Henry David Thoreau was an eccentric 19th century American author, philosopher, and naturalist. He spent 2 years, 2 months and 2 days living in a small cabin he built himself outside of Concord, Massachusetts. He chronicles his reflections during that experience in his 1854 book, Walden. He explains the rationale for his exile in the wilderness in the following words.

I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practice resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and, if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world; or if it were sublime, to know it by experience, and be able to give a true account of it in my next excursion.

Thoreau commendably wanted to live life to the fullest, to experience its richness at its deepest levels so that when he died, he could die without regret. Eight years after publishing Walden, on May 6, 1862, after a lingering case of tuberculosis, he did die. While on his deathbed, his Aunt Louisa asked him if he had made his peace with God. Thoreau’s response was, “I did not know we had ever quarreled.”
Those words, no doubt spoken in sincerity, reflect the kind of willful ignorance that has tragically plagued mankind since our first parents turned away from our Creator. I call it “ignorance” because it reflects a lack of knowledge about the way things actually are.
The Bible teaches us that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 6:23) and that because of sin we are all “by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3), that is the wrath of God. The Apostle Paul says that we are all naturally “enemies of God” (Romans 5:10).
That is undeniably the way that life is now. But it is not the way it was in the beginning. Originally, God made Adam and Eve “upright” (Ecclesiastes 7:29) and enjoyed perfect fellowship with them. Sin caused them to be separated from Him and at odds with Him. Failure to acknowledge that is to be ill-informed. It is ignorance.
Such ignorance is willful because, as Romans 1:18-20 says, “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”
So yes, we all have quarreled with God—including those who, like Thoreau, are willfully ignorant of it. Sin has placed everyone in jeopardy and exposes us all to His wrath. The result is that, left to ourselves we cannot ever have peace with God.
But the good news that is revealed to us in the Bible is that God has not left us to ourselves. On the contrary, in our weakness and helplessness, He has come to us. Through His Son, Jesus Christ, He has provided salvation for us—a way for us to be restored to Him; to have our sin forgiven and to experience genuine peace with God.
Because of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God now reconciles to Himself all who turn from sin and trust in Jesus as Lord.
That truth is what empowered the Apostle Paul to live the way that He did as a minister of Jesus Christ. And that truth is the very foundation of His church throughout the ages. It is what Christians live for; what we stand for. It is the one message that we have that we must declare to men, women, boys and girls today: “in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19).

Follow Tom Ascol:

“My people infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them.”

Isaiah 3:12

Starting decades ago, many, especially in the universities, have lost faith in the Western civilization narrative. While this is not necessarily a new phenomenon, few have been the voices in the academia wanting to explore the possible reasons that led to such state of things. In order to reflect upon what led to this, one has to address by implication also the issue of leadership. The past decades have seen a progressive value shift from the sexual revolution, through the rise of feminism, all the way to today’s normalization of transgenderism. Side by side with this, and not necessarily just because of it, many Western countries have witnessed the weakening of governmental leadership. This has had an impact upon the leadership process both within the church and in society, to the point that Christians wanting to defend traditional views on these topics are often marginalized. This tension should not surprise us as Reformed Christians given our pedigree.

John Knox (c. 1513 –1572) was a controversial yet relevant figure for this specific issue, able to shed light in the current controversy over gender, sexuality and leadership. He’s often remembered as the “trumpet of the Scottish Reformation”. Yet this immortal title came only after many struggles and arrests due to his controversial message, specifically also for his thoughts on gender and leadership. Knox was often a fugitive, enslaved in the French galleys for nineteen months, having to then flee persecution from “bloody Mary”.[1] What made him uniquely controversial was his personality, his fiery preaching. He was also unashamed and vocal in addressing political matters, at the point of causing riots and sending “lightning thunders” to kings and lords because of their wrongdoings.[2]

