This article is part 12 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).

The first of the ecumenical creeds was formulated in a council called by the emperor Constantine. According to historians Eusebius of Caesarea and Lanctantius, Constantine was converted to Christianity as he prepared for a battle with Maxentius in the year 312. His victory, which he attributed to Christ, made him the sole ruler of the western portion of the Empire. After a dozen years of gaining more knowledge of the church’s organization and doctrines, Constantine, aware of a theological controversy that stirred the church, made arrangements for church bishops to meet in Nicea (present day Iznik in Turkey) to settle the dispute. Around 300 bishops were able to come with only half a handful of representatives from the west.

The controversy that prompted the call to Nicea focused on the teaching of a presbyter of Alexandria Egypt named Arius (260-336). Arius strongly concluded that the monotheism necessary to Christianity eliminated the possibility of any other personal entity sharing the status of absolute deity. In a letter to his friend Eusebius of Nicomedia in 318 during the initial tensions of the controversy, he complained that Alexander “greatly injures and persecutes us . . . since we do not agree with him when he says publicly, ‘Always Father, always Son, ‘Father and Son together,’ . . . ‘Neither in thought nor by a single instant is God before the Son.’” Arius instead taught that “before he was begotten or created or ordained or founded, he was not.” He, that is, the one called the son, is not “a part of the unbegotten in any way” but was “constituted” by God’s “will and counsel, before times and before ages.”[1]

Arius’s affirmation, therefore, of the lordship of Christ could not mean that he was co-eternal with the Father and of the same nature. The phrases anathematized at the end of the Nicene Creed 325 represent some of the phrases that Arius used to define his understanding of Jesus, the Christ. Because only God is eternal, Jesus is not; and so, “There was when he was not.” Since he is begotten, he must have come into existence subsequent to the Father and, therefore, “begotten” is taken as a synonym for “created.” Since he is created, he cannot be of the same eternal immutable substance as the Father and is, on that account, of a different substance. Since he is a created moral being, even though the first of all created things, he is mutable and could have sinned. The Father, however, endowed him with the power of creation, set him forth to be the redeemer of the fallen race, a task that the Son effected without blemish and thus gained the status of savior. In order to be like us and succeed where we failed, he had to take our flesh. In his person, however, his humanity consisted only of the body while the created logos constituted the rational soul of the person Jesus.

This savior concocted by Arius, therefore, was neither God nor man. The views of Arius show that a single theological principle pressed with a relentless, but false, logic uninformed by other revelatory propositions leads to destructive conclusions.

Among the most important of the biblical theologians opposed to Arius was a young deacon at Alexandria named Athanasius (296-373). Athanasius had written a book entitled On the Incarnation of the Word.[2] In it he had discussed how the incarnation of the Son of God solved an apparent dilemma. God intended to bring his creature man to a state of glorious fellowship with God. He also threatened that if his creature disobeyed then death would be the certain outcome. How can God complete his purpose for man and at the same time keep true to his word? The incarnation is God’s answer to this apparent dilemma. The one who was both God and man could take the death man owed for “all men were due to die,” thus fulfilling the veracity of God’s word and the honor of God. At the same time, he brought to glory the human nature that he shared with the creature, thus fulfilling the divine purpose for man. Athanasius was well-armed in biblical knowledge and in theological reflection for the vital corrective that the Arian speculation demanded.

The views of Arius show that a single theological principle pressed with a relentless, but false, logic uninformed by other revelatory propositions leads to destructive conclusions.

Though the Council had negative fall-out in church-state relations and the eventual authority of canon law, the most important result of the Council of Nicea was the adoption of the creed. To show the pivotal importance of the substance of this creed we will point to five short insertions. Eusebius of Caesarea (the first church historian) proposed the confession used at baptism by his church (or something very similar) as a possible statement to bring unity to the deeply divided council. When the Arian party agreed to sign the proposed statement, the party led by Alexander of Alexandria (d. 328) and his young deacon Athanasius (296-373) knew that no real unity could be gained by such a tactic. A creed that simply embraced the serious doctrinal disagreements would only perpetuate substantial disharmony and lead to constant dispute. Preeminently, ambiguity about the legitimate object of worship would in fact endorse a principle of idolatry and capitulate to the impression that Scripture itself was not clear in its christological focus. The wisdom of God would be impugned for leaving us without clarity on the status of the one he called “My beloved Son.” What could be more absurd in Christianity that to leave the christological issue a matter of opinion, ambiguity, and diverse formulation?

Much of the clarification was attached to the phrase in Eusebius’s confession “begotten from the Father.” The first defining clarification is in the words, “from the substance of the Father.” This means that the Son’s existence is not an act of the will of the Father at a point outside his own eternity, as openly asserted by Arius. Athanasius contended, “Created things have come into being by God’s pleasure and by his will; but the Son is not a creation of his will, nor has he come into being subsequently, as the creation; but he is by nature the proper offspring of the Father’s substance.” The Son’s co-eternality is intrinsic to the very existence of the Father as Father. If God’s essential character is Father, then he could never be without his Son. One of the truths we know about God is his eternal paternity, and thus, from that substance the Son eternally exists as Son.

