Post by Admin on Jun 14, 2024 16:01:14 GMT -5
The Divine and Human Nature of Christ by Herman Bavinck
The testimony which, according to Scripture, Christ has given of
Himself is developed and confirmed by the preaching of the apostles.
The confession that a man, named Jesus, is the Christ, the Only Begotten of the Father,
is in such direct conflict with our experience
and with all of our thinking, and especially with all the inclinations of
our heart, that no one can honestly and with his whole soul
appropriate it without the persuasive activity of the Holy Spirit. By
nature everybody stands in enmity to this confession, for it is not a
confession natural to man. No one can confess that Jesus is the Lord
except through the Holy Spirit, but neither can anyone speaking by
the Holy Spirit call Jesus accursed; he must recognize Him as his
Savior and King (1 Cor. 12:3).
Hence when Christ appears on earth and Himself confesses that He
is the Son of God, He did not leave it at that, but He also had a care,
and He continues to have a care, that this confession finds entrance
into the world, and is believed by the church. He called His apostles,
and He instructed them, and made them witnesses to His words and
deeds, to His death and resurrection. He gave them the Holy Spirit
who brought them personally to the confession that Jesus was the
Christ, the Son of the living God (Matt. 16:16), and who later caused
them, from the day of Pentecost on, to minister as preachers of those
things which their eyes had seen, and they beheld, and their hands
had handled of the Word of life (1 John 1:1). The apostles were really
not the real witnesses. The Spirit of truth, proceeding from the
Father, is the original, infallible, and almighty witness to Christ, and
the apostles are that only in Him and through Him (John 15:26 and
Acts 5:32). And it is that same Spirit of truth who by means of the
testimony of the apostles brings the church of all ages to the
confession and preserves them in it: Lord, to whom shall we go?
Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that
Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God (John 6:68-69).
When the four Evangelists in regular order report the events of the
life of Jesus, they usually refer to Him simply by the name of Jesus
without any more particular qualification or addendum. They tell us
that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, that Jesus was led into the
wilderness, that Jesus saw the multitude and went up the mountain,
and so on. Jesus, the historical person who lived and died in
Palestine, is the object of their chronicle. And so we find a few times
in the letters of the apostles, too, that Jesus is designated simply by
His historical name. Paul says, for instance, that no one can say that
Jesus is the Lord except by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3). John
testifies that whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God
(1 John 1 :5 compare 2:22 and 4:20). And in the book of Revelation
we read of the faith of Jesus, and of the witnesses and witness of Jesus.
Still, in the letters of the apostles the use of this name without
qualification is rare. Usually the name occurs in connection with: the
Lord, Christ, the Son of God, and like designations, and the full name
usually reads: Our Lord Jesus Christ. But, irrespective of whether the
name Jesus is used alone or in connection with other names, the
connection with the historical person who was born in Bethlehem
and who died on the cross always comes to expression in it.
The whole New Testament, that of the epistles or letters as well as
that of the gospels, rests on the foundation of historical events. The
Christ- figure is not an idea nor an ideal of the human mind, as many
in past ages maintained, and as some in our time also assert, but is a
real figure who manifested Himself in a particular period and in a
particular person in the man Jesus.
True, the various events in the life of Jesus recede into the
background in the letters. Those letters have a different purpose than
the gospels have. They do not chronicle the history of the life of Jesus
but point out the significance which that life has for the redemption
of mankind. But all of the apostles are familiar with the person and
life of Jesus, are acquainted with His words and deeds, and they
proceed to show us that this Jesus is the Christ, exalted by God to
His own right hand, in order to grant repentance and the forgiveness
of sins (Acts 2:36 and 5:31).
Often, therefore, in the letters of the apostles mention is made of
events in the life of Jesus. They picture Him before the eyes of their
auditors and readers (Gal. 3 :1). They stress the fact that John the
Baptist was His herald and precursor (Acts 13:25 and 19:4), that He
comes from the family of Judah and the stem of David (Rom. 1:3;
Rev. 5:5 and 22:16), that He was born of a woman (Gal. 4:4), was
circumcised on the eighth day (Rom. 15 :8), that He was brought up
in Nazareth (Acts 2:22 and 3:6), and that He also had brothers (1
Cor. 9:5 and Gal. 1:19). They tell us that He was perfectly holy and
sinless,1 that He presented Himself to us as an example (1 Cor. 11:1
and 1 Peter 2:21), and that He spoke words that have authority for us
(Acts 20:35 and 1 Cor. 7:10-12). But it is especially His dying that is
significant for us. The cross stands at the central point in the
apostolic preaching. Betrayed by one of the twelve apostles whom He
chose (1 Cor. 11:23 and 1 Cor. 15:5), and not recognized by the
princes of this world as the Lord of glory (1 Cor. 2:8), He was put to
death by the Jews (Acts 4:10; 5 :30; and 1 Thess. 2:15), dying on the
accursed wood of the cross.2 But, even though He suffered greatly in
Gethsemane and upon Golgotha,3 He has by the pouring out of His
blood achieved the reconciliation and an eternal righteousness.4 And
therefore God raised Him up, exalted Him to His right hand, and
appointed Him Lord and Christ, Prince and Savior for all nations.5
* * * * *
From these few data it is adequately evident that the apostles did not
deny, ignore, or neglect the facts of Christianity but that they fully
honored them and penetrated their spiritual significance. No trace is
to be found in them of any separation or conflict between the
redemptive event and the redemptive word, however much some in
the past have tried to postulate such a conflict. The redemptive event
is the actualization of the redemptive word; in the second the first
takes on its real and concrete form and is at the same time therefore
its illumination and interpretation.
