Reintroducing George Smeaton and Abraham Kuyper

Writing on different subjects, in different language, but at roughly the same period of time, George Smeaton and Abraham Kuyper used synonymous language to describe Christ’s reign over the earth.  In our first post, we introduced them; today we will compare and combine their statements to give a more full-orbed understanding of Christ’s universal dominion. But before doing that, let me supply their quotes again.

First, in 1871 in Christ’s Doctrine of the Atonement, Smeaton wrote concerning John 12:31 and Christ’s universal reign,

On the contrary, this testimony shows that every foot of ground in the world belongs to Christ, that His followers can be loyal to Him in every position, and that in every country and corner where they may placed they have to act their part for their Lord.  The world is judicially awarded to Christ as its owner and Lord (p. 300).

Ten years later, Kuyper in a speech concerning “sphere sovereignty,” Kuyper make the famous statement,

There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: “Mine!“

Clearly, the resonance between Kuyper and Smeaton is unmistakable, but there are a number of differences in context and nuance that make it worthwhile to take up both statements as we consider Christ’s universal dominion.  Let’s consider three that develop this truth.

Feet and Inches: Smeaton and Kuyper on the Universal Reign of Christ

First, Christ Rules Over Satan and Scholars.  In Smeaton, Christ’s rule over the earth is contrasted with that of Satan.  While Satan stole possession of the earth from Adam and Eve, and ruled as the god of this age for generations; Jesus Christ came and dethroned the serpent of old.  Thus, while he still flails, Jesus is the one resting on the throne and delegating his Spirit and his Church to have dominion over the whole wide earth.

At the same time, one of the areas in which this dominion ought to occur is in the academy.  Kuyper, a brilliant theologian, author, educator, politician, and spokesman for a Reformed worldview, advocates the need for the disciplines of law, medicine, science and so forth to be undertaken not in disjunction from faith or from the reign of Christ, but rather in connect with him.  The reason?  Just as Christ reigns over Satan and in the church, so he is the creator, sustainer, and inventor of all life.  Thus, to rightly understand anything in creation demands that a person sees how that individual theory, molecule, or bacteria strain relates to the whole.  Only with Christ reigning on the throne can such a vision of research be conceived.

Second, Christ Rules Over Space and Studies.  In Smeaton, we find biblical proof of the fact that Christ died for people from every tongue, tribe, language, and nation.  At the same time, his death defeated the cosmic reign of Satan.  Therefore, every square foot has now been reclaimed, officially, by Christ, and in time all creation will be re-made and re-seeded as Christ brings the New Creation.  At the same time, Kuyper rightly sees Christ rightly seeds his world with thinkers and thoughts that benefit all of humanity.  These come not only from Christian scientists and philosophers, they are also developed by unbelievers.  Nevertheless, Christ rules over the nations and their various schools of thought in order to effect all of his purposes in the world.

One example of this would include the political theory that permitted Israel to dwell in the land of Palestine under the auspices of the Roman Empire.  While not apparent to the Romans or even the Jews, God permitted the toleration of the Roman Empire to provide a way of life in Israel that facilitated the coming of Christ (cf. Gal 4:4).  All the orchestrations and political machinations were at one level governed by various thinkers and philosophies, but at another level, God used them in order to effect his causes.  In this way, God is sovereign over the geographic nations and the way they run.  Smeaton points to the former, Kuyper more the latter.

Third, Christ Rules As Redeemer and Creator.  In Smeaton’s work, he is insistent on Christ’s atoning work.  Because of Christ’s death, he defeats Satan and redeems or reclaims the earth.  In this way, he is functioning as a Redeemer who has authority over all the earth.  For Kuyper, it seems that his sphere sovereignty is more connected with his role as creator and sustainer.  While not denying the special work of redemption, in any sort of way, he emphasizes Christ the Creator.

Truth be told, both of these things are truth and should not be set against one another.  Rather, they work in tandem and rightly relate Christ to all the earth.  As John 17:2 mentions, Jesus has authority over all flesh, but he only gives eternal life to the ones who have been given to him (i.e. the elect).