A second defining phrase is in the words “true God from true God.” Jesus was not inferior in his divinity; he was not constituted as a deity by dint of accomplishment; he was not granted the position or title as a reward for hard and faithful work. Because he was begotten of the substance of the Father, his deity is a true eternal deity, and his Sonship means that he is of the substance of his Father, truly divine. The Son of God is a true Son in the natural and moral image and likeness of his Father.

Third, the creed denied Arius’s understanding of “begotten” by saying “not made.” The idea of begetting is a different reality from creating. That which is begotten shares the nature of the begetter. In his hard-hitting, intensely doctrinal, polemical refutation of Arianism entitled Contra Arianos, Athanasius points to the use of the term begotten in Scripture as sealing the reality that sons are of the same nature as their fathers. “The character of the parent determines the character of the offspring.” Humans, as created, arise in time and beget in time and their begotten ones follow them in time; but they are not different in nature. “But the nature is one,” Athanasius affirmed, “for the offspring is not unlike the parent, being his image, and all that is the Father’s is the Son’s.”

The Son of God is a true Son in the natural and moral image and likeness of his Father.

That sons follow fathers in time is not essential to the reality of begetting but only an accident of our state of being created and thus limited by time. That our children follow us in time does not mean they are of a different nature, but only that in creatures the process of begetting proceeds from generation to generation.

God as a begetter relates to his only-begotten as Son to Father, sharing the same eternal attributes while also maintaining eternally distinguishing traits of personhood. For this reason the doctrine of eternal generation was important to Athanasius. Never has there been any point in God’s eternal existence when the Son was not begotten by the Father. If there had been, then the relation of Father and Son would be merely temporal and there would be no way of maintaining a singularity in the divine essence while affirming a real plurality of persons. Without generation as an eternal operation of God, tritheism or modalism are the only alternatives.

This truth of eternal generation helps in the interpretation of certain passages of Scripture. For example, no doctrine gives greater aid in understanding John 5:26 than this. “For as the Father hath life in himself; so he hath given to the Son to have life in himself” (KJV). Self-existence is an attribute of God only. The Father has this attribute necessarily and, as eternally generated by the Father, so that attribute distinctive of deity constitutes the self-existence of the Son. “In him was life” (John 1:4). The Jews understood this ontological relationship of Father to Son to involve equality of essence. When Jesus called God his Father in a distinctive way, therefore, the Jews “sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God” (John 5:18 KJV).

Fourth, the council adopted a controversial word to assure that none could interpret Christ’s nature as inferior to or other than that of the Father in any sense. The word was controversial because it was used by a theologian named Sabellius in asserting that the essence of divinity has appeared in three modes as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Each of these manifestations is God, and, in sharing the same essence, are in reality only one person. Modalism, as it was called, was heretical and prejudiced some of the concerned against that word. The problem lay in the failure to define a difference between “essence” on the one hand, and “person” on the other. Tertullian (ca 160-ca 220) had successfully sustained the distinction in his Latin writings in deploying the terms una substantia and tres personae. His influence protected the West from the difficulty perceived in the mono-essentiality of Father and Son. In spite of the scary associations of the language among the Greeks, however, the creed affirmed that the Son is of “one substance with the Father.” If he is begotten of the substance of the Father, ascertaining that he is “true God of true God,” and that his begottenness can in no way be construed as createdness, then it is not only appropriate, but necessary that the term homousiov, same essence, substance, nature, be affirmed of the Son.

Never has there been any point in God’s eternal existence when the Son was not begotten by the Father.

Fifth, in light of the strange anthropology of Arius, the creed attached to the phrase “was made flesh,” the exegetical appositive “was made man.” Arius believed that the only thing really human about Jesus was his flesh. His rationality was constituted by the created word, or son. When John wrote, “the word became flesh and dwelt among us,” he never meant that Jesus had human flesh only but no human mind, affections or spirit. The phrase, “made man,” should not have been necessary to insert, but in light of the bizarre idea of Arius, this had to be defined.

Note also the soteriological concern involved in this. It was in pursuit of “our salvation” that he took our humanity into his eternal Sonship. Had he, the Eternal Son of God, not assumed our nature, he could in no wise be our savior. He could not have lived for us in order to grant us his righteousness; he could not have died for us to bear our load of sin, guilt, and punishment. “The free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many” (Romans 5:15).

The Creed of Nicea is not Scripture and has no authority as a creed. Its synthetic arrangement, however, of clearly biblical ideas, and its clarifying exegetical phrases give aid to the Christian in declaring with the mouth the esteem for and dependence on Jesus as Son of God and Savior that should be in the heart. This creed is a faithful expression of the announcement given by the angels at Jesus’ birth: “Unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ, the Lord.” If we “Remember Jesus Christ,” with clarity, confidence, gratitude, and worship these confessional affirmations we can recite from the heart. This is my translation of the Christological portion of the Nicene creed of 325.

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things seen and unseen; And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten out of the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father, God out of God, light out of light, true God out of true God, begotten not made, of one essence with the Father, through Whom as an intermediary all things came to be, things in heaven and things on earth, Who on account of us men and on account of our salvation came down, and was enfleshed even to the point of true manhood, and suffered, and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and dead.

“Remember Jesus Christ risen from the dead, of a seed of David, as preached in my gospel. …If we deny him, he himself will deny us” 2 Timothy 2:8, 12b).

[1] Edward R.Hardy, Christology of the Later Fathers (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1954) 329, 330.

[2] Hardy, 55-110.

This article is part 12 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.