If any doubt about this remains at all, it is entirely removed by the
battle which the apostles already in their day had to conduct. It was
not merely in the second, third, and following centuries but also in
the apostolic period that certain men appeared who regarded the
facts of Christianity of subordinate and transient importance, or else
ignored them altogether, and who held that the idea was the main
thing or in itself quite enough. What difference does it make, they
argued, whether or not Christ bodily rose from the grave? If only He
lives on in the spirit, our salvation is sufficiently assured! But the
apostle Paul thought very differently about that and in 1 Corinthians
15 he placed the reality and the significance of the resurrection in the
clearest possible light. He preaches Christ according to the
Scriptures, that Christ who, according to the counsel of the Father,
died, was buried, and was raised again, who after His resurrection
was seen of many disciples, and whose resurrection is the foundation
and surety of our salvation. And, if possible, John puts even more
emphasis on the fact that he is a declarer of what he has seen with his
eyes and handled with his hands of the Word of life (1 John 1:1-3).
The principle of the antichrist is this that he denies the incarnation of
the Word; and the Christian confession, to the contrary, consists of
the belief that the Word has become flesh, that the Son of God has
come by water and by blood (John 1:14 and 1 John 3 :2-3 and 5 :6).
The whole apostolic preaching of the letters and of the gospels, hence
of the whole New Testament, comes down to the claim that Jesus,
born of Mary and crucified, is — witness the evidence of His
exaltation — the Christ, the Son of God.6
Now it deserves notice that, in connection with the content and
purpose of the apostolic preaching, the use of the single name Jesus,
without further qualification, is rare in the letters. Usually the
apostles speak of Jesus Christ, or of Christ Jesus, or, even more fully,
of the or our Lord Jesus Christ. Even the Evangelists who in their
chronicle for the most part speak of Jesus make use, either at the
beginning or at an important turning point of their gospel, of the full
name Jesus Christ.7 This they do by way of indicating who the
person is concerning whom they are writing their evangel. In the
Acts and in the letters this usage becomes the regular practice. The
apostles speak not of a human being whose name was Jesus, but, by
adding the terms Christ and Lord, and the like, they give expression
to their appreciation of who that man is. They are preachers of the
gospel that in the man Jesus the Christ of God has appeared on the earth.
Thus they had gradually, during their going about with Him, learned
to know Him. And especially after that important hour in Caesarea
Philippi a light had dawned for them upon His person, and they had
all confessed with Peter that He was the Christ, the Son of the living
God (Matt. 16:16). Thus Jesus had revealed Himself to them, at first
more or less concealed under the name Son of man, but gradually
more clearly and plainly as the end of His life approached. In the
highpriestly prayer He designates Himself by the name Jesus Christ
whom the Father has sent (John 17:3). Precisely because He gave
Himself out to be the Christ, the Son of God, He was charged by the
Jewish court with blasphemy and was condemned to die (Matt.
26:63). And the superscription above His cross read: Jesus of
Nazareth the King of the Jews (Matt. 27:37 and John 19:19).
It is true that the disciples could not reconcile these Messianic claims
of Jesus with His approaching passion and death (Matt. 16:22). But
through the resurrection, and after it, they learned to know also the
necessity and the meaning of the cross. Now they recognized that
God had by the resurrection made this Jesus, whom the Jews had
destroyed. to be Lord and Christ and had exalted Him to be a Prince
and Savior (Acts 2:36 and 5:31). This does not mean to say that
before His resurrection Jesus was not yet Christ and Lord, and that
He became this only after the resurrection, for Christ had proclaimed
Himself as the Christ beforehand and He was then also
acknowledged and confessed as such by the disciples (Matt. 16:16).
But before the resurrection He was Messiah in the form of a servant,
in a form and shape which concealed His dignity as Son of God from
the eyes of men. In the resurrection and after it He laid aside that
form of a servant, He re-assumed the glory which He had with the
Father before the world was (John 17:5), and was therefore
appointed as Son of God in power, according to the spirit of holiness
that dwelt in Him (Rom. 1:3).
It is therefore that Paul can say that He now, after it has pleased God
to reveal His Son to him, no longer knows Christ according to the
flesh (2 Cor. 5:16). Before His repentance He knew Christ only
according to the flesh, judged Him solely by His external appearance,
according to the form of a servant in which He walked about on the
earth. Then he could not believe that this Jesus, who was without any
glory and was even hanged on the cross and put to death, was the
Christ. But by his conversion all that has changed. Now he knows
and judges Christ not according to appearance, not according to
external, temporal, servant forms, but according to the spirit,
according to what was in Christ, according to what He really was
internally and in His resurrection externally proved to be.
