Source Text

Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed: 1975 Ecumenical Version

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only (begotten) Son of God (word deleted in English),
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being [Substance] with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us (men) and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit (words added in English)
he became incarnate and was made man (Greek: “flesh”).
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

Discussion

Introduction

When I was young, when my father was off at sea, and again after he retired in 1958, we lived in Pensacola, where my mother had inherited the house in which she had been born in 1904.

On several occasions, we drove northward, through Alabama and Georgia towards the Carolinas and Virginia, where I went to a boarding school for three years.

Along the roadside, we would often see barns, many of them rather dilapidated, cotton long having lost most of its value. To augment their income, farmers allowed people to write things on the roof in large letters.

The two inscriptions we saw most often were, “SEE ROCK CITY,” a rock formation up in the mountains to the northwest, and JESUS SAVES. The latter also appeared on countless signs.

As Episcopalians, we didn’t use that sort of religious vocabulary, and I later found out, while studying at a liberal Episcopal seminary, that these words, “Jesus saves,” were met with scorn and derision.

I never felt that way, however, even before I was born again at the age of almost twenty.

Now, much later, I think that these two words sum up the distinctive message of Christianity, as contrasted with Judaism.

The questions this statement raises, however, are, “Who is Jesus?” “From what does he save us?” “How can he save?” “How does he save?”

These questions stand at the very heart of the Arian controversy, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, and the orthodox Christian teaching about Jesus Christ.

The Person of Christ

One Lord Jesus Christ

One Lord: He is unique; there is no other “Lord”

Lord

The Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint (LXX), regularly translates Yahweh as Kurios, Lord, usually printed as LORD in English Bibles.

“Lord” thus identifies Jesus with Yahweh in no uncertain terms. Jesus is God.

Jesus

This is the human name of Jesus, which is the same as Joshua in the Old Testament.

It means “Yahweh saves.” See Matthew 1:21 “You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

Christ

It means Messiah, God’s anointed one. This points to his office and title.

Some Old Testament texts point towards the Christ as being divine: Psalm 2:2, 7-9, 12; Isaiah 9:6-7; 11:1-9; 42:1-4; 52:13-53:12; 61:1-2.

In the New Testament, the divine Sonship of Christ is made more explicit. For example, see Matthew 16:16; 1 John 1:7.

The only (begotten) Son of God

Only

Begotten (mongenes) = “only”? (NIV: “One and only,” John 1:18)

Some say that this word doesn’t have to connote begetting, but only uniqueness. Isaac was not Abraham’s “only begotten,” but he was the son of the covenant promise, so he was unique.

Certainly, in this sense, Jesus is the unique Son of God.

The Old Testament background for the use of monogenes for Jesus is Psalm 2:7: “You are my Son; this day have I begotten you” (quoted in Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 1:5; 5:5). .

Others maintain that monogenes does connote an identity of nature, being, and essence, as does “Son.”

They point to the words immediately following in the Creed: “begotten of his Father before all worlds;” “begotten, not made.” That is one reason I think we should retain the translation “only-begotten.”

Gregory of Nazianzus wrote, the terms Father and Son “denote an identity of nature between him that is begotten and him that begets.” Oration XXIX.16, quoted in Douglas Kelly, Systematic Theology, Volume Two: The Beauty of Christ. 2.87.

Thus, “Eternally begotten,” “before all worlds [ages]” indicates what is called “the eternal generation of the Son.”

Though it implies a common life, being, essence, etc., it is a relational term. The Father “begets” the Son. He is, thus, somehow and inexplicably, the eternal “origin” or “source” of the Son.

But there is NO temporal connotation; no “before and after” sequence.

Father and Son stand in a relationship together that we’ll explore further; these two words do not connote all that they do when used of humans however, of the father being older than the son.

The eternal Father has always had a Son, who must, therefore, also be eternal. See John 17:3, 5, 24.

Even on a human level, however, “Son” indicates identity of life, essence, being, nature, “substance” with the Father. And that is partly what is meant here.

God from God; Light from Light; true God from true God

These are three ways of saying the same thing. The Son is equally divine with the Father. He is God.

See Hebrews 1:3; Philippians 2:6 (“equality with God”); Colossians 1:15 (“image of the invisible God”), 19 (“for in him all the fullness [of God] was pleased to dwell”]; 2:9.