In the end, Smeaton’s statement balances Kuyper’s statement and gives added texture and depth to the beautiful reality that Christ reigns over all things.  Christ reigns over all the earth as Creator and Redeemer, as the one who has subdued Satan and who subverts scholars.  He rules space and time, measurement and rhyme.  He is God over all, and in the works of Smeaton and Kuyper, one can find an excellent pair who help us think through the way Christ governs his universe.

A Final Curiosity

Smeaton published his words before Kuyper proclaimed his.  While it would be natural for Smeaton to assimilate Kuyper’s well known words–at least well known today–it seems more odd that Kuyper would have borrowed his most famous utterance from another. And it probably is unlikely. The contexts in which the statements occurred and the provenances from which they were written, accompanied by the difference in languages, makes it unlikely that these two statements had any organic relationship.

It is more likely the case, that the allusive echo found in their statements are simply the product of two men studying the same Scriptures, influenced by the same Spirit–coincidentally, both men produced mathom works on the Holy Spirit (Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit; and Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit), living under the same king whose rule is seen in Edinburgh and Amsterdam.

While Smeaton measured Christ’s reign in feet and Kupyer marked his off in inches, the reality for both of them, is that Christ rightly possess all his inheritance and is reigning over it all today.  This glorious truth bears repeating, and as often as we quote Kuyper, perhaps we should also cite Smeaton, who not only precedes the Dutch theologian and prime minister, but who also connects the universal reign to the cross of Christ.

Thoughts? If anyone does have any connections between Smeaton and Kuyper, I would love to know.  If not, it will remain an interesting coincidence, another example that there is nothing new under the Son.