And the same can in a sense be said of all the apostles. It is true that
they had before the passion and death of Christ been brought to a
believing confession of His Messianic reality. But in their mind there
remained an irreconcilability of this reality with the passion and
death. The resurrection, however, reconciled this conflict for them.
He was to them now the same Christ who has descended into the
lower parts of the earth and is ascended up far above all heavens, in
order that He might fulfill all things (Eph. 4:9). Speaking of Christ,
the apostles think in one and the same breath of the deceased and of
the raised Christ, of the crucified and of the glorified Christ. They
connect their gospel with the historical Jesus not only, who lived a
few years back in Palestine and died there, but also to that same
Jesus as He is, exalted, and seated at the right hand of God’s power.
They stand, so to speak, at the point of bisection of the horizontal
line, which is tied to the past, to history, and the vertical line, which
connects them with the living Lord in heaven. Christianity is
therefore an historical religion, but at the same time a religion which
lives in the present out of eternity. The disciples of Jesus are not,
according to His historical name, Jesuites, but, according to the
name of His office, Christians.
* * * * *
This peculiar position which the apostles took in their preaching
after the resurrection is the reason why they no longer referred to
Jesus by His historical name merely, but virtually always spoke of
Him as Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus, our Lord Jesus Christ, and so on.
As a matter of fact the name Christ soon lost its official significance
in the circle of the disciples and began to take on that of a given
name. The conviction that Jesus was the Christ was so strong that He
could simply be called Christ, even without the article preceding it.
This occurs a few times even in the gospels.8 But with the apostles,
particularly with Paul, this becomes the rule. Moreover, the two
names, Jesus Christ, were more than once reversed, especially by
Paul, with a view to accentuating even more the Messianic reality of
Christ, and then the name became Christ Jesus. This designation,
Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus, was the pre-eminent name for the early
churches. The use and significance of the name in the Old Testament
is carried over to Christ in the New. The Name of the Lord, or the
Name alone, was in the Old Testament the denomination of the
revealed glory of God. In the days of the New Testament that glory
has appeared in the person of Jesus Christ; and thus the strength of
the church now stands in His name. In that name the apostles
baptize (Acts 2:38), speak and teach (Acts 4:18), heal the cripple
(Acts 3 :6), and forgive sin (Acts 10:43). This name is resisted and it
is attacked (Acts 26:9). The confession of it brings on suffering (Acts
5 :41). It is appealed to (Acts 22:8) and is magnified (Acts 19:17). In
this sense the name of Jesus Christ was a sort of compendium of the
confession of the church, the strength of its faith, and the anchor of
its hope. Just as Israel in ancient times gloried in the name of
Jehovah, so the church of the New Testament finds its strength in the
name of Jesus Christ. In this name the name of Jehovah has come
into its full revelation.
The name of Lord, which in the New Testament is constantly
connected with that of Jesus Christ, points in the same direction. In
the gospels Jesus is addressed by the name Lord a number of times
by persons who were not of the disciples, but nevertheless call on
Him for help. In such instances the name usually carries no more
force than that of Rabbi or Master. But we also find this name often
spoken by the disciples.9 Further, in the gospel accounts the name of
Jesus is sometimes interchanged by Luke and John with that of
Lord.10 And, finally, Jesus Himself also makes use of that name,
designating Himself as the Lord.11
In the mouth of Jesus Himself and of the disciples this name of the
Lord takes on a much profounder significance than is contained in
the appellation Rabbi or Master. Just what everybody who came to
Jesus for help and addressed Him with the name Lord meant by it
cannot be said with certainty. But Jesus was in His own
consciousness the teacher, the master, the Lord pre-eminently, and
He ascribed an authority to Himself which went far beyond that of
the scribes. So much is evident already in such passages as Matthew
23:1-11 and Mark 1:22 and 27 where Jesus exalts Himself as the only
Master above all other. But it is much more resolutely expressed, and
is put beyond all possibility of doubt, when He calls Himself a Lord
of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8) and elsewhere calls Himself David’s Son
and David’s Lord (Matt. 22:4345). In these claims nothing less is
involved than that He is the Messiah, who is seated at the right hand
of God, shares His power, and judges of the living and the dead.12
This deep significance which attaches itself to the name of Lord is
owing in part also, presumably, to the fact that the names of Jehovah
and Adonai of the Old Testament were translated by the Greek
kurios, Lord, in the New, that is, by the same word which was also
applied to the Christ. As Christ more and more clearly explained
Himself, who He was, and as the disciples understood better and
better which revelation of God had come to them in Christ, the name
of Lord took on a richer and richer significance. Texts of the Old
Testament in which God was spoken of were applied to the Christ in
the New without hesitation. Thus in Mark 1:3 the text from Isaiah,
Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight, is referred
to and applied to the preparation by John the Baptist as its
fulfillment. In Christ, God Himself, the Lord, has come to His people.