Of one being (substance) with the Father

Greek homoousion; Latin consubstantialem - not homoiousios, of “like” or “similar” nature, but the same nature, being, substance, etc.

The great battle with Arianism was fought over this word.

The orthodox party appealed to such Scriptures as, “The Word was God.” John 1:1 The Greek grammar here emphasizes essence and being.

“I and the Father are one” John 10:30: The neuter gender indicates substance, nature, essence; not one identical person.

“Eternal Functional Subordination”

Arius and his followers were not stupid. They appealed to texts that seemed to indicate that the Son was inferior to the Father, and thus was a second-class deity.

First, the title “Son” already implies some sort of subordination.

They insisted, also, that “Son” implies temporal sequence; all human sons are born after their fathers. Since the Son was begotten – all agreed on that – then he must have been born after the Father came into being.

They claimed that the phrase, “firstborn over (or, of) all creation,” Colossians 15, and its background text, Psalm 89:27, “I will make him my firstborn,” show that Christ was born first, then others.

The orthodox party replied that Psalm 89 and Colossians 1:15, are talking not about an eldest son’s chronological priority, but the supremacy that comes to the first born. They also quoted texts like “Before Abraham was, I am,” John 8:58, which identifies Jesus with the eternal “I AM,” that is, Yahweh, of Exodus 3:14. They cited John 1:1, where the imperfect tense of the Greek verb translated “was” indicates that the Word always was, and did not “come to be,” as all else did, in time, as indicated by the aorist tense of “came to be,” translated, “was made,” in John 1:3.

The Arians’ other texts were harder to handle, such as: John 5:19, “The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do.” See also 5:22, 26, 30, and especially John 14:28: “The Father is greater than I.” There are others, such as 1 Corinthians 15:24, 28; Philippians 2:8-9, and all that say that the Son was obedient to, or subject to, the Father. And there are statements that the Father sent the Son; the Father “gave all things into his hand,” etc., that express some sort of subordinate relationship of the Son to the Father.

The orthodox replied that “Father” and “Son” are relational, not ontological terms, as we have seen, and that the Father is indeed somehow prior to the Son, not in time or deity, but in role and function, and that the Father is, somehow, the “source” of the Son and Spirit, though not temporally prior to them.

In recent times, this question has resurfaced, as people have debated whether wives should submit to their husbands, though equal to them in nature and worth.

Egalitarians say that Christ was only subject to the Father either temporarily, while he was on earth, or in his manhood.

There is at least one theological problem with this position. Orthodox theologians insist that, according to the Chalcedonian formulation, though the two natures of Christ can be distinguished, they cannot be separated. When Jesus said, “The Father is greater than I,” he spoke not only as a man but also as the eternal Son of God. Indeed, throughout John 5, he speaks of himself as the “Son” and clearly indicates that he is somehow subordinate to the Father. He is speaking as the incarnate Son of God.

Complementarians reply that, yes, wives should submit, just as the Son submits to the Father. They take this further and say that the Son has always submitted to the Father.

That has produced the phrase, “the eternal functional subordination” (EFS) of the Son to the Father. History shows that the early Fathers and later theologians have always taught this.

Now, as a result of the debate about the roles of husbands and wives, we are clearer on this essentially functional and relational nature of the members of the Trinity.

This helps us clear up many, many texts in the New Testament that ascribe some sort of priority to God the Father, often called simply “God,” and the Son. It has come as a fresh insight into texts that I used to consider puzzling. See, for example, 1 Corinthians 11:3, “The head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God”, compared with Ephesians 5:22-23.

The crucial importance of this truth for our salvation will become clearer as we ask, “Who was crucified for us?”

Through him all things were made.

See John 1:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6, “There is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.” Colossians 1:16, “By Him all things were created”; Hebrews 1:2.

He is the eternal Word by and through whom the world was made.

“God said,” and it was so. Genesis 1:3, 6, etc.

By the way, this shows that a personal being, not an impersonal power or principle, underlies the entire universe.

We know that the Word is eternal for another reason: Logos, translated as “Word,” means, among other things, “mind.” The Word is the mind of God. If, as Arius notoriously claimed, “there was a time when the Word was not,” then God would have been, literally, mind-less. But that is inconceivable.