Seed of Woman, source of life,

Fought against the death of man.

Sin, death, hell all caused the strife,

Full salvation was the plan.

“Strike his heel with poisoned fang!

Now he’s gone and in the grave,

Me he will no more harangue

Vain the plan from death to save.”

Myst’ry baffled every one.

Man by Holy Ghost conceived,

God the Father’s only Son

Crushed the snake and wrath relieved.

Bethlehem, the starting place

(Little town of no esteem)

In his body dwelt the race

By his death he would redeem.

Based loosely on Genesis 3:15

Based loosely on the Apostles Creed

Begotten of the Father’s nature, offspring of eternal love,

Human child of Mary’s nurture was conceived from pow’r above.

One with God’s eternal being, one with us except our sin,

Opened God’s redemptive wisdom, promised mercies to begin.

Suffered under Pontius Pilate, from the cross into the grave,

This the death planned from the cradle, This the only death to save.

This the only Kin-Redeemer, purchase price was Him alone.

He the God-man, intercessor, none else could for sin atone.

From a manger of man’s making, to God’s bless’d eternal throne.

He will judge the dead and living, take the saved to be his own.

Never may we fail to worship, never may we fail to bow.

Fathomless the grace that saves us, worship ever, worship now.

Forsaken, hated, and despised

A child of wrath, no hope, forlorn,

Cast down by sin, by anger torn

Our hopelessness was not disguised.

Who can reverse this solemn state?

Who can turn sour into sweet?

Who can our mortal trespass meet?

Who can our crooked souls set straight?

A Scandal! God breathed human air;

Unjust that good would die for sin;

Absurd that we must die to win!

Resist? Embrace sin’s deep despair.

The Form of God who took our form

An endless debt by blood to pay.

Both man and God appeared that day,

When Christ, the saving Lord was born.

No more forsaken, no more wrath

No longer hated or cast down

A tender babe, a cross, a crown

He came to set redemption’s path.

Based loosely on Ephesians 2 and Philippians 2

With the recent “dust-up” of 2020, terminology such as “sphere sovereignty” has become more familiar in recent interactions and discussions. By “a sphere,” we mean a particular institution created by God wherein He granted a realm and a measure of self-determination without the mixture or interference of the other spheres. Without question, there are numerous explanations and caveats attached. For instance, what happens when a husband violently abuses his wife? Well, the sphere of the civil magistrate has a duty to step in to that family sphere, restrain the evil, and punish the husband. That would not be a violation of sphere sovereignty but the very role in which the civil magistrate was created by God. But before one can talk intelligently about sphere sovereignty, we must first establish that God, the Creator of the universe, Himself created the three primary spheres of the family, the church, and the state.

1) God Created the Family in Genesis 1–2

The sphere of the family is perhaps the most important sphere of the three, anthropologically speaking. It was created before the fall, and thus it is a necessary component for humans to thrive in their creation mandate as well as to encourage proper roles in the other two spheres of church and state. In that way, we could say that the sphere of the family is the foundation upon which God has chosen to flourish human societies. It is the sphere in which the image God has borne upon humans will reproduce and thrive. Show me a collapsing society, and I will show you a crumbling institution of the family.

We see God’s creation of the family most clearly in Genesis 1:27–28. The first notion of the family is the binary of the husband and wife relationship imbedded in the sexes of “male and female.” And it is the family that is established in Gen 1:27, for verse 28 will give the important mandate that requires both male and female: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over [the animals].” Having settled the role of husband and wife, the pair now corresponds to father and mother as they are charged to reproduce and fill the earth with more image-bearers who would reflect God’s glory back to Him as statues are intended.

The sphere of the family is the foundation upon which God has chosen to flourish human societies.

The home is further set apart in Genesis 2. In that chapter, there is a more direct description of the process by which God made both husband and wife. Noting that man was not meant to be left alone, God says in Gen 2:18, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” The familiar story goes on to tell how God took from Adam’s side in order to make Eve. From this, the apostle Paul will interpret a vital theological truth that sets the home apart and the orders the home with male headship, 1 Cor 11:8–9, “For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.”

To solidify this sphere, God binds the man and woman together in the profound little poem of Gen 2:23, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” The union now pronounced by God Himself, he charges the family as a sphere unto itself saying, “Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Gen 2:24). At the union of a husband and wife, the leaving of the previous home is for the purpose of establishing a new family. This implies a sphere unto itself.

2) God Created the Church in Genesis 3

Yet shortly after the creation of the family sphere, and while there was only a sinless existence in the world, Adam as the covenant head of his own family sphere as well as the entire human race will sin against God and plunge humanity into the fall. Curse is brought upon the physical creation (Gen 3:17–18) as well as upon the newly created family sphere (Gen 3:16). And though this is tremendously bad news, the initial curse of the Serpent was also ironically a promise of blessing. The proto-evangelium or “first gospel” as it is often called was announced in Genesis 3:15. God said to Satan, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.”

Many recognize this to be the first prophecy of a Messiah to be born to a woman and defeat the devil. The seed or offspring of the woman, Jesus Christ, will bruise the head of the serpent. This is, after all, the most vulnerable yet dangerous part of a snake. And in the process of this skull-crushing seed’s victory, the serpent will simultaneously bruise the heel of the woman’s seed. This is a forecast of the sufferings and death of Jesus on the cross. It would be through this promise of good news that Adam, having just sinned, would claim a hope for himself and all who would believe. After receiving the curses, Adam would then name his wife “Eve, because she was the mother of all living” (Gen 3:20). Rather than humanity surely dying, as God had warned (Gen 2:17), God instead was merciful. He held out a promise of deliverance in the seed of the woman, whomever that Seed may be.