And the disciples, by confessing Jesus as Lord, have thus more and
more clearly expressed that God Himself had revealed and given
Himself to them in the person of Christ. It is Thomas who mounts to
the very climax of this confession during Jesus’ sojourn on earth
when he falls at the feet of the resurrected Christ and addresses Him
with the words: My Lord and my God (John 20:28).
After the resurrection the name of Lord becomes the name
commonly used for Jesus in the circle of His disciples. We find it
continually in the Acts and in the letters, especially the letters of
Paul. Sometimes the name Lord is used alone, but usually it goes
combined with other designations: the Lord Jesus, or the Lord Jesus
Christ, or our Lord Jesus Christ, or our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
and so on. By using this name of Lord the believers express that
Jesus Christ who was humiliated to the point of death and the cross,
has by reason of His perfect obedience been raised to Lord and
Prince (Acts 2:35 and 5:31), who is seated at God’s right hand (Acts
2:34), who is Lord of all (Acts 10:36): first of all the church which He
has purchased with His blood (Acts 20:28), and further of all
creation which He will sometime judge as the Judge of living and
dead (Acts 10:42 and 17:31).
Whoever, therefore, shall call upon the name of Jesus as Christ and
Lord, shall be saved (Acts 2:21 and 1 Cor. 1:2). To be Christian is to
confess with the mouth and to believe with the heart that God has
raised Him up from the dead.13 The content of the preaching is:
Christ Jesus, the Lord (2 Cor. 4:5). So completely is the essence of
Christianity epitomized in this confession that in the writings of Paul
the name of Lord almost comes to be used as a given name applied to
Christ in His distinction from the Father and the Spirit. As Christians
we have one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him,
and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him,
and one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as
He will (1 Cor. 8:6 and 12:11). Just as the name of God in the writings
of Paul becomes the domestic name of the Father, so the name of
Lord becomes the domestic name of Christ.
The apostolic blessing, accordingly, prays that the church may have
the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship
of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 13:13). The one name of God interprets
itself in the three persons of Father, Son, and Spirit (Matt. 28:19).
* * * * *
If Christ, according to the testimony of the apostles, occupies so high
a place, it is no wonder that all kinds of Divine attributes and works
are ascribed to Him, and that even the Divine nature is recognized in
Him.
The figure we encounter in the person of Christ on the pages of
Scripture is a unique figure. On the one hand, He is very man. He
became flesh and came into the flesh (John 1:14 and 1 John 4:2-3).
He bore the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom. 8:3). He came of the
fathers, according to the flesh (Rom. 9:5), of Abraham’s seed (Gal.
3:16), of Judah’s line (Heb. 7:14), and of David’s generation (Rom
1:3). He was born of a woman (Gal. 4:4), partook of our flesh and
blood (Heb. 2:14), possessed a spirit (Matt. 27:50), a soul (Matt.
26:38), and a body (1 Peter 2:24), and was human in the full, true
sense. As a child He grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and increased
in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man (Luke 2:40
and 52). He was hungry and thirsty, sorrowful and joyful, was moved
by emotion and stirred to anger.14 He placed Himself under the law
and was obedient to it until death.15 He suffered, died on the cross,
and was buried in a garden. He was without form or comeliness.
When we looked upon Him there was no beauty that we should
desire Him. He was despised, and unworthy of esteem, a man of
sorrows and acquainted with grief (Isa. 53:2-3).
Nevertheless this same man was distinguished from all men and
raised high above them. Not only was He according to His human
nature conceived by the Holy Spirit; not only was He throughout His
life, despite all temptation, free from sin; and not only was He after
His death raised up again and taken into heaven; but the same
subject, the same person, the same I who humiliated Himself so
deeply that He assumed the form of a servant and became obedient
unto the death of the cross, already existed in a different form of
existence long before His incarnation and humiliation. He existed
then in the form of God and thought it no robbery to be equal with
God (Phil. 2:6). At His resurrection and ascension He simply
received again the glory which He had with the Father before the
world was (John 17:5). He is eternal as God Himself, having been
with Him already in the beginning (John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1). He is
the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and
the end (Rev. 22:13); He is omnipresent, so that, though walking
about on the face of the earth, He is simultaneously in the bosom of
the Father in heaven (John 1:18 and 3:13) ; and after His glorification
He remains with His church and fulfills all in all;16 He is
unchangeable and faithful and is the same yesterday, and today, and
forever (Heb. 13:8); He is omniscient, so that He hears prayers;17 He
is the One who knows all men’s hearts (Acts 1 :24; unless the
reference here is to the Father); He is omnipotent so that all things
are subjected unto Him and all power is given to Him in heaven and
on earth, and is the chief of all kings.18
While in possession of all these Divine attributes, He also shares in
the Divine works. Together with the Father and the Spirit He is the
creator of all things (John 1:3 and Col. 1:5). He is the firstborn, the
beginning, and the Head of all creatures (Col. 1:15 and Rev. 3:14). He
upholds all things by the word of His might, so that they are not only
of Him but also continuously in Him and through Him (Heb. 1:3 and
Col. 1:17). And, above all, He preserves, reconciles, and restores all
things and gathers them into one under Himself as Head. As such He
bears especially the name of the Savior of the world. In the Old
Testament the name of Savior or Redeemer was given to God,19 but
in the New Testament the Son as well as the Father bears this name.