During his exile in Geneva, Knox was strongly influenced by the thought and religious approach of John Calvin. He brought back from Geneva to his homeland, Scotland, a vision for the Reformation of the church and society, away from the tyranny of the papacy.[3] His most controversial and best-known pamphlet, published anonymously at first in 1558, was his treatise arguing against the government of women. The purpose of this article is to evaluate whether the view of John Knox on gender and leadership was Biblical and what lesson can be learned from the controversy between John Knox and queen Mary as applied to today’s shifts in gender and sexuality both in society and in the church. Queen Mary I of England was in power at the time of Knox’s reformation. She had also been negatively labeled as “bloody Mary” due to having executed many Protestants by burning at the stake. Mary of Guise was instead a member of the powerful French house of Guise whose ultra-Catholic Duke of Guise had been responsible with Catherine de Medici for the massacre of Huguenots during the Saint Bartholomew’s night in France.[4]

Since Mary of Guise’s project to transform Scotland into another Catholic nation under French control failed, she passed on the burdensome task to her daughter Mary queen of Scots, a Stuart, cousin of “bloody Mary” who became guilty of plotting to assassinate the Protestant half-sister queen Elizabeth, in 1586. Knox had to deal with those “three Marie” and it is therefore at least understandable why in dealing with gender and leadership his words were so sharp and condemning toward them for their acts and not just their gender. Knox felt that England was undergoing a crisis of leadership specifically as these women sought through injustices to counteract his religious reforms, but not merely on the basis of gender. Regrettably, as I will point out such distinction was not made by queen Elizabeth who despite sharing the Protestant faith did not appreciate Knox’s thoughts. Knox had often associated Mary Tudor, with the evil Biblical character of Jezebel, due to her bloody crimes and idolatry.[5] In his preamble to the first blast, Knox plainly attacks the government of women in the context again of those injustices perpetrated by the “three Marie”:

How abominable before God is the empire or rule of a wicked woman […] we hear [of] the blood of our brethren, the members of Christ Jesus, most cruelly to be shed; and the monstrous empire [government] of a cruel woman (the secret counsel of God excepted) we know to be the only occasion of all those miseries. […] I am assured that God has revealed to some in this our age, that it is more than a monster in nature that a woman shall reign and have empire above man. And yet, with us all there is such silence, as if God there with were nothing offended. […] And therefore, I say, that of necessity it is that this monstiferous empire of women (which amongst all enormities that this day do abound upon the face of the whole earth, is most detestable and damnable) be openly revealed and plainly declared to the world, to the end that some may repent and be saved.[6]

As Knox in his controversial pamphlet brings theological support to his position both from Scripture and the church fathers, he is nevertheless aware of those positive cases of women in leadership such as at the times of Judges or under queen Esther. However, as the parallel with Jezebel shows, Knox clarifies that unlike those pious and God-fearing Biblical examples, the women of his day pretended dominion over Scotland and England by being idolatrous, evil and scheming to subvert all justice through a mere tyrannical gynecocracy.[7] Therefore the attack of Knox is on women in leadership only insofar as through their false religion they promote corruption. Knox then expresses in detail his argument concerning gender and leadership ultimately establishing it as a rule even for the public sphere of government:

To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion, or empire above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature; contumely [an insult] to God, a thing most contrary to his revealed will and approved ordinance; and finally, it is the subversion of good order, of all equity and justice. […] it is a thing most repugnant to nature, that women rule and govern over men. For those that will not permit a woman to have power over her own sons, will not permit her (I am assured) to have rule over a realm; and those that will not suffer her to speak in defence of those that be accused (neither that will admit her accusation intended against man) will not approve her that she shall sit in judgment, crowned with the royal crown, usurping authority in the midst of men. […] First, I say, that woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man, not to rule and command him. As St. Paul does reason in these words: “Man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. And man was not created for the cause of the woman, but the woman for the cause of man; and therefore ought the woman to have a power upon her head” [1 Cor. 11:8−10] (that is, a cover in sign of subjection). Of which words it is plain that the apostle means, that woman in her greatest perfection should have known that man was lord above her; and therefore that she should never have pretended any kind of superiority above him, no more than do the angels above God the Creator, or above Christ their head. So I say, that in her greatest perfection, woman was created to be subject to man.[8]