And in display of such infinite grace, God seemingly killed some animals so that He might cover the nakedness of Adam and Eve (Gen 3:21). There is now a depiction of both a redeemer in the seed of the woman and the means by which redemption will occur—sacrifice as a substitutionary atonement.

With this gospel held out in type and shadow, Adam and Eve would believe in such a hope for the forgiveness of their sins. Thus the sphere of the church was created, it being defined in the 2nd London Confession of 1677/89 §26.1 as “the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof.”

It is crucial to distinguish that God did not create the church before the fall, for that would confuse Law and Gospel; the Covenant of Works with the Covenant of Grace. Rather God created the sphere of the church, the redeemed community of God, after the fall of humanity. In the Covenant of Grace, God initially revealed it “in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament” (2LCF §7.3). As God’s revelation of the Covenant of Grace and entrance into the redeemed community was progressively revealed, the administration of the church, whether in the OT or the NT, was dictated by the covenant under which the church was dispensed. Thus, the Confession speaks of the old covenant “ceremonial law, to which the Jewish church was subjected” (§21.1). Now under the new covenant, the church having reached its eschatological fulfillment point (at least its initial stage of fulfillment, though she await its her consummation), Christ can say to his disciples “I will build my church” (Matt 16:18).

God created the sphere of the church, the redeemed community of God, after the fall of humanity.

And just as the church of the Old Testament was directed by the old covenant commands which regulated its worship in the “ceremonial law,” so likewise is the church under the new covenant to adhere to the dictates of the new covenant commands of Scriptures found in the New Testament. This is often referred to as the “regulative principle of worship.” That is, when it comes to the method which God is to be worshiped, the church must follow the mandates of Scripture, only doing what God commands.

3) God Created the Civil Magistrate in Genesis 9

It may seem surprising to some that if the church was created shortly after the fall, then wouldn’t the sphere of the civil magistrate not also be created shortly thereafter? Whatever the reason in God’s decreed ordering of creation and providence, He chose to allow humanity to grow into chaos and violence. So much so, that by the time we get from the next chapter after the fall, Genesis 4, we only make it to Genesis 6 before the violence of unrestrained humanity wreaks havoc over the earth. Genesis 6:5 says, “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Rather than filling the earth with image-bearers who would reflect worship and glory back to God, as the creation mandate called for (Gen 1:28, “fill the earth…”), instead “the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence” (Gen 6:11).

We have to ask: why was violence the key feature of humanity’s rebellion before the flood? This question would be answered after the flood when God created the final sphere: the civil magistrate. If the purpose of the magistrate is to restrain the wickedness and violent disposition of depraved humanity (cf. Rom 13:3–4 and 1 Pet 2:13–14), then the lack of restraint before the flood would be best explained in that the magistrate was yet instituted by God for humanity.

In this sense, it is helpful to see the flood as a de-creation and do-over. Afterwards, Noah is depicted as a “new Adam” figure. Just as Adam was created from the dust or the adamah (Gen 2:7), so also was Noah described as a “man of soil” or literally a man of adamah (Gen 9:20). Indeed, the charge given to Adam to be fruitful and fill the earth (Gen 1:28) was repeated to Noah in Genesis 9:1. Nevertheless, Noah, like Adam, would likewise fall into sin with fruit, end up naked, and have a son who intensifies sin (Cain kills Abel; Ham dishonors his father).

And between this new story of humanity, God says to Noah in Genesis 9:6, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” Here, the inverted wording is intentional and illustrative for the meaning of this text. God moves from shed – > blood – > man | man – > blood – > shed. This reversal of the words implies a reciprocal judgment. If a human man sheds the blood of another, then by mankind in the sphere of the magistrate is evil to be restrained and the murderer to be punished. This is founded upon the dignity of the dead one in that the verse concludes, “For God made man in His own image.” Capital punishment carried out by the civil magistrate is to restrain the earth from being filled with violence as before the flood as well as to punish any evil-doer who might kill what God has especially marked with His image.

The implication is that the civil magistrate is a sphere created by God in this newly restarted humanity project. The family continues in Noah, his wife, and his sons with their wives. The church continues in Noah and the elect of his descendants. And now, for the good of civilization as well as to make safe the entrance of the seed of the woman, God has established the final sphere: the civil government.

For more teaching on these topics, order Dr. Timothy Decker’s new book: A Revolutionary Reading of Romans 13 at press.founders.org.

Based on Psalm 92

Sweet is the work, my God, my King,

To praise Thy Name, give thanks and sing;

To show Thy love by morning light,

And talk of all Thy truth at night.

Sweet is the day of sacred rest,

No mortal cares disturb my breast;

O may my heart in tune be found,

Like David’s harp of solemn sound!

My heart shall triumph in the Lord,

And bless His works and bless His Word;

Thy works of grace, how bright they shine,

How deep Thy counsels, how divine!

And I shall share a glorious part

When grace has well refined my heart;

And fresh supplies of joy are shed,

Like holy oil, to cheer my heard.