In some places this name is given to God,20 and in some places it is
given to Christ.21 Sometimes it is not clear whether the name refers
to God or to Christ (Tit. 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1). But it is Christ in whom
and through whom the saving work of God is wholly effected.
All this points to a unity between Father and Son, between God and
Christ, such as nowhere else exists between the Creator and His
creature. Even though Christ has assumed a human nature which is
finite and limited and which began to exist in time, as person, as Self,
Christ does not in Scripture stand on the side of the creature but on
the side of God. He partakes of God’s virtues and of His works; He
possesses the same Divine nature. This last point comes into
particularly clear expression in the three names which are given
Christ: that of the Image, the Word, and the Son of God.
Christ is the Image of God, the brightness of God’s glory, and the
express image of His person.22 In Christ the invisible God has
become visible. Whoever sees Him sees the Father (John 14:9).
Whoever wants to know who God is and what He is must behold the
Christ. As Christ is, such is the Father. Further, Christ is the Word of
God (John 1:1 and Rev. 19:13). In Him the Father has perfectly
expressed Himself: His wisdom, His will, His excellences, His whole
being. He has given Christ to have life in Himself (John 5 :26).
Whoever wants to learn to know God’s thought, God’s counsel, and
God’s will for mankind and the world, let him listen to Christ, and
hear Him (Matt. 17:5). Finally, Christ is the Son of God, the Son, as
John describes Him, often without any further qualification (1 John
2:22 if. and Heb. 1:1, 8), the one and only-begotten, the own and
beloved Son, in whom the Father is well pleased.23 Whoever would
be a child of God, let him accept Christ, for all who accept Him
receive the right and the power to be called the children of God (John
1:12).
Scripture finally places its crown upon this testimony of Scripture by
also allowing Him the Divine name. Thomas confessed Him already
before the ascension as his Lord and his God (John 20:28). John
testifies of Him that as the Word He was with God at the beginning
and Himself was God. Paul declares that He is from the fathers
according to the flesh but that according to His essence He is God
above all, to be blessed forever (Rom. 9:5). The letter to the Hebrews
states that He is exalted high above the angels and is by God Himself
addressed by the name of God (Heb. 1:8-9). Peter speaks of Him as
our God and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:1). In the baptismal
mandate of Jesus as reported in Matthew 28:19, and in the
benedictions of the apostles,24 Christ stands on one line with the
Father and the Spirit. The name and essence, the attributes and
works of the Godhead are recognized in the Son (and the Spirit) as
well as in the Father.
Jesus the Christ, the Son of the living God — upon this stone is the
church built. From the very beginning the wholly unique significance
of Christ was clear to all believers. He was confessed by them all as
the Lord who by His teaching and life had accomplished salvation,
the forgiveness of sins, and immortality, who was thereupon raised
by the Father to His right hand, and who would soon return as Judge
to judge the living and the dead. The same names that are given Him
in the letters of the apostles are given Him also in the earliest
Christian writings. By those names He is addressed in the early
prayers and songs. All were convinced that there is one God, that
they were His children, one Lord who had made sure and granted to
them the love of God, and one Spirit, who caused them all to walk in
newness of life. The baptismal mandate of Matthew 28:19, which
came into general use at the end of the apostolic period, is the
evidence of this unanimity of conviction.
But the moment Christians began to reflect on the content of this
confession, all kinds of difference of opinion became apparent. The
members of the church, who were previously educated in Jewry or
heathendom and for the most part were among the untutored of the
country, were not in position immediately to appropriate the
apostolic teaching in their own minds. They lived in a society in
which all kinds of ideas and currents of thought were criss-crossing,
and thus they continuously were subject to much temptation and
error. Even during the life of the apostles we notice that various
heretical teachers had forced their way into the church and tried to
wrench it from the fixity of its belief. At Colosse, for instance, there
were members who did injustice to the person and work of Christ
and changed the gospel into a new law (Col. 2:3ff. and 16ff.). At
Corinth certain libertines stood up, who, abusing Christian liberty,
wanted to be bound to no rule (1 Cor. 6:12 and 8:1). The apostle John
in his first letter conducts an argument against certain so-called
prophets who denied the coming of Christ into the flesh and thus did
violence to the genuineness of His human nature (1 John 2:18ff.;
4:1ff.; 5:5ff.).
And so it remained in the post-apostolic period. In fact, the errors
and heresies grew in variety, force, and distribution from the second
century on. There were those who believed in the real human nature
of Christ, in His supernatural birth, His resurrection and ascension,
but who recognized the Divine in Him in nothing more than an
unusual measure of the gifts and powers of the Spirit. These were
thought of as having been given Him at His baptism in order to equip
Him for His religious-moral task. The followers of this movement
lived under the influence of the deistic, Jewish idea of the
relationship of God and the world. They simply could not conceive of
a more intimate relationship between God and man than one which
consisted of a sharing of gifts and abilities. Jesus, accordingly, was
indeed a richly endowed person, a religious genius, but He was and
He remained a man.
