by all Christians today as being the true hero of orthodoxy, who bravely and courageously fights for the truth concerning the deity of Christ over and against all opposition. The phrase Athanasius contra mundum (meaning, Athanasius against the world) has come down to us, as when heresy reigned throughout the empire, he contended valiantly for the faith he saw taught in the Bible.
Eventually, an expanded form of the Creed of Nicaea was produced, which is what most people refer to today when they speak of the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by Protestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox alike. The portion concerning the Person of Christ is as follows:
“… in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.”
The Chalcedonian Definition
The question of whether or not Jesus is divine, and uncreated settles in the minds of most Christians. But this, also, is not the end of the argument. After affirming that Jesus is the Divine Son of God, begotten not created, the church still has to wrestle with the fact that the Scriptures present Jesus as being a man. He is born of the virgin Mary, He grows tired and thirsty (John 4:6-7). His favorite title for Himself is “Son of Man”. Well, if Jesus is God, and He is man, how do you reconcile both of these statements?
In the 4th century, two schools of thought begin to arise. The Antiochenes and the Alexandrians. In terms of their views of Scripture, the Antiochenes emphasise a literal understanding of the text, whereas in Alexandria a deeper, allegorical meaning of the text is looked for (this is the result of Origen’s influence).
The Antiochenes, then, have a strong emphasis on Christ having existed as a literal historical person. They saw Christ as a real human being, just like you and I. Because of this, in the minds of the Antiochenes there needed to be a sharp distinction between the human and divine nature of Christ, lest Christ’s true humanity were to limit Christ’s divinity.
The Alexandrians, on the other hand, want to stress Christ’s true divinity, especially in Christ’s ability to bring about salvation. Humans, like us, needed to be united to the divine, so to speak, if we were to be saved. The tendency of the Alexandrians, over and against the men of Antioch, was to unite the two natures of Christ as close together as possible.
Ancient Heresies
The result was that both schools of thought ended up leading to heresy. The most important heresies to be aware of are Apollinarianism, Nestorianism and Eutychianism.
Apollinarus (300-390) came from Alexandria. He held to the idea that the divine mind, or “spirit” of the Logos, or the Son, essentially took the place of the human mind of Christ (Apollinarus believed that man was made up of three parts- body, soul and spirit. Most Christian theologians would not hold to this view, called trichotomy). The result of this is that Apollinarianism essentially teaches that Christ had a human body, but not a human mind—instead a “divine mind” sort of take up residence in the body of Christ. Christ, then, is not truly human.
Nestorius (381-451), a famous preacher from Antioch, has a very unfortunate place in history, because he has a heresy named after him, that he may not have actually held to. You see, Nestorius did not believe that the phrase Θεοτόκος (Theotokos—meaning “God-bearer”) was appropriate to use of Mary. He would prefer the term χριστότοκος (Christotokos), his idea was that we should rather speak of Mary having bore the human person of Christ, as opposed to the divine nature of the Son. The percieved advantage that this had over Apollinarianism, was that the Antiochenes could hold to Christ being a “complete person”. This maintained a sharp distinction between Christ’s two natures. The heresy of Nestorianism teaches that Christ exists in two persons, a divine Person and a human person. It is not likely that Nestorius himself would go this far, but history has still credited him with the originator of the heresy.
Finally, Eutyches (378-454), an Alexandrian thinker, teaches (with the idea of correcting the error of Nestorianism) that Christ existed in one Person. But, he got to this conclusion by “mixing”, or “confusing” or “intermingling” the divine and human natures of Christ. Such that, “like a drop of wine in the sea” the human nature is sort of swallowed up in the divine, and hence Christ has neither a truly human or truly divine nature, but a new “unique” nature. Eutychianism would be condemned as well, and it is what led to another church council being held at Chalcedon in the year 451, under the order of Emperor Marcian (390-457).