Introduction
“I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.”
Affirmation after affirmation rolls off the tongue in the triumphant crescendo of syllables that concludes the Apostles’ Creed. In Protestant printings of this text, a footnote or parenthetical statement jarringly interjects to assure readers that “catholic” doesn’t actually mean “Catholic,” but in fact carries an earlier meaning of the adjective: “universal.” In light of the earnest impulse to preclude possible misunderstanding of the term “catholic,” it is interesting that the following phrase “the communion of saints” then passes without prompting a similar rush to explanation. Yet doesn’t “the communion of saints” also deserve a moment’s reflection on its meaning? What should one believe when professing this kind of conviction, and what difference does it make?
Background of “On the Communion of Saints” in the Second London Baptist Confession
The First London Baptist Confession of Faith (1644), Article 34, simply states that “all men” ought to come into the church “to have communion here with the Saints.” The confession does not further develop the concept of this communion nor specify the identity of these “saints,” other than perhaps paralleling “saints” with “believers” in Article 31.[1]
In contrast, within the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) appear the two paragraphs of Chapter 27, titled “On the Communion of Saints.”[2] The text weaves together elements from both the Westminster Confession (1647)[3] and the Savoy Declaration (1658)[4] treatments of the topic, for the most part accepting Savoy Declaration edits but retrieving from the Westminster Confession a closing defense of the concept of private property.
A literary composite, “On the Communion of Saints” in the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith adheres closely to its sources. That said, appropriation of that source material into a Baptist context frees the text from its prior denominational commitments. For Baptists, the value of the Confession’s treatment of the communion of saints lies in the degree to which it reflects the theology of the Bible.
Biblical Theology within the Chapter
Scripture passages cited in paragraph 1 include some of the biblical foundations of the doctrine of union with Christ, in that Christ is the head of his body, the church. The Spirit works upon those who are within the body, whose old selves have experienced crucifixion and are now dead. These renewed people receive Christ’s grace and experience fellowship with each other, as well as with God the Father and the Son. This fellowship among the “saints” is dynamic, involving encouragement, admonishment, and sacrifice for each other’s sake.
Paragraph 2 builds upon themes from Paragraph 1, explicitly stating what might have otherwise remained implicit. For example, the Confession first cites the exhortation in the book of Hebrews to meet together for mutual edification: a surprisingly fresh and convicting word from the Lord for the present day. This edifying relationship begins in the family and extends to the church, exemplified in Paul’s well-known “body parts” analogy in 1 Corinthians 12:14-27. As mentioned previously, it seems that the framers of the Confession felt burdened to specify that the generosity one exhibits toward others flows from retaining personal property rights rather than surrendering them to the community. Whatever prevailing conditions may have prompted emphasis on this point in 17th century England, contemporary readers would do well to remember that the question at hand was whether to hand over one’s property to the community of faith, not to civil government.
Observations on the Chapter
Regarding both paragraphs of Chapter 27 taken together, at least three observations seem appropriate. First, the Chapter is rather short. This brevity could lead to a misperception that its content is perfunctory: confessionally necessary perhaps, but not of primary concern. Yet since the Chapter clearly touches upon ecclesiology—the doctrine of the church—, lack of length need not signal insignificance. In fact, since the theological currents of our contemporary era seem to throw the nature of the church into open question, it would be especially helpful for present-day Christians to pay attention to Chapter 27.
Second, the scriptural basis of the Chapter does not directly draw from the Old Testament. In truth, limited interaction with the Old Testament is characteristic not only of the rest of the Confession but also of most Christian statements of faith. Yet since no domain of Christian thinking should suffer lack of influence from the full counsel of God, the present study aspires to thrust the roots of the Confession’s ecclesiology even deeper into biblical revelation than the Confession roots itself.
Third, the Chapter characterizes what the “communion of saints” should be like without defining either “communion” or “saints.” If all believers were to share a common understanding of these terms, such definitions would be unnecessary. However, it would be difficult to argue that agreement on the meaning of the “communion of saints” prevails even within single churches, let alone broadly among all Christians. So let’s examine what we can learn from Scripture about the “communion of saints.”
Saints
The expression “the communion of saints” does not appear in the Bible, though the main terms koinonia (fellowship, or “communion”) and hagios = (holy, or “saint” when used as a noun) each appear frequently in the New Testament.[5] Since we are interested in the “communion” that “saints” experience, it is helpful at the outset to identify these “saints.”