But others, brought up formerly in heathendom, found themselves
attracted rather to the polytheistic idea. They thought that they could
very well understand that Christ, according to His inner nature,
should be one of the many, or even perhaps the highest, of all Divine
beings. But they could not believe that such a Divine, pure being
could have assumed a material and fleshly nature. And so they
sacrificed the real humanity of Christ and said that it was only
temporarily, and in appearance merely, that He had gone about on
earth, much as the Angels according to Old Testament report had
often done. Both thought-currents, both movements, continue up to
the present day. At one time the Divinity of Christ is sacrificed to the
humanity; at another it is the humanity that is sacrificed to the
Divinity. There are always extremes which sacrifice the idea to the
fact, or the fact to the idea. They do not comprehend the unity and
harmony of the two.
* * * * *
But the Christian church from the very beginning stood on a
different basis and in the person of Christ confessed the most
intimate, the profoundest, and therefore the altogether unique,
communion of God and man. Its representatives in the earliest
period sometimes expressed themselves in an awkward way. They
had to struggle, first to form a somewhat clear notion of the reality,
and then to give expression to this idea in clear language. But, all the
same, the church did not for that reason let itself be pushed off its
base. Rather, the church avoided the one and the other extreme and
clung to the teaching of the apostles concerning the person of Christ.
However, when one and the same person shares in the Divine nature
and also is very man, it follows that an effort at definition must be
made, and at a sharp delineation of how that person is related both
to the Deity and to the world. And when this effort was made, a path
of error and heresy defined itself again to the right ‘and to the left.
When, in other words, the unity of God — which is a fundamental
truth of Christianity — was understood in such a way that the being
of God was perfectly coterminus and coincident with the person of
the Father, then there remained no room in the Godhead for the
Christ. Christ then was pushed outside the pale of deity, and placed
alongside of man, for between the Creator and the creature there is
no gradual transition. One could then go on to say with Arius that in
time and status He transcended the whole world, that He was the
first among created creatures, and that He was superior to them all
in position and in honor. But Christ thus remains a creature. There
was a time when He did not exist, and it is in time that He, like every
other creature, was called into existence by God.
In the attempt, however, to hold to the unity of God and at the same
time to grant the person of Christ the place of, honor proper to Him,
it is easy to fail into another error, the error named after its foremost
proponent, Sabellius. While Arius, so to speak, identified the being of
the Godhead with the person of the Father, Sabellius sacrificed all
three of the persons to the being of the Godhead. According to His
teaching, the three persons, Father, Son, and Spirit, are not eternal
realities, contained in the being of the Godhead, but they are forms
and manifestations in which the one Divine Being manifests Himself
successively in the course of the centuries: namely, in the Old
Testament, in the earthly sojourn of Christ, and after Pentecost. Both
heresies have throughout the centuries found their adherents. The
so-called Groningen Theologie, for instance, renewed essentially the
doctrine of Arius, and Modern Theology at first walked in the way of Sabellius.
It required much prayer and much struggle for the church to take the
right way through all these heresies, the more so because each of
them was modified and mingled with all sorts of departures and
variations. But under the leadership of great men, eminent by reason
of their piety as well as their power of thought, and therefore justly
called fathers of the church, that church remained faithful to the
teaching of the apostles. At the Synod of Nicea in 325 the church
confessed its faith in the one God, the Father, the Almighty, creator
of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the
Son of God, who was begotten by the Father as the only-begotten,
that is, out of the being of God, God of God, Light of Light, very God
of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the
Father, by whom all things in heaven and earth were made, and in
the Holy Spirit.
Very significant as this Nicean result was it by no means put a stop to
the doctrinal disputes. On the contrary, the confession of Nicea gave
opportunity for new questions and different answers. For, although
the relationship of Christ to the being of God and to the world of men
was now determined in the sense that in His person He shared in
both, and that He was in His own person both God and man, the
question would not down as to the nature of that relationship
between those two natures in one person. In the answer to that
question, too, various ways were taken.
Nestorius concluded that if there were two natures in Christ, there
also had to be two persons, two selves, which could only be made one
by some moral tie such as that which obtains in the marriage of a
man and a woman. And Eutyches, proceeding from a like
identification of person and nature, came to the conclusion that if in
Christ there was but one person, one self, present, then the two
natures had to be so mingled and welded together that only one
nature, a Divine-human one, would emerge from the blending. In
Nestorius the distinction of the natures was maintained at the cost of
the unity of the person; in Eutyches the unity of the person was
maintained at the cost of the duality of the natures.
After a long and vehement struggle, however, the church got beyond
these disputes. At the Council of Chalcedon in 451 it stated that the
one person of Christ consisted of two natures, unchanged and
unmingled (against Eutyches), and not separated nor divided
(against Nestorius), and that these natures existed alongside of each
other, haying their unity in the one person. With this decision which,
later, at the Synod of Constantinople in 680 was amplified and
completed on one specific point, the century-long struggle about the
person of Christ came to an end. In these disputes the church had
preserved the essence of Christianity, the absolute character of the
Christian religion, and thus also its own independence.