“For us (men) and our salvation he came down from heaven; by the (power of the) Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.

He came down

He descended as Son of God from heavenly glory to this earth. ‘He” is the subject of the verbs that follow, showing that we are talking about the eternal and fully divine Son of God, now united with human flesh as one divine-human person.

Became incarnate

That is, “enfleshed,” emphasizing not the sin of mankind, but its creatureliness and – in our current condition – its frailty and mortality.

By the (power of) the Holy Spirit.

I don’t think they should add “the power of.” It’s more than that. He was made man not just by the power of the Spirit, but the presence and action of the Spirit in his human birth brought the Godhead into union with a human person. The original Greek text makes this clear, by saying that he became incarnate “ek,” of, or from, the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. The one preposition “ek” governs two names, the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, thus indicating without any doubt that the incarnate Son partook of the natures of both the Holy Spirit – that is, God – and of the Virgin Mary.

All the attributes of deity, therefore, belong properly to him, though he willingly laid aside some divine prerogatives, such as his glory.

(See Matthew 1:35. That “Holy One” or “Holy Thing” who is to be born will be called the Son of God.” –a neuter term, though clearly speaking of the child, emphasizes not who he was but what he was, fully divine in his essence, being, nature.)

Incarnate

This reflects John 1:14; Philippians 2:7-8.

From the Virgin Mary.

I prefer the old “of” instead of “from,” for “of” points to the partaking of Mary’s human nature by the Christ. He was fully man.

And was made man

He was fully man, as well as fully God.

Thus, I prefer the old “for us men,” though it was removed to allay concerns about gender bias. This word “man” is anthropos, man in general, both male and female. It links up with “was made man,” one Greek word, later in this clause. The divine Son who came down for us “men” became a “man” like us to save us.

Thus, he could be tired, hungry, and thirsty, and he could be killed on a cross:

As fully man, he (1) fulfilled all God’s moral requirements for mankind as our Representative, and thus earned righteousness that could be imputed to us. See Romans 5:19-19.

As fully man, he (2) was our substitutionary sacrifice on the Cross, bearing our guilt and our penalty as our Representative and substitute. See 1 Peter 2:24; 3:18.

As fully man, he (3) can be the one mediator between God and Men. See 1 Timothy 2:5.

As fully man, he (4) fulfilled God’s original purpose for men to rule over the creation.

As man, he has been “crowned with glory and honor,” Hebrews 2:9, referring to Psalm 8. One day, we will rule with him on his throne. See Revelation 3:21.

As fully man, he is our example and pattern in life. See 1 Peter 2:21; 1 John 2:6; Hebrews 12:2-3. Even now, we are gradually being conformed to his [moral] likeness, Romans 8:19; 2 Corinthians 3:18.

As fully man, he is the pattern for our redeemed and glorified bodies. See 1 Corinthians 15:42-44, 49; Philippians 3:21, “He will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body”; Colossians 1:18.

As fully man, he can sympathize with us as our great High Priest. See Hebrews 2:18; 4:15-16.

Jesus will be man forever. He will return as he left us, fully man. See Acts 1:11. As man, he appeared to Saul on the Damascus Road, Acts 9:5. He is now one like a son of man, Revelation 1:13. One day we will join with him in his kingdom, Matthew 26:29, and in his marriage banquet, Revelation 19:9. (Taken from Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 540-543))

He was fully man. Not just man in appearance, as some (the Docetists) would argue. That means he had a human body and a human mind, will, and emotions, as many passages in the Gospels testify.

Thus, the God-man had two natures, contrary to some (the Monophysites), who said he had only one nature.

Thus, the God-man, also had two wills, that of God and that of a human, contrary to what some (the Monothelites) would argue.

But he had only one “persona,” or “hypostasis.” Both natures dwelt in the same body, the body of Jesus Christ.

The Council of Chalcedon in 451 stated what has become “Orthodox” Christology for the Greek and Latin churches, though not for the Syrian, Egyptian, or Coptic churches, who believe some of the things I’ve just mentioned.

We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. The distinction between natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person and one hypostasis.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.