In the words of Louis Berkhof:
“The church was in quest of a conception of Christ that would do justice to the following points: (a) His true and proper deity; (b) His true and proper humanity; (c) the union of deity and humanity in one person; and (d) the proper distinction of deity from humanity in the one person.” - Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines, pg. 102 (Banner of Truth)
The council at Chalcedon produced for us what is known as The Chalcedonian Definition, which contains the churches principle definition of the hypostatic union (a term which will be defined below). The Chalcedonian Definition will be produced in full here:
“Following the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer [Θεοτόκος (Theotokos)], as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us”
The church was able to assert, at one and the same time, that the Lord Jesus Christ was one Person with two natures. This assertion is known as the Hypostatic Union. The two “physeis” (natures) of Christ were united in one “hypostasis” (person).
When we talk about a “nature” of something, we mean “that which makes something what it is”. I recall an illustration I first heard in Dr. Greg Bahnsen’s course on Systematic Theology. He told the class to imagine a mermaid. He then asked whether what the class had in mind was a female torso with the tail of a fish. He then asked if her hair was blonde, black or brown- to which there were obviously different answers. The point being made, is that what essentially constitutes a mermaid, is the female torso and fish tail. The color of the hair is not essential to the nature of a mermaid, but if she no longer has a tail, she is no longer a mermaid. And so, when Christ is said to have a true divine nature, we mean that everything which makes God what He is, and without which He wouldn’t be God, Christ has. Likewise, everything that makes a man a man, Christ has as well.
One of the beautiful aspects of the Chalcedonian Definition, is that it recognizes that the way in which these two natures are united in the one person is by way of mystery. When you read the definition, take notice of how many statements are negative versus positive—meaning how often is it saying “Jesus isn’t like this” compared to saying “Jesus is like this”. When you talk about the mysteries of the faith, such as the incarnation, you get to a point where God, and the Person of Jesus are so unlike anything in our experience, that there is nothing to compare them to. You can only say, what He isn’t like. The two natures “undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the two natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together in a single person and single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons”. When it comes to confessing the Christian faith, we are required to believe exquisite mysteries which are beyond our understanding.
Essentially, what the Chalcedonian Definition does is express, in clear terms, everything that Paul meant when he wrote to the Corinthians saying that the Lord of Glory was crucified (1 Corinthians 2:8).
Another, lesser known creed is produced around this time also called The Athanasian Creed. Whether or not the creed was actually produced by Athanasius is disputed by historians, but the creed is still regarded as being a true reflection of the doctrine he taught (and the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures). It is the longest of the early Christian creeds, and it also happens to be my favorite, as it is the most explicit and clear statement of what Christians believe about the Trinity and the Person of Christ. The section on the incarnation reads thus:
“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that one also believe in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ faithfully. Now this is the true faith: that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son, is both God and man, equally. He is God from the essence of the Father, begotten before time; and he is man from the essence of his mother, born in time; completely God, completely man, with a rational soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as regards divinity, less than the Father as regards humanity. Although he is God and man, yet Christ is not two, but one. He is one, however, not by his divinity being turned into flesh, but by God’s taking humanity to himself. He is one, certainly not by the blending of his essence, but by unity of his person. For just as one man is both rational soul and flesh, so too the one Christ is both God and man.”
In Conclusion
Such is the Creedal understanding of the incarnation of Jesus Christ. What we have done in this artical is the discipline of Historical Theology where we examine the development of the church’s understanding of doctrine. It is important to recognize that the truths we believe about Christ, His birth and incarnation are truths that come from the Holy Scriptures. While it was not our intention at this time to do in-depth exegesis of Biblical passages, it was purposeful on my part to at least reference some of the Biblical material. We believe what the men who wrote our creeds believed, not because they wrote them, because we look to the same Scriptures they looked to, and are guided by the same Spirit.
I trust that looking at this information was beneficial to you, and I pray that this Christmas season, as you reflect on the birth of your savior, and you meditate on passages such as John 1 you are led to incredible devotion and prayer as you contemplate the mystery of the incarnation.
For our purposes, we are explicitly looking at the Christological statements of the creeds which deal with the Person of Christ.