* * * *
The testimony which, according to Scripture, Christ has given of
Himself is developed and confirmed by the preaching of the apostles.
The confession that a man, named Jesus, is the Christ, the Only Begotten of the Father,
is in such direct conflict with our experience
and with all of our thinking, and especially with all the inclinations of
our heart, that no one can honestly and with his whole soul
appropriate it without the persuasive activity of the Holy Spirit. By
nature everybody stands in enmity to this confession, for it is not a
confession natural to man. No one can confess that Jesus is the Lord
except through the Holy Spirit, but neither can anyone speaking by
the Holy Spirit call Jesus accursed; he must recognize Him as his
Savior and King (1 Cor. 12:3).
Hence when Christ appears on earth and Himself confesses that He
is the Son of God, He did not leave it at that, but He also had a care,
and He continues to have a care, that this confession finds entrance
into the world, and is believed by the church. He called His apostles,
and He instructed them, and made them witnesses to His words and
deeds, to His death and resurrection. He gave them the Holy Spirit
who brought them personally to the confession that Jesus was the
Christ, the Son of the living God (Matt. 16:16), and who later caused
them, from the day of Pentecost on, to minister as preachers of those
things which their eyes had seen, and they beheld, and their hands
had handled of the Word of life (1 John 1:1). The apostles were really
not the real witnesses. The Spirit of truth, proceeding from the
Father, is the original, infallible, and almighty witness to Christ, and
the apostles are that only in Him and through Him (John 15:26 and
Acts 5:32). And it is that same Spirit of truth who by means of the
testimony of the apostles brings the church of all ages to the
confession and preserves them in it: Lord, to whom shall we go?
Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that
Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God (John 6:68-69).
When the four Evangelists in regular order report the events of the
life of Jesus, they usually refer to Him simply by the name of Jesus
without any more particular qualification or addendum. They tell us
that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, that Jesus was led into the
wilderness, that Jesus saw the multitude and went up the mountain,
and so on. Jesus, the historical person who lived and died in
Palestine, is the object of their chronicle. And so we find a few times
in the letters of the apostles, too, that Jesus is designated simply by
His historical name. Paul says, for instance, that no one can say that
Jesus is the Lord except by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3). John
testifies that whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God
(1 John 1 :5 compare 2:22 and 4:20). And in the book of Revelation
we read of the faith of Jesus, and of the witnesses and witness of Jesus.
Still, in the letters of the apostles the use of this name without
qualification is rare. Usually the name occurs in connection with: the
Lord, Christ, the Son of God, and like designations, and the full name
usually reads: Our Lord Jesus Christ. But, irrespective of whether the
name Jesus is used alone or in connection with other names, the
connection with the historical person who was born in Bethlehem
and who died on the cross always comes to expression in it.
The whole New Testament, that of the epistles or letters as well as
that of the gospels, rests on the foundation of historical events. The
Christ- figure is not an idea nor an ideal of the human mind, as many
in past ages maintained, and as some in our time also assert, but is a
real figure who manifested Himself in a particular period and in a
particular person in the man Jesus.
True, the various events in the life of Jesus recede into the
background in the letters. Those letters have a different purpose than
the gospels have. They do not chronicle the history of the life of Jesus
but point out the significance which that life has for the redemption
of mankind. But all of the apostles are familiar with the person and
life of Jesus, are acquainted with His words and deeds, and they
proceed to show us that this Jesus is the Christ, exalted by God to
His own right hand, in order to grant repentance and the forgiveness
of sins (Acts 2:36 and 5:31).
Often, therefore, in the letters of the apostles mention is made of
events in the life of Jesus. They picture Him before the eyes of their
auditors and readers (Gal. 3 :1). They stress the fact that John the
Baptist was His herald and precursor (Acts 13:25 and 19:4), that He
comes from the family of Judah and the stem of David (Rom. 1:3;
Rev. 5:5 and 22:16), that He was born of a woman (Gal. 4:4), was
circumcised on the eighth day (Rom. 15 :8), that He was brought up
in Nazareth (Acts 2:22 and 3:6), and that He also had brothers (1
Cor. 9:5 and Gal. 1:19). They tell us that He was perfectly holy and
sinless,1 that He presented Himself to us as an example (1 Cor. 11:1
and 1 Peter 2:21), and that He spoke words that have authority for us
(Acts 20:35 and 1 Cor. 7:10-12). But it is especially His dying that is
significant for us. The cross stands at the central point in the
apostolic preaching. Betrayed by one of the twelve apostles whom He
chose (1 Cor. 11:23 and 1 Cor. 15:5), and not recognized by the
princes of this world as the Lord of glory (1 Cor. 2:8), He was put to
death by the Jews (Acts 4:10; 5 :30; and 1 Thess. 2:15), dying on the
accursed wood of the cross.2 But, even though He suffered greatly in
Gethsemane and upon Golgotha,3 He has by the pouring out of His
blood achieved the reconciliation and an eternal righteousness.4 And
therefore God raised Him up, exalted Him to His right hand, and
appointed Him Lord and Christ, Prince and Savior for all nations.5
* * * * *
From these few data it is adequately evident that the apostles did not
deny, ignore, or neglect the facts of Christianity but that they fully
honored them and penetrated their spiritual significance. No trace is
to be found in them of any separation or conflict between the
redemptive event and the redemptive word, however much some in
the past have tried to postulate such a conflict. The redemptive event
is the actualization of the redemptive word; in the second the first
takes on its real and concrete form and is at the same time therefore
its illumination and interpretation.