First, we should note that New Testament “saints” are not an especially holy caste, set apart from other believers. Instead, “saint” appears to refer to believers generally, as in Romans 1:7: “To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” “Saint” can refer to both the living and the dead. As for deceased saints, there is no support in the Bible for church traditions that following their deaths, saints begin functioning as otherworldly mediators standing between humanity and God, whose intercession adds merit to the prayers of believers who are still living.
The normal grammatical gender of “saint” in New Testament Greek is masculine, but this is a matter of grammar and not sex. Enoch exclaims in Jude 14, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones.” Here the “holy ones” word (which is the “saints” word) is feminine, but only because “ten thousands” is without exception grammatically feminine in Biblical Greek. In the one Scripture passage in which the reader might suspect that there is a male-specific use of “saint,” Acts 9:41, the “saints” and the “widows” are indeed two distinct groups. However, this is only because these widows had been the specific group of women inside a house in verse 39, whom Peter in verse 40 then sent outside with everyone else.
At first glance it might be tempting to view the New Testament’s use of “saint” to refer to all male and female believers as a desacralization of the word, a pulling down of a lofty term to a common level, a divesting of special meaning. In other words, if everyone in the church is a “saint,” then the word seems to lose its uniqueness and become merely a synonym for a Christian brother or sister. However, Old Testament use of a related term suggests that there may actually be a theological motive behind New Testament authors choosing to call believers “saints.”
In Leviticus 11:44–45, all Israelites received the command to be holy (qadosh), because God himself is holy.[6] However, there are only three Old Testament passages that go on to use that Hebrew “holiness” term for people as a noun, two of which are in the Psalms: Psalm 16:3, “As for the saints in the land, they are the excellent ones, in whom is all my delight,” and Psalm 34:9, “Oh, fear the Lord, you his saints, for those who fear him have no lack!” Yet there seems to be a certain hesitation to apply the adjective that describes God’s very nature to his people, for other “saint” passages in the Psalms use a word communicating devotion (ḥasid) rather than holiness.
Then in the apocalyptic visions of the book of Daniel appears the only other use of qadosh as a noun for people, and that Hebrew word in Daniel 8:24 follows six rapid-fire appearances of the Aramaic cognate qadish in only five verses in Daniel 7. These “saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever” (Daniel 7:18). Tracing this eternal kingdom backward in time, in Daniel’s vision this is the kingdom already given to the one “like a son of man” who came “with the clouds of heaven” and was presented before the Ancient of Days, seated on his heavenly throne (Daniel 7:13). Further back in the book of Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar’s post-madness confession revealed that this everlasting kingdom belongs to the Most High God (Daniel 4:3, 34).
Therefore, moving forward again through the logic of Daniel 7, the Most High God gives his kingdom to the one “like a son of man,” who receives the worship of all peoples (Daniel 7:14). Then the “saints of the Most High” receive the kingdom, apparently after an eschatological judgment (Daniel 7:27). However, this “receiving” of the kingdom is not a transfer of lordship, because the Most High still receives worship at the end of the vision. These “saints” do not somehow meld with the Most High to become one being with him (nor with the one “like a son of man”), nor do they usurp the Most High’s rule. Even so, there is some kind of significant sharing of the Most High’s kingdom, without fine delineation of everything that sharing entails.
At the time of the writing of Daniel 7, its visionary events were in the far future. However, in the Gospels, Jesus (with a roundabout, third person manner of speaking) explicitly identifies himself as the Son of Man, and furthermore as one who comes on “the clouds of heaven” in Mark 13:26 (also Matthew 24:30) and Mark 14:62 (also Matthew 26:64). Additionally, John’s vision in Revelation 1:7 more directly states that Jesus “is coming with the clouds.” From a biblical theology standpoint, the “Son of Man” in the New Testament is the one “like a son of man,” and likewise the “saints” in the New Testament correspond to the “saints” in Daniel 7.
Keeping these Old Testament theological roots in mind, it is possible that the New Testament practice of referring to all believers as “saints” conveys both present and future implications for the church. As for the present, by virtue of being categorically called holy as “saints,” through Christ, believers are holy in a way that ancient Israel was not. As for the future, the “saints” as God’s holy people will indeed inherit the kingdom of God. In tension with this blessed hope, then, are the New Testament’s warnings about those who will not in fact inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9–10, 15:50; Galatians 5:19–21). Simply put, they are not among the saints.
Communion
Koinonia refers to an exceedingly close relationship characterized by action in a spirit of unity, frequently entailing partnership in activities and mutual sharing. This strong mutuality of koinonia clarifies the interpretation of Philemon 6, which the ESV renders “And I pray that the sharing of your faith may become effective for the full knowledge of every good thing that is in us for the sake of Christ.” Contrary to the plain English reading of the sentence, Paul does not express a general wish that Philemon’s evangelistic efforts (Philemon’s “sharing” of his faith) may become more effective. Instead, the “sharing” here is koinonia. Paul prays that Philemon will actively live out his faith in tight connection with Paul and other Christians. This “sharing” fellowship newly includes the runaway slave Onesimus, whom Paul calls a “beloved brother” in Philemon 16. No wonder that the former master and slave relationship had to change drastically, for Philemon and Onesimus should henceforth live in koinonia!