Who was crucified, died, and was buried? Only the man Jesus, in his humanity? Or the complete God-man, the incarnate Son of God.

Yes, the man Jesus died, the just for the unjust, representing us as our substitutionary sacrifice, to placate the righteous wrath of God against sinful men and women.

If only man died, however, as Athanasius saw clearly, we cannot be saved, for no human offering can pay the penalty owed by sinful humanity to an infinitely holy God.

Only a fully divine Person could satisfy the righteous wrath of God, who had been offended by us.

So, we affirm that the Son of God, enfleshed in the body of Jesus, the complete Christ, died for us.

Paul tells the Ephesians that the church of God “was purchased with his own” –that is, God’s own – “blood.” (Acts 20:28) Since God the Father is Spirit, only God the Son, the incarnate God, could shed blood to redeem us from our sins.

Incomprehensible? Yes! Essential for our salvation? Yes!

That is why the Creed begins with the word, “Credo,” I believe. I do not fully understand, but I trust the written Word of God and, trusting, I come to know this great and gracious God as my Savior and Lord.

On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures.

Who rose? Only the man? Or the complete Christ, the Son of God united forever with the body of Jesus?

Those who believe in him are also, even now, spiritually raised to the right hand of the Father, where we have instant access to the throne of grace through the Son, by the Spirit.

These believers in Christ have royal authority now even on earth, not only to cast out demons in the name of Jesus and to resist Satan in the name of Jesus, but to rule over their still-sinful bodies, by the power of the indwelling Spirit of the risen Christ. See Romans 6:4-14; Ephesians 6:10-20’

He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

Who ascended? Only the Son of God? Or the complete Christ, the God-Man, in whom, therefore, we rose and ascended. See Ephesians 1:19-22; Colossians 2:11-14; 3:1.

Who now sits at the right hand of the Father? The complete Christ, the God man, the Son of God who has forever joined himself to the body of Jesus, and in whom, by faith, we also rose and are seated at the Father’s right hand.

Now, here is where the idea of eternal functional subordination helps:

The Son of God is seated at the right hand of the Father. There are two of them, the Father and the Son.

Further, the Father is seated on the throne, with the Son at his right hand, a position of highest honor compared to all others, but of secondary honor compared to the Monarch on the throne.

But, there is only one throne! Christ is seated on the same throne as the Father, sharing in his rule over all the universe. See Ephesians 1:21-22; Revelation 22:1, 3 speaks of “the throne of God” – that is, the Father – “and of the Lamb” – the Son. One throne, with two occupants. The Father is God Almighty Creator and ruler of All. The Son is the lamb, the God-man, who died to save us from our sins.

And he will come again in glory, to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

Who will come in glory? The Son of God, joined to the risen body of Jesus. As God, he has unique authority to judge; as man, he has the right to judge his fellow men, for he fulfilled all the righteous requirements of the law of God.

Who will reign forever? The eternal Son of God, who shares in the Father’s universal sovereignty and can thus be called “Lord.” And the complete Christ, the God-man, who as man will call us up into his own rule, as he promised his disciples.

Who now, possessing “all authority in heaven and earth,” commands his followers to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?” (One name, three divine Persons.) The risen Lord Jesus Christ, the God-man, our Savior.

How do we make disciples of all nations?

By proclaiming Jesus, the only Savior, “for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

“You shall call his name Jesus,” which means, “Yahweh is salvation,” “for he will save his people from their sins.” Matthew 1:21

He saves us from the penalty of our sins if we repent and fully trust in him.

And we teach people to observe all that he has commanded us, for he is Lord, Almighty God, one with the Father in power and glory. His wish is our command.

As we rely daily on the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God and of Christ, we can “put to death the evil deeds of the body,” thus gaining freedom from the power of sin.

And one day, risen with him in glory, joining with myriads of angels and all the saints throughout history, we will be totally free even from the presence of sin!

Hallelujah!

JESUS SAVES!!!!

As Athanasius, at the cost of five exiles, all alone against what seemed to be the whole Christian world - and thus the phrase, ‘Athanasius contra mundum” - courageously insisted centuries ago, the words written in large letters on signs and barns along dusty Southern roads are true: JESUS SAVES!

Only Jesus, the complete Christ, the God-man, can save.

And Jesus DOES save!