Sin, my worst enemy before,

Shall vex my eyes and ears no more;

My inward foes shall all be slain,

Nor Satan break my peace again.

Then shall I see, and hear, and know

All I desired or wished below;

And every power find sweet employ

In that eternal world of joy.

            –Isaac Watts, 1674–1748

This article is part 11 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).

When John summarized the narrative of his gospel (20:31), he acknowledged a strategic selectivity to the signs performed by Jesus. His purpose was “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that by believing you may have life in His name.” In fact, not just the signs, but all that John recorded compels the reader to a confession that Jesus is Lord and God (John 20:28, 29), peculiarly qualified to effect salvation for those whom the Father had given him (John 6:39). He gives the historically observable evidence for the theological conclusion, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. … And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory” (John 1:1, 14).

The “signs”—seven of them recorded by John—are works of Jesus that required omnipotent power and benevolent purpose. For those who saw them and understood, they should conclude that God is with us and is working for our well-being. Jesus changed water into wine to salvage a wedding celebration (John 2:1-11). At that, his disciples believed. He healed an official’s son with a spoken word from afar (4:46-54). At that, he and his household believed. He healed a man who had been an invalid for almost forty years by telling him, “Take up your bed and walk” (5:1-15). At that the Jews reviled him, and Jesus called God his Father, “making himself equal with God.” The opposing Jews, understanding the implications of the Father/Son reference, began their contrivances to kill him. He fed a multitude of 5000 men plus women and children by multiplying five loaves of bread and two fish to satisfy the hunger of all (6:5-13). At that, the people said, “This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world.” In the presence of weather-beaten, frightened disciples he walked through a stormy sea to comfort them and quiet the storm (6:16-21). At that, those in the boat worshipped him and said, “Truly, you are the Son of God” (Matthew 14:33). For a man born blind, with the use of mud made from Jesus’ saliva and water for washing, Jesus restored his sight, prompting the man’s worship (John 9). Jesus’ friend Lazarus, dead for four days, he raised from the dead by calling him forth by command. Beforehand, he prayed showing that the purpose of this astounding sign was that those standing around would “believe that You sent Me.” He wanted to make sure that observers knew that he operated in perfect conjunction with the power and purpose of the Father (John 11:1-44). At that, “many of the Jews believed in him.” When Jesus assured Martha that Lazarus would be raised, she confessed, “Yes Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world” (11:27). These signs identified Jesus as the one who told Moses, “I will do marvels such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation” (Exodus 34:10).

He also records seven times that Jesus stated metaphors using the ontological identity for God, “I am.” In doing so he sets himself forth as the one in whom safety, life, sustenance, and eternity is secured. Jesus said, “I am the bread of life, …the light of the world, … the door of the sheep, … the good shepherd, …the resurrection and the life, … the way, the truth, and the life, … the true vine” (John 6:35, 48, 51; 8:12, 9:5; 10:7, 9: 10:11, 14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1). John records Jesus’ use of “I am” without any metaphorical reference on five occasions (6:20; 8:24, 28, 58; 18:5). Both the metaphorical and absolute use of “I am” identify Jesus as the God who created all that is in the world and by whose word light was separated from the darkness. He is the one who protected and fed Israel in the wilderness and the true David, the killer of giant death and the eternally reigning king. As the vine, he embodies Israel, the true man of God. As the Good Shepherd, He is the gate through whom they enter the fold, He calls them by name, and He dies for them in order to secure eternal life for them. He is the ransom and the Redeemer for Job by whose power believers will in their flesh see God (Job 19:25-27; 33:24, 25). His Person and Work exclude the possibility of any other person, philosophy, or religious system leading to a knowledge of the Father, but ascertain that his way is infallibly certain.

As the Good Shepherd, Jesus is the gate through whom they enter the fold, He calls them by name, and He dies for them in order to secure eternal life for them.

Jesus identifies himself with no equivocation, no embarrassment, no apology, no mollifying explanation as the one who identified himself to Moses as “I am” (Exodus 3:14). What astounding connections must have trammeled the pedestrian thoughts of the people as one stood among them who identified himself to Moses by that name—”I am that I am; I eternally exist; I am unchangeable; I alone have non-dependent existence; it is to me that all moral beings, of all times, from all places will answer in final judgment.” His claim meant that he was, therefore, “The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation” (Exodus 34:6, 7).

Jesus told his detractors, “Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (John 5:45-47). Moses wrote about the Creator, the Righteous Judge, the Covenant Maker, the God of Abraham, the God of Deliverance, the Great Lawgiver, the angry God, the compassionate God, the God who reveals his glory, the God whose justice cannot be violated, the God who makes a way of forgiveness. Jesus said, “I am that God.”