These words must be framed within the sixteenth century context once again so foreign to today’s culture so engraved in feminism and egalitarianism. According to a principle of nature, and not only of Scriptures, Knox believed women to be the weaker vessel, therefore being too frail to be able to bear the weight of authority in the public sphere. This is confirmed by the Reformer through a series of examples in history where women in leadership led to inconstancy, cruelty and lack of guidance.[9] By a logical procedure, questionable for some contemporary observers, Knox affirms that since the woman in the New Testament is not allowed to occupy places of authority in the church, all the more in public government this should ultimately be forbidden:

But the Holy Ghost gives to us another interpretation of this place, taking from all women all kinds of superiority, authority, and power over man, speaking as follows, by the mouth of St. Paul: “I suffer not a woman to teach, neither yet to usurp authority above man” (1 Tim. 2:12). Here he names women in general, excepting none; affirming that she may usurp authority above no man. And that he speaks more plainly in another place in these words: “Let women keep silence in the congregation, for it is not permitted to them to speak, but to be subject, as the law sayeth” (1 Cor. 14:34). These two testimonies of the Holy Ghost are sufficient to prove whatsoever we have affirmed before, and to repress the inordinate pride of women, as also to correct the foolishness of those that have studied to exalt women in authority above men, against God and against his sentence pronounced.[10]

An equally important source of Knox’s debates over gender and leadership comes from his prolonged personal dialogue with Mary Queen of Scots. If one goes to Edinburgh today, it is still possible to visit the outer chamber of the palace of Holyrood where Mary and Knox had these frequent dialogues.[11] From this detail of information, we gather first of all that Knox was willing to meet with her and, as he did so, he in no way displayed any form of sexism. The issue between the two was primarily a religious one rather than strictly a gender issue. Behind her false promises of support, Knox and the Protestants of Scotland in general recognized that she was often acting behind their back to suppress Protestantism through imprisonment, executions, and leading people to exile.[12] Mary at Holyrood had this series of five personal interviews with John Knox.[13] She condemned Knox’s book for undermining her authority and seeking to plot against her. Through the book, so she complained, her subjects were called to obey Knox rather than her. However, Knox replied that both subjects and princes should obey God.[14] In light of Knox’s persistence, she once declared these famous words: “I fear the prayers of John Knox more than all the armies of England”. From the dialogues between Knox and queen Mary emerges a very diplomatic and respectful attitude in Knox, while still not void of sarcasm toward those he perceived to be injustices of the queen against her subjects. Knox declared that if the realm would find no inconvenience in the government of a woman, he would be willing to submit: “like Paul under Nero”. Essentially, Knox declared that it was not his intention to trouble the queen as a woman and surprisingly he expressed his hope that the queen could be blessed: “as Deborah in Israel”.[15]

This shows how his critic of women in government was centered upon the religious and moral disputes of the day and it was not therefore an attack on women in general. However, not everyone was able to draw such distinction. Knox’s ideas on women’s rule did not encounter the favor even of the moderate Protestant queen Elizabeth. Some sources even point out the possibility that John Calvin himself might have commented that Knox’s writing on the matter as unhelpful to the cause of the reformed faith. Knox’s fiery words as contained in his book could perhaps make some contemporary reader’s hair stand on end.[16] In fact, because of his position on gender and leadership some have recently pictured Knox as a: “horrid man” or a male chauvinist.[17] Yet by doing so, they are using modern glasses in retrospection, neglecting the contextual historical as well as cultural realm into which Knox blew his apocalyptic trumpet. The charges of evil government to the “three Marie” can be substantiated and considered as legitimate even from a modern point of view, regardless of the issue of gender. Even looking at the issue of gender, Knox dialogued, respected and obeyed the very women he condemned. His overall goal was not to degrade women but to rebuke and address their religious and moral shortcomings in hope of reformation both in the church and in Scottish society at large. Knox was playing on the biblical concept of women’s rule as a sign of the judgement of God, not as a judgement of value upon women. What we see from this article therefore is that Knox might have been a Calvinist but not necessarily a chauvinist.

