A Third Error
Previously I wrote that there are two classes of Christological errors. That is not strictly true. There are three: those that deny the humanity, those that deny the deity, and those that deny the union of the two natures (e.g., monophysitism and Nestorianism). The earliest denial of Jesus’ deity, of course, occurred during his earthly ministry. The gospel of Mark begins with an explicit declaration of Christ’s deity: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1). When he returned to Nazareth and did wonders, demonstrating his deity, the people were astonished but unbelieving: “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” (Matt 13:54–56). The Jewish leaders sought to murder him because he made himself equal with God (ποιῶν τῷ θεῷ; John 5:18). When he healed the paralytic and forgave his sins (Luke 5:20), the scribes called him a blasphemer (Matt 9:2). Jesus gave them reason to be troubled:
Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy. What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves death.” (Matt 26:64–66)
Were he not God the Son incarnate they should have put him to death, but he was telling the truth:
“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he was speaking about the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.” (John 2:19–22)
The demons, beginning with their leader, regularly announced the truth about Jesus’ deity. The Evil One himself tempted Jesus by challenging him to prove what they both knew to be true, that he was (and is) the eternally begotten Son of God (Matt 4:6). He proved himself to be God’s Son by refuting Satan from the Word of God and by conquering him in the wilderness. The demons knew exactly who he was and why he had come: “What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?” (Matt 8:29). Is it not fascinating that the demons know that their time is short, that they were already on a leash, as it were, and that a judgment is coming? No one had to tell them who and what Jesus was.
The Jewish authorities wanted Jesus put to death because he claimed to be the Son of God (John 19:8). The Jews mocked him on the cross for saying that he was the Son of God (Matt 27:40). They quoted against him his claim to be the Son of God (Matt 27:43). The Roman centurion, who witnessed Jesus’ death (contra the Muslims, who deny that Jesus really died), exclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of God!” (Mark 15:38). Jesus’ self-consciousness, his testimony about his identity, the testimony of the apostles, that of the Roman centurion, and even that of the demons agrees: Jesus was the Son of God, and he remains the Son of God.
Adoptionism
Not only did the Jewish leaders deny Jesus’ deity, but within a decade of his death, a group of Jewish heretics known to history as the Ebionites (post-70 AD) claimed to follow Jesus but denied that he is consubstantial with the Father. Rather, they taught that he was a godly man whom God recognized and adopted into the deity. This is the heresy of adoptionism. Typically, the adoptionists appealed to his baptism (Matt 3:16) as the moment at which the Father adopted him as his Son. Rather than seeing the descent in economic or redemptive-historical terms, they saw (and see) the baptism by the Spirit as the conferring of a kind of quasi-divinity. The early Gnostic teacher Cerinthus (c. 100 AD) denied that Jesus was God eternally and only begotten Son by nature. He argued that divine power descended upon Jesus at his baptism but deserted him at his crucifixion. The Gnostics wanted a theology of glory, not a theology of the cross.
Monarchianism
The Monarchians argued that God is one principle (μον + αρχη) such that any appearance of distinct persons is just that, a mere appearance. We might call them docetists of a kind. In their view, God is not really one in three persons; he merely appears to be three persons. In the third century, Sabellius taught modalist monarchianism, the doctrine that God is one principle, meaning he takes on different modes or manifestations and so is not really three persons. This is unitarianism. The version of monarchianism most relevant to Christology, however, is dynamic monarchianism. In the third century, Paul of Samosata (Bishop of Antioch) taught that the Son was an attribute of the Father, a power (δυναμις), or even the reason of the Father. He was among the first to teach the heresy of the eternal subordination of the Son. He too had an adoptionist Christology. We may the grateful that he was deposed from office in 268 AD.
Arianism
Arius (d. 336) was possibly from Libya and was a popular ascetic (withdrawing from secular society) pastor in Alexandria, Egypt. Think of Alexandria as a place of great learning (hence the great library) but also a hotbed of theological error and even heresy. It was the Berkeley of its time. About 319 he announced the doctrine that the Son is not consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father. His slogan was, “There was when the Son was not.” Some of his followers taught that the Son is like the Father but not of the same essence with the Father. It was against this heresy that the Council of Nicea (325 AD) employed the term homoousios (ὁμοούσιος), meaning “of the same substance.” In his own way, Arius was teaching the eternal subordination of the Son. The most well-known proponents of Arianism today are the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who deny the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father.