The discourses recorded by John give Jesus’ interpretation of confrontations of varying intensities with increasingly bold claims. In his discussion with Nicodemus, Jesus calls himself the Son of Man “who descended from heaven” and gives eternal life to believers (John 4:13, 15). To the woman of Samaria, Jesus told her plainly concerning the identity of Messiah, “I who speak to you am” (John 4:26). In a discourse with hostile Jews, Jesus enraged them even further by saying that the Father has committed all judgment to the Son “so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him” (John 5:23). In speaking in strong images about the necessity of his incarnation and death, Jesus again offended the grumblers by saying, “Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves” (John 6:53). In another discussion with the confused and increasingly agitated Jews, Jesus laid claim to a perfect knowledge of and conformity to the Father’s purpose: “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am, and I do nothing on my own initiative, but I speak those things as the Father taught me. And He who sent me is with me; He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him” (8:28, 29). In his Good Shepherd discourse Jesus said, “My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one” (10:29, 30). When that claim prompted an effort to stone him immediately, he pointed to their irrationality in disconnecting his words from his works, and continued, “Though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father” (10:38). Identity in deity while maintaining distinction of personhood was too big an idea to absorb but was perfectly consistent with the witness of the Old Testament. In the discourse given at the Lord’s Supper, Jesus made several summarizing statements, “You call me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am; … he who receives Me, receives Him who sent Me. … Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in Him; …  I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; … He who hates me hates my Father also; … He [the Holy Spirit] will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things the Father has are mine; …  Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed [that I am Lord and God]” (13: 13, 20, 31; 14:10, 11; 15:23; 16:14, 15; 20:29).

John saw and heard these things, testified to these things, and wrote these things. He remembered Jesus Christ and under the superintending purpose of the Holy Spirit recorded with the same revelatory value and infallible authority with which Paul preached his gospel.

This article is part 10 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.

On the field we often hear a missionary say something like, “We’re meeting with a few pastors today and want to cast vision.” Or maybe at a yearly training meeting, a leader might remark from the pulpit, “Meet with your disciples and cast vision for soul winning to them.” I don’t know the history of the phrase but know it’s popular in various circles. Christians from different backgrounds and theologies use the phrase. In a 2004 sermon, John Piper said, “Another example of Romans 12 shaping the way we build budgets and cast vision for Treasuring Christ Together is that the staff and elders know that verse 2 is absolutely essential for what we are doing” (link). And it’s not surprising to hear John Maxwell use it: vision is the ability for a leader to look out and see what is ahead of us (link). Apparently, those in the business sector use it a lot too: “Vision casting is a term used in leadership and strategic planning that refers to creating a compelling and inspiring vision for an organization or team. This vision provides the group with a clear direction and purpose and serves as a roadmap for achieving long-term goals and objectives” (link).

Thus, it’s normal for Southern Baptist missionaries to use it readily. It’s not exclusively used by those fond of Church Planting Movements strategies, but they employee it often: “At the same time, you hunt for saved believers (prioritizing same or near culture partners) that will work alongside you to reach this people group. You bridge into them by casting vision to them of what God can do in and through them and then to train them” (Smith). I imagine that many of us missionaries with other methods use the phrase as well. So maybe we could explore its meaning a bit here, and then perhaps recalibrate.

What the phrase conveys

What in fact do we as missionaries mean? If we were not allowed to say vision casting, what words would we use? Would we say teach, or emphasize, or help them understand? For example, “Meet with your disciples and teach the importance of soul winning to them.” Or “Emphasize to these leaders that they need to disciple their people.” What about good biblical words like preach, reprove, rebuke, or exhort? “Preach to them today and exhort them to share about Jesus.” This little replacement-word exercise can at least help us make sure we convey a biblical message when we tell other missionaries to cast vision. In fact, if one uses vision casting phraseology on the mission field or in the church, it might be good to make sure it’s really grounded in Scripture. Perhaps the closest example of someone in the Gospels doing something like vision casting might be when Jesus said, “I will make you fishers of men.” Maybe. Or when Jesus says in John 4, “Look, I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see that the fields are white for harvest.” Perhaps.

Nevertheless, let’s suppose for a moment that the concept is biblical, yet let’s still use a different word to test clarity. What precisely is it that we’re teaching other Christians to do or become? What “vision” are we wanting others to catch? This is where I think we could do better. Some missionaries stop short; they say cast vision and merely mean, teaching others to share their faith, who will in turn teach Christians to share their faith; or they mean: to teach believers to disciple others who will also disciples others. But this “vision” is less than glorious, less biblical than it could be because it shoots for less than where Scripture points. If some have reduced vision casting (or teaching) to mean simply “go witness,” then that concept is only part of a good focus for a team or church or individual, but it’s lacking. There’s something better than mere witnessing or training others to witness. What is better? God himself.

The Best Focus

Right, the Lord himself is a better aim–or, shall we say, vision. “Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul….” A robust approach would therefore be, teach others to cherish God and his glory. His glory shines in his authority and power. “Not to us, O LORD, not to us, but to your name give glory, for the sake of your steadfast love and your faithfulness” (Psalm 115:1)! We can teach disciples the fine details of the end of Matthew 28, too. His glory sparkles here: “All authority…given to me”, “I will be with you always…”. The end of Matthew isn’t merely about disciple making, but about the One true God with all authority, who will never leave his disciples.

This article is not a call to always avoid vision casting terminology. Who has time to be the word police? I use discipleship even though the word isn’t in the Bible. But hopefully we can all agree that words matter. (Note how often people say, “meet online” when they really mean “connect online.” Or “I feel that…” when they mean “I think that…” Missionaries themselves are bad about overusing “Great Commission” when quoting the biblical text would be better: “…going, make disciples, teaching them….” How we use words matters especially in cultures where man can now sometimes mean woman.) So, I’m urging cautious reflection, that is, rigorous biblical reflection. If your convictions lead you to conclude that vision casting is biblical, then please use it sparingly, and use it properly: to point people to the greatest of all visions–God’s supremacy, his bigness. “For great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; he is to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the peoples are worthless idols, but the LORD made the heavens” (Psalm 96:4-5).