Interestingly, while mental images that spring from the English word “fellowship” typically consist of people warmly interacting with each other in the same place, the bond of believers in the physically dispersed body of Christ could generate significant acts of partnership and sharing across long distances. For example, Romans 15:26 mentions that believers in Macedonia and Achaia “have been pleased to make some contribution for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem,” in which the “contribution” is itself koinonia.[7] Among the members of these churches in Greece there need not have been a single personal connection to Jerusalem, but they were in fellowship with the church in Jerusalem nonetheless.
Koinonia was such a lived reality for the early church that New Testament authors freely used this term to describe believers’ relationship with God. Christians enjoyed koinonia with God (1 John 1:6), the Father and the Son (1 John 1:3), the Son (1 Corinthians 1:9, 10:16; Philippians 3:10), and the Spirit (2 Corinthians 13:14, Philippians 2:1). If believers experience such comprehensive fellowship with every member of the triune Godhead and with each other, it is little wonder that Paul would express thankfulness for “koinonia in the gospel” with fellow believers (Philippians 1:5).
With this biblical sense of the deep mutual interconnectedness of koinonia in mind, it is understandable that the framers of the Second London Baptist Confession would want to affirm in paragraph 1 that union with Christ does not entail merging with him into a shared state of personhood, which would unavoidably entail believers’ participation in deity along with Christ the God-man. This same distinction between the “saints” and God pertains in Daniel 7, although describing the God-human relationship with the special term koinonia would need to wait for New Testament revelation.
The Communion of Saints for Today
The “communion of saints” is a doctrine in need of recovery in the contemporary church. In Western cultural settings, the church must continually contend with fragmentation incited by exaggerated individualism. Rugged individualists have little interest in continual engagement with other saints to “promote their mutual good” by extending their sharing “to the whole household of faith” (using terms from the Confession). After all, the depth of relationship entailed by the communion of saints is uncomfortably demanding of time and other resources. As for discomfort, the isolated saint may simply think it unreasonable to try to have communion with some other saint when he or she doesn’t even like that person.
Unfortunately, recovery of the “communion of saints” in the contemporary church requires more than a cultural shift among the saints in general. The leadership and management structure of most churches itself resists the full engagement of every church member in the life of Christ’s body. Generally speaking, ministers do ministry, and congregants receive ministry, whatever system of church polity is in place. If congregations were to shift toward a more active posture of ministry engagement for all without changing expectations of what leaders do accordingly, the leaders would rapidly burn themselves out in the attempt to lead in the same programmatic ways they had before.
In addition, a relatively new enemy of the communion of saints is many churches’ passivity or even abandonment of ministry in an age of virtualization. The model of “body life” encapsulated in the concept of the communion of saints requires a high degree of investment of one’s self in others as a gathered, functioning community. Real fellowship entails sacrifice, relational vulnerability, and thus toleration and management of risk. Regrettably, many churches essentially decline to take risks of any kind, and their primary “ministry” has become narrating briefing slides to miniature, grainy images of half-dressed saints against virtual backgrounds. At best, whatever unfolds on the screen before them commands a fraction of their attention as they crouch over electronic devices in isolation.
All told, the lack of spiritual vitality in many contemporary churches is depressingly palpable. Turning around this lamentable situation is certainly not a matter of simply placing greater emphasis on certain theological themes, even the often professed but increasingly seldom believed doctrine of the “communion of saints.” In contrast, what the church needs to do is to repent and believe the gospel. This is because the gospel brings about not a mere change of attitude, but a re-creation, a new creation.
In the new covenant community, all of the redeemed are saints, and all receive the commission to serve. Obedience to Jesus’s commands takes place most naturally through full participation in the body of Christ and the sharing of its burdens, not merely knowing the “right answers” to theological questions. Indeed, “If we say we have fellowship with him (God) while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.” (1 John 1:6–7) May the contemporary church rediscover the thoroughgoing communion that saints are to enjoy with each other and with God, and may the resulting revolution of sacred love within the body of Christ fuel the revival we pray that the Spirit would begin in us.