The third great type of error that has been made under the doctrine of Christ (Christology) is the denial of the union of the two natures. Above we considered the Eutychian confusion of the two natures. Nestorius (c. 351–c. 451), the Patriarch of Constantinople, was accused by Eutyches of teaching that the two natures of the Son are essentially two distinct persons. Whether he actually taught that doctrine is hotly disputed by scholars today, but certainly there were and are those known as Nestorians, who taught and teach what Nestorius is accused of teaching. He was so worried about the monophysite error (confusing the two natures) that he rejected the language of the “union” (ένωσις) of the two natures. He preferred to speak of the “conjunction” (συνάφεια) of the two natures, implying to some a division between the two natures. He was strongly committed to what we call the Creator/creature distinction, or what I call in Recovering the Reformed Confession the categorical distinction. So, he also ejected the term God-bearer (θεοτοκς). He preferred to speak of her as “Christ-bearer.” He was condemned by Celestine (Bishop of Rome) in 430 and deposed by the ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431. The Definition of Chalcedon (451 AD) repudiated both Eutychianism and Nestorianism.
The second part of the Athanasian Creed (poss. Fifth century) speaks to these issues by giving us a vocabulary to use when speaking about Jesus. We confess:
- Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation: that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
- For the right faith is, that we believe and confess: that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man;
- God, of the Substance of the Father; begotten before the worlds: and Man, of the Substance of his mother, born in the world.
- Perfect God: and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
- Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead: and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood.
- Who although he be God and man; yet he is not two, but one Christ.
- One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh: but by taking of the manhood into God.
- One altogether; not by confusion of substance: but by unity of person.
- For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man: so God and man is one Christ;
- Who suffered for our salvation: descended into hell: rose again the third day from the dead.
- He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the Father God Almighty.
- Whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
- At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
- And shall give account for their own works.
- And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting: and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.
- This is the catholic faith: which except a man believe faithfully, he can not be saved.
All Christians confess that Jesus is true God and true man. He is consubstantial with the Father (ex substantia Patris). We confess that, by the mysterious operation of the Holy Spirit, he took his humanity from the blessed virgin Mary (ex substantia matris). He “subsists” of (ex) a rational soul (anima rationali) and human flesh. He is “equal” to the Father according to the deity and subordinate to the Father according to his humanity (minor Patre secundum humanitatem). Here we could end most of the current debate over the alleged “eternal subordination of the Son” by getting back to the ancient, agreed, ecumenical language of the Athanasian Creed. We speak of the subordination of the Son relative to the incarnation. Full stop.
This way we do not separate the two natures or divide him into two persons. There is but “one Christ” (sed unus est Christus). We deny that the humanity is converted (non conversione divinitatis) into deity and that the humanity assumed (assumptione) into the deity. Christians are not Eutychians or monophysites. Christ is a unified person (unitate personae). The person of Christ suffered for our salvation (pro nostra salute)—the substitutionary doctrine of the atonement pre-dated Anselm by centuries. He died, was buried, was raised, ascended, as is seated at the right hand of the Father—one person. We are not Nestorians. This is the ecumenical or catholic (not Roman) faith.
This is important. It must be believed “faithfully” (fideliter) and “firmly” (firmiter). It is not possible for anyone to be saved (salvus esse non poterit) who denies this doctrine.
Christmas has its problems. Among them are sentiment and confusion about what Scripture teaches and what the Christians confess about the incarnation. But the doctrine of the incarnation of the eternally begotten Son of God is a glorious, biblical, ecumenical truth in which all Christians rejoice in every season. This season, however, gives us opportunity to remember (or to learn) these great truths, to rehearse them with our children and grandchildren and with anyone who will listen. This season may the Lord, who became incarnate for us and for our salvation, renew us in the biblical and ecumenical truths of the incarnation, the two natures, and the one person of Christ.
©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.
RESOURCES
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
R. Scott Clark
R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.
More by R. Scott Clark ›