We all need verbal shortcuts sometimes, but they can have weaknesses, like breeding ambiguity. Because we’re people of the Book, we have tasks for the church and the mission field that derive specifically from the Bible. Often, we ought to go to His Word to see that we’ve got it right, and often we should use its language to help us stay on track. Otherwise, we might become businesspeople and merely baptize our marketing ideas with Christian words or sprinkle our biblical words with business-rich concepts and verbiage. Sometimes our lingo, and use of, so-called best practices might hinder us–and also indicate that our trust in the sufficiency of Scripture is waning. I can’t imagine that using business language and concepts will help us stay biblical; it may not cause a derailment either. But it might.

A Stunning Reality

Nonetheless, if there’s anything in vision casting that connects to holding on to something hopeful in the future, as Jesus did when he endured the cross, “for the joy that was set before him…”, then what could be more glorious than seeing all of us bowing the knee and confessing to our great king as it says in Isaiah 45, Philippians 2, and Romans 14? That’s a beautiful picture.

So, if its vision-language we are compelled to use, then let’s choose a vision that all Bible-loving missionaries can embrace. “For I am God, and there is no other,” records Isaiah. Let’s make sure it drips with excitement and passion about the God of the Bible: “Those who have glimpsed the greatness, the grandeur, the majesty, and the excellence of our Triune God through the eyes of trust in Jesus never get over that vision (Philippians 3:8). An obsession with God and His glory is the hallmark of true knowledge of God” (Foundations).

*Kenneth Hayward (pseudonym for security reasons) has been overseas with his organization for more than 15 years, lives in Asia with his family, and can be contacted at: stand4truth [email protected].

URL information:

Piper: https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/treasuring-christ-together-the-vision-and-its-cost

Maxwell: https://youtu.be/SCF-0UppO-c

Business: https://www.rhythmsystems.com/blog/vision-casting-a-leaders-job

Hayward: https://founders.org/articles/if-not-church-planting-movements-then-what/

Smith (page 4): http://t4tonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/1-The-Basic-CPM-Plan-and-T4T.pdf

Foundations (pages 36-37): https://issuu.com/trainingdev/docs/imb_foundations

This article is part 9 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).

Before John gives a narrative of his evidence, the signs and sayings that should produce belief, He gives a dense and powerful statement of the theological conclusion. We know from the beginning what he is driving toward.

“In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1). John affirms that the living Word of God, that is, the Son of God, was there and the active agent of the events that began in Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning.” Genesis goes on to say, “God created.” John’s assumption of the language of the Genesis narrative indicates that this Word was the God who created. This is reiterated in verse 3 when John writes with economy and force, “All things through him” (as the intermediate but co-equal agent carrying out the full intention of the Father) “came into being, and without him came into being not even one thing” (3). Again, this is stated in verse 10, “The entire created order with all of its symmetry, inter-relations, and reciprocal dependencies and attractions [cosmos] through Him, as the intermediate and effecting agent, came into being.”

The verb “was,” the imperfect of eimi, is used three times in verse 1 and again in verse 2. It implies absolute continual existence. After implying that the Word is eternal and is the God who created, John says the “Word was with God.” This is a strong word of association, “face to face with God” (1:1), with the definite article, “the God.” This identifies another personal being who also is eternally divine, even as the Word is. Immediately John continues with a statement about the Word, “the Word was God.” The Word is not that God identified specifically in the previous phrase, but is himself, in his essence, a person of the same nature as “the God” that he was, is, and will continue to be “with.” A. T. Robertson says that this phrase “presents a plane of equality and intimacy.” When the same phrase appears in 1 John 1:2, he calls it “the accusative of intimate fellowship.” Later this relation is verbalized as “in the bosom of the Father” (18).

Verse 2 reiterates the assertion of verse 1 in short-hand style.  “He,” –this one that has just been called God– “was,”—again the imperfect of eimi meaning having continuing eternal existence without a beginning—“in the beginning”—when everything that has a beginning began—‘with God”—face to face in essential union with a distinct divine person whom we learn is the Father. The perfect bond of intimate communion between Son and Father is the Holy Spirit (John 15:26; 16:14, 15).

Verses 4, 5, 9 engage the idea of the Word being the source, not only of physical created light, but of the inextinguishable rationality and inner-witness in men called the “image of God” (Genesis 1:26, 27). As Jesus is the uncreated image of God (Colossians 1:15), even the “brightness of his glory and the express image of his person” (Hebrews 1:3), so humanity by created constitution bears God’s image. The Son has created us as reflections of his own being. “In Him was life, and the life was the light of men” (4). As the Father by eternal generation has given to the Son to have “life in himself” (John 5:26), so the Son has given us by creation life and light that is dependent upon him. The light is the rational morality and heart-law of humanity. The Word eternally exists as the true light (9), and every person that is conceived (that comes into being in this world), receives at that point the divine image as communicated by the eternal Word, the eternal radiance of the divine glory.