Also, we conclude that the evidence provided by Knox of unjust women in power throughout history does not necessarily validate per se the need for an exclusion of women from public governments. This is true also in light of the same evidence that historically the corrupting effect of power is no different in the case of men. Actually, many Biblical accounts are inclined to exalt godly examples of heroines in Israel, something that Knox himself, far from being a chauvinist, was well aware of. Women therefore can consider being involved in governmental capacities, if found to be godly. Yet, the fact itself raises the question: where are the men? This is a question that signals the fact that when such things happen men are not stepping up to do what they are supposed to do. In any case, Knox’s approach to gender and leadership was solidly grounded on Scriptures and poses an important challenge to the contemporary weakening in governmental leadership among many western countries. Such weakening is not necessarily related to women, but it does involve to some degree also changes in sexual roles and authority as a stimuli to such weakening of roles of authority in the family, in the church and in the public sphere. It is something that remains part and parcel of a broader cultural shift and reshaping of the universe of values holding together our current civilization. Women in governmental leadership as a widespread phenomenon, while not being necessarily something wrong, remains at least not so ideal from a Biblical perspective. Whenever such instance is described in the Bible it is within the framework of a national and political crisis. Also, the role of women must be kept in light of the parallel spheres of sovereignty. The same expectations or patterns we observe in the family should be observed in the church and likewise ideally in society. Just as women are to submit to their husband in the family, and just as men should be pastor in the church, so the issue of women in the military or transgender males playing female athletics are examples of how Knox had a point in his consideration upon human constitution.

This is where gender ideology comes into the picture. Feminism, the sexual revolution, homosexuality and transgenderism are to be seen all as consecutive steps toward the same direction, gradually threatening to reconstruct the very identity and cultural understanding of Western societies. When ancient societies, whether the Greeks or the Romans, reached such confusion of sexual identity and authority it was a sign of their downfall. Another implication, while not being the main original focus of Knox, concerns the role of women in the church, a point highly debated today among many modern evangelicals. While Knox deals with the issue of women in governments, once again with a focus upon ethically and religiously wicked women rather than women for women’s sake, it is possible to infer from Scriptures themselves (1 Timothy 2:12-15) as well as from Knox’s overall argument that by implication women should not be in leadership in the church. In this case we can confidently claim that it is the church that gave a bad example to society on this matter of leadership and then society simply followed the trend, as the representatives of the kingdom of God do indeed influence for good or for bad society at large. This is where John Knox could also inform in ascertaining who is more biblical in the current debate within Calvinistic circles between defenders of soft-complementarianism and defenders of patriarchy. As women are today appointed as pastors in many denominations, including Reformed denominations, and as many churches lose even confidence of how to define the word pastor, Knox’s blasting trumpet sounds very loud, uncompromising as he was willing to face controversy in order to call us back to the Bible.

[1] Crawford Gribben, “John Knox, Reformation History and National Self-Fashioning.” Reformation & Renaissance Review 8.1 (2006): 61.

[2] Richard Kyle, “The Thundering Scot: John Knox the Preacher.” Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2002):135.

[3] Hans J. Hillerbrand, eds. The Reformation. A Narrative History Related by Contemporary Observers and Participants (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1982): 362.

[4] David Laing, Selected Writings of John Knox (Dallas, TX: Presbyterian Heritage Publications, 1995), 439.

[5] William Croft Dickinson, John Knox’s History of the Reformation in Scotland. Vol. 1 (New York, NY: Philosophical Library, 1950), 118.

[6] John Knox, The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women (London, UK: Blackmask, 2002), 1-2.

[7] Maria Zina Gonçalves De Abreu, “John Knox: Gynaecocracy, ‘The Monstrous Empire of Women’.” Reformation and Renaissance Review 5.2 (2003):166.