[1] W. J. McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1911), 183–184.
[2] Ibid., 268–269.
[3] Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes, Vol. 3: The Evangelical Protestant Creeds, with Translations, 4th rev. ed. (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1919), 659–660.
[4] Williston Walker, The Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1893), 396–397.
[5] The only biblical passage in which these two words appear close together is the final verse of 2 Corinthians as Paul writes “may . . . the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”
[6] Peter later cites this passage and applies the same logic to Christians in 1 Peter 1:14–16; their conduct should reflect God’s holiness.
[7] See the similar use of koinonia in the sense of “contribution” in 2 Corinthians 8:4 and 9:13.

Tweet Share

This article is part 14 in a series by Tom Nettles on Remembering Jesus Christ. (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, Part 13).

A Summary of Chalcedon

Leo’s Tome led to Chalcedon’s clarity.  This creed of 451 A. D. toes the line on the difficult idea of two natures maintaining absolute integrity with full manifestation of the distinct and incommunicable properties of each in one person. Also, for the first time in a creedal affirmation, we find the term theotokos—God-bearer, or mother of God. Often the term provokes an immediate negative reaction because of the self-evident truth that God is self-existent, without beginning, infinite in glory, power, and wisdom, dependent on nothing outside of himself for his purpose, his decrees, or his ability to perform all that he so desires. The implications of Scripture are clear when he declares, “Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counselor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?” (Isaiah 40:13, 14 KJV). Also one would pause before accepting such a doctrinally loaded word because of specific affirmations of Scripture concerning the Son: “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist” (Colossians 1:16, 17 KJV).

So how can such a being ever be thought of as having a mother? This is precisely why Paul wrote, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory” (1 Timothy 3:16 KJV). I accept the propriety of the word “God” because of the grammatical context. Paul wrote above about “the household of God . . . the church of the living God,” and begins the confession with the pronoun “hos,” translated “who” with “God” being the only antecedent.

This strange, but clearly revealed, truth of the birth of Christ, shows that the conception by the Holy Spirit of the child in Mary was the moment of the union of God the Son with true humanity in one person, that would be born, crucified, buried, risen, ascended, and would so come again in like manner. As discussed in a previous post on “Remember,” the mystery as announced to Mary (Luke 1:31-33) said that she would “bring forth a son” who would be given the “throne of his father David,” and that he should reign forever and “of his kingdom there shall be no end.” Though she knew not a man, this would happen because “the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee,” creating fertility in her egg without the corruption of a human father. At the same moment of such a conception, “the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.” That means that the Father in his mysterious eternal activity of generating the Son caused a personal assumption of the human embryo by his Son with no lapse of time between the Spirit’s work of conception, the Father’s work of “overshadowing,” and the Son’s condescending to assume the human nature, taking the form of a servant, committed to conduct himself within the framework of humanity. That which was to be born of Mary would be called “the Son of God.” The singularity of this person so conceived, therefore, would be God in the flesh—“The word was made flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14).

This truth of the birth of Christ, shows that the conception by the Holy Spirit of the child in Mary was the moment of the union of God the Son with true humanity in one person.

This reality was revealed to Elizabeth, Mary’s cousin, so that when Mary traveled to stay with her for some months, Elizabeth greeted her with these words: “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:42, 43). These words confirm the rather startling title given to Mary in this creed. They do point out that Mary, among all the women of the earth from the creation till the close of history was given this extraordinary blessing from God, (though she knew the truth of the words “a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also”), to be the one through whose seed the Messiah came. The real intent, however, of such a title, and such an observation from Elizabeth, was that this single child, this one person enfleshed the Creator and sustainer of all that has been made as the one who also would be mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.

Efforts to avoid the apparent clumsiness of the term, “God-bearer,” leads to erroneous assertions. To say “Mother of Christ” or “Christ-bearer” in order to avoid using the word “God” does not escape the problem unless one is willing to assert that the Christ she bore was not God. If one seeks to avoid the hypostatic union of the two natures by saying the unity was only of sympathetic will, as the human person borne by Mary had established in his soul a complete union of purpose with the Son of God, then one is back to the error of adoptionism. The best option, given all the biblical data and the soteriological purpose of the incarnation, is to affirm the term, theotokos, for it captures all the power implicit in the Johannine assertion, “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14).

On the basis of Leo’s letter, therefore, the following paragraph was set forth by the council of Chalcedon as an explanation of the doctrine consistent with the Creed of Nicea.

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.[1] 

When the council of Chalcedon met, a committee was appointed to finalize its statement of orthodoxy. The committee considered several documents that had been produced during the controversy between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius of Constantinople and the “Tome” of Leo concerning the position of Eutyches. This committee produced a document that succinctly and clearly stated the position of the council.  Given the tensions present, and the fact that this is committee work, it is remarkable for its chaste conservatism, its doctrinal clarity, and its avoidance of metaphysical speculation. The pure “creedalism” of its assumptions, its anathemas, its pretensions to virtual canonical status would probably be resisted by the free-church, sola scriptura, orientation of Baptists and some others, but the careful expressions of the doctrine of Christ’s person should be joyfully embraced as a lucid, profound, and biblically accurate guide to both doctrine and interpretive principles.