Sin, however, has darkened our perceptions. Bearers of the Light walk about in darkness and thus, though the light-giver was in the world, “the world did not know him” (10). Even his covenant people who had the fathers and the covenants and the written law did not receive him (11). Revelation of truth diminishes cognitive darkness but does not overcome the spiritual darkness of the soul. The personification of truth, light, faithfulness, glory, and grace came into the world and none of his image-bearers nor even his own covenanted people received him nor knew him.

Another divine operation, therefore, must open that heart and the rationality, banish the darkness and bring sinners of all sorts to belief. John asserts this happens by another birth in which we become “children of God, … not from bloods, nor of a will of the flesh, nor of a will of man, but of God having been begotten” (13). Here John rejects the genealogical pedigree of the Jews, the power of the human will, and all the powers present in humanity as a result of natural birth. This sinful darkness and spiritual deadness over Jew and Gentile can only be overcome by a birth from above.

Revelation of truth diminishes cognitive darkness but does not overcome the spiritual darkness of the soul.

In this tight framework, John has asserted the deity of the Word, the Word’s operation in creation, and his face-to-face connection with “the God.” Now the astounding mystery—this Word became flesh; he dwelt among men as a man. At the same time, he could not be absent of his eternal glory, but did not, nevertheless, exhibit the external form of that glory. The evidence of his deity was abundant, but its form was exhibited rarely.

John, nevertheless, claims, “We saw his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (14). He saw works of power befitting only God, but the glory he refers to here is the glory resident in the eternal relation between the Father and the Son. If his words do not arise from revelation, how else could John state these propositions with such certainty and in a didactic way? This kind of revealed insight into the historical phenomena experienced by the disciples was promised by Jesus when he said, “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak.” Jesus then completes the trinitarian unity of knowledge and purpose by saying, “He will glorify me, for he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:12-15).  Paul summarized by saying, “What eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has entered into the heart of man, God has revealed to us by his Spirit” (1 Corinthians 2:9, 10). “In other ages,” Paul claimed, the mystery of Christ was not made known “as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets” (Ephesians 3:5).

Does this contradict John’s claims in 1 John? John says, “The One that was from the beginning, the One we have heard, the One we have seen with our eyes, the One we have gazed upon and our hands have touched, concerning the Word of life, … we are announcing to you, … and these things we are writing to you so that your joy may be completely full” (1 John 1:1, 3, 4 ). It is true that John saw all these things, heard the words of the Word, felt the flesh of the Word made flesh, and considered all this a sufficient demonstration of the actions, claims, and teachings of Jesus. For such clarity of perception of these transcendent historically certain truths, however, John had to partake of a two-fold work of the Holy Spirit.

First, he was the recipient of the revelation Jesus promised from the Spirit. His assertions about the deity of Jesus are not guesswork nor the mere product of rational deduction from abundance of evidence.  Though consistent with the evidence, John’s propositions are revealed truth.

Second, he received the Spiritually-generated true-seeing, true-tasting, true- hearing. He had experienced what Jesus said after the feeding of the 5000, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63). He had experienced not only the revelation of cognitive propositions (like Balaam [Numbers 23:1-12]), but the internal apprehension of the truth taught by the Spirit, unlike Balaam (Jude 11, 19). True believers will not believe antichristian lies that deny either the deity or the humanity of Christ for they “have the anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things” (1 John 2:20). In reference to the particular knowledge of the Father and the Son, the Spirit anoints his chosen with that knowledge. Confirming this John wrote, “And the anointing that you received from him abides in you, even so you have no need that anyone teach you. But as his anointing teaches you concerning everything, and is true and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him” (1 John 2:27).

True belief consists of several constituent elements. First, the historical events effecting redemption must have taken place. “The Word became flesh and set himself up as a tabernacle among us” (John 1:14). He “bore our sins in his own body on the tree” (1 Peter 2:24) and “died for our sins” (1 Corinthians 15:3). He was buried, but “now is Christ risen from the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:20). Having made purification for sins, he has sat down at the right hand of the Father (Hebrews 1:3). Second, true belief accepts the meaning of these things as taught infallibly by revelation to chosen messengers (1 Timothy 2:5-7). Truth and error are divided along the lines of apostolic declaration and contrary opinion (1 John 4:5, 6). Third, true belief emerges with a restoration of the true light to the soul by the glory of Christ’s gospel, by a spiritual application of the historical truth that Jesus appeared as God in the flesh and accomplished his assigned work of redemption. Those who don’t believe have been blinded by Satan so that “the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God,” does not enlighten them. On the other hand, those who believe are the recipients of an effectual operation of Christ Himself, who “commanded light to shine out of darkness” at creation. He does this through the Spirit [for in this work “the Lord is the Spirit”] and “has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 3:17, 18; 4:4-6).

We “Remember Jesus Christ” when we affirm, on the basis of apostolic revelation, and with a heart full of love and adoration, without a shadow of doubt that the Word who was with the Father, and was himself eternally of the essence of the Father, became flesh.

This article is part 9 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.

My God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus. (Philippians 4:19)

God shall all your need supply,

Ask not how, nor question why.

All you need, whate’r it be,

All the need you cannot see.

Need for grace to conquer sin,

Need for power to fight to win,

Need for patience every day,

Need for trust when dark the way.

Need for healing for each pain,

Need for cleansing from each stain,

Need for Love to make life sweet,

Need for charity complete.

Need for pardon for each fall,

Need for mercy most of all,

Need for grace to live or die,

God shall all your need supply.

–Unknown