[8] John Knox, The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women (London, UK: Blackmask, 2002), 3-5.

[9] Stanford Reid, “John Knox, Pastor of Souls.” Westminster Theological Seminary (September 1977): 12.

[10] John Knox, The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women (London, UK: Blackmask, 2002), 6.

[11] Elizabeth Withley, The Plain Mr. Knox (Glasgow, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 2001), 105.

[12] John Knox, The Reformation in Scotland (Edinburgh, SCT: Banner of Truth Trust, 1982): 155.

[13] John Spottiswood, The History of the Church of Scotland. Vol. 2 (Edinburgh, SCT: Ams Press, 1973), 6.

[14] Owen W. Chadwick, “John Knox and Revolution.” Andover Newton Quarterly (1975): 250.

[15] Richard L. Greaves, Theology & Revolution in the Scottish Reformation (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian University Press, 1980),164.

[16] Preserved Smith, The Reformation in Europe (London, UK: Collier-Macmillian Ltd., 1966), 275.

[17] David Calhoun, “John Knox (1514-1572). After Five Hundred Years.” Presbyterion 40 (2014): 3.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Calhoun, David “John Knox (1514-1572). After Five Hundred Years.” Presbyterion 40 (2014): 1-13. Accessed February 13, 2017. http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=ff3894b9-0f46-454f-8b38-4a7eff8edaf1%40sessionmgr4008&vid=0&hid=4209

Chadwick, Owen W. “John Knox and Revolution.” Andover Newton Quarterly (1975): 250-266. Accessed February 13, 2017. http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=21f57b6e-cdc9-42bd-b62c-4ff3b78c883c%40sessionmgr4007&vid=0&hid=4209

De Abreu, Gonçalves Maria Zina “John Knox: Gynaecocracy, ‘The Monstrous Empire of Women’.” Reformation and Renaissance Review 5.2 (2003): 166-187. Accessed February 13, 2017. http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=774eb4f8-3303-4d2b-8044-4e98af6303ca%40sessionmgr4008&vid=0&hid=4209

Dickinson, William Croft John Knox’s History of the Reformation in Scotland. Vol. 1-2. New York, NY: Philosophical Library, 1950.

Greaves, Richard L. Theology & Revolution in the Scottish Reformation. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian University Press, 1980.

Gribben, Crawford “John Knox, Reformation History and National Self-Fashioning.” Reformation & Renaissance Review 8.1 (2006): 48-66. Accessed February 13, 2017. http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=38f80b9c-663b-4ccc-b1d7-715785977083%40sessionmgr4010&vid=0&hid=4209

Laing, David Selected Writings of John Knox. Dallas, TX: Presbyterian Heritage Publications, 1995.

Hillerbrand, Hans J. eds. The Reformation. A Narrative History Related by Contemporary Observers and Participants. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1982.

Knox, John The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. London, UK: Blackmask, 2002. Accessed February 13, 2017. http://public-library.uk/ebooks/35/36.pdf

       ____.The Reformation in Scotland. Edinburgh, SCT: Banner of Truth Trust, 1982.

Kyle, Richard “The Thundering Scot: John Knox the Preacher.” Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2002): 135-149. Accessed February 13, 2017. http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=7b0550af-31bd-4432-a1ba-c78bb0f31ccd%40sessionmgr4010&vid=0&hid=4209

Reid, Stanford “John Knox, Pastor of Souls.” Westminster Theological Seminary (September 1977): 1-21. Accessed February 13, 2017. http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=7cd49a84-3004-41cc-adf8-70dce5d23e0c%40sessionmgr4008&vid=0&hid=4209

Smith, Preserved The Reformation in Europe. London, UK: Collier-Macmillian Ltd., 1966.

Spottiswood, John The History of the Church of Scotland. Vol. 1-2. Edinburgh, SCT: Ams Press, 1973.

Withley, Elizabeth The Plain Mr. Knox. Glasgow, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 2001.

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.