Several items of theological and interpretive importance are distilled in this short statement. First, the creed seeks the consent of the reader that this formula is a true presentation of Old Testament prophecy, the teachings of Christ himself, the true doctrinal tradition of the church fathers, and the unalloyed meaning of the Nicene Creed.

Second, Jesus Christ really was God incarnate, the second person of the eternal Trinity. The eternal word that was with God (the Father) and was God (the Son) truly dwelt among men as a man. Jesus was not a mere phantom, nor a separately-personed man adopted or merely inhabited, but the one whose scars, whose hands and feet, were those of the one that was Lord and God (John 20:28).

Third, Jesus the Christ was truly and fully human. Not only was his body of the same stuff as our body, but he had all the soulish, rational, and spiritual aspects of humanity including human affections. His affections and perceptions constituted a soul that would be “exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death” (Matthew 26:38). He was of the same essence (“consubstantial”) as us but without the intrusive and corrupting factor of sin. Though people could clearly see that he was an extraordinary person (Matthew 16:13-16; Luke 7:14-17; John 3:2), none ever thought that he was less than a man.

The eternal word that was with God (the Father) and was God (the Son) truly dwelt among men as a man.

Fourth, without any mixture or confusion of the two natures that would compromise the integrity of either, Jesus was one person. All that he did as a person was an expression of the peculiar and distinguishing attributes of each nature. This perfect union in one person is emphasized by the vigorous expression of Mary as theotokos and the insistence that “the property of each nature” not only is preserved but concurs “in one Person.” All that he did as prophet, priest, and king was done in his capacity of Christ, so that each nature, concurring in the one person, contributed essentially to the proper fulfillment of each office. For example the First London Confession of the English Particular Baptists says, “That he might be such a Prophet as thereby to be every way complete, it was necessary that he should bee God, and withal also that he should be man; for unless he had been God, he could never have perfectly understood the will of God, neither had he been able to reveal it throughout all ages; and unless he had been man, he could not fitly have unfolded it in his own person to man.”[Lumpkin, 160]

Fifth, one must distinguish between nature and person. The personhood of Jesus was founded on the personhood of God the Son. The human nature was assumed by the Son of God but did not exist as a separate human person. That was the tendency of Nestorianism that fell short of the doctrine of the hypostatic union, that is, this one single person that was born of Mary from the moment of conception and every moment subsequent to his conception was both the eternal Son of God and the son of Mary, thus descended from David.  This distinction between person and nature indicates that the properties of personhood are consistent, whether it be of God or man, while the natures are distinct. Though the personhood consisted of the personhood of God the Son, its properties were consistent with Jesus’ human nature expressing itself in a fully personal way, so that in his communications, friendship, and affections in his humanity, there was nothing that was impersonal.

Hallelujah, What a Savior!

Victories of the past do not suffice for the present. Champions of error will continually seek to reclaim ground that they lost. Those who cherish the advances of truth from the past must seek to establish a bond with the courage, strength, and clarity of yesterday’s captives of truth and uncorrupted worship. Each generation has an increasing burden as well as blessing of stewardship. Revelatory truths stated and defended through careful thinking, hard work, and wrenching conflict must not be lost. Contemporary challenges must be dismantled while the grounds of defense must be reclaimed. Implications for present issues and for further understanding of the richness of divine revelation becomes a part of the stewardship of those who desire to “continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel” that they have heard, embraced, and found to be their very life.

[1] Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 2:62, 63.

This article is part 14 in a series by Tom Nettles on Remembering Jesus Christ.

Join us at the 2024 National Founders Conference on January 18-20 as we consider what it means to “Remember Jesus Christ” under the teaching of Tom Ascol, Joel Beeke, Costi Hinn, Phil Johnson, Conrad Mbewe and Travis Allen.