If any doubt about this remains at all, it is entirely removed by the
battle which the apostles already in their day had to conduct. It was
not merely in the second, third, and following centuries but also in
the apostolic period that certain men appeared who regarded the
facts of Christianity of subordinate and transient importance, or else
ignored them altogether, and who held that the idea was the main
thing or in itself quite enough. What difference does it make, they
argued, whether or not Christ bodily rose from the grave? If only He
lives on in the spirit, our salvation is sufficiently assured! But the
apostle Paul thought very differently about that and in 1 Corinthians
15 he placed the reality and the significance of the resurrection in the
clearest possible light. He preaches Christ according to the
Scriptures, that Christ who, according to the counsel of the Father,
died, was buried, and was raised again, who after His resurrection
was seen of many disciples, and whose resurrection is the foundation
and surety of our salvation. And, if possible, John puts even more
emphasis on the fact that he is a declarer of what he has seen with his
eyes and handled with his hands of the Word of life (1 John 1:1-3).
The principle of the antichrist is this that he denies the incarnation of
the Word; and the Christian confession, to the contrary, consists of
the belief that the Word has become flesh, that the Son of God has
come by water and by blood (John 1:14 and 1 John 3 :2-3 and 5 :6).
The whole apostolic preaching of the letters and of the gospels, hence
of the whole New Testament, comes down to the claim that Jesus,
born of Mary and crucified, is — witness the evidence of His
exaltation — the Christ, the Son of God.6
Now it deserves notice that, in connection with the content and
purpose of the apostolic preaching, the use of the single name Jesus,
without further qualification, is rare in the letters. Usually the
apostles speak of Jesus Christ, or of Christ Jesus, or, even more fully,
of the or our Lord Jesus Christ. Even the Evangelists who in their
chronicle for the most part speak of Jesus make use, either at the
beginning or at an important turning point of their gospel, of the full
name Jesus Christ.7 This they do by way of indicating who the
person is concerning whom they are writing their evangel. In the
Acts and in the letters this usage becomes the regular practice. The
apostles speak not of a human being whose name was Jesus, but, by
adding the terms Christ and Lord, and the like, they give expression
to their appreciation of who that man is. They are preachers of the
gospel that in the man Jesus the Christ of God has appeared on the earth.
Thus they had gradually, during their going about with Him, learned
to know Him. And especially after that important hour in Caesarea
Philippi a light had dawned for them upon His person, and they had
all confessed with Peter that He was the Christ, the Son of the living
God (Matt. 16:16). Thus Jesus had revealed Himself to them, at first
more or less concealed under the name Son of man, but gradually
more clearly and plainly as the end of His life approached. In the
highpriestly prayer He designates Himself by the name Jesus Christ
whom the Father has sent (John 17:3). Precisely because He gave
Himself out to be the Christ, the Son of God, He was charged by the
Jewish court with blasphemy and was condemned to die (Matt.
26:63). And the superscription above His cross read: Jesus of
Nazareth the King of the Jews (Matt. 27:37 and John 19:19).
It is true that the disciples could not reconcile these Messianic claims
of Jesus with His approaching passion and death (Matt. 16:22). But
through the resurrection, and after it, they learned to know also the
necessity and the meaning of the cross. Now they recognized that
God had by the resurrection made this Jesus, whom the Jews had
destroyed. to be Lord and Christ and had exalted Him to be a Prince
and Savior (Acts 2:36 and 5:31). This does not mean to say that
before His resurrection Jesus was not yet Christ and Lord, and that
He became this only after the resurrection, for Christ had proclaimed
Himself as the Christ beforehand and He was then also
acknowledged and confessed as such by the disciples (Matt. 16:16).
But before the resurrection He was Messiah in the form of a servant,
in a form and shape which concealed His dignity as Son of God from
the eyes of men. In the resurrection and after it He laid aside that
form of a servant, He re-assumed the glory which He had with the
Father before the world was (John 17:5), and was therefore
appointed as Son of God in power, according to the spirit of holiness
that dwelt in Him (Rom. 1:3).
It is therefore that Paul can say that He now, after it has pleased God
to reveal His Son to him, no longer knows Christ according to the
flesh (2 Cor. 5:16). Before His repentance He knew Christ only
according to the flesh, judged Him solely by His external appearance,
according to the form of a servant in which He walked about on the
earth. Then he could not believe that this Jesus, who was without any
glory and was even hanged on the cross and put to death, was the
Christ. But by his conversion all that has changed. Now he knows
and judges Christ not according to appearance, not according to
external, temporal, servant forms, but according to the spirit,
according to what was in Christ, according to what He really was
internally and in His resurrection externally proved to be.
And the same can in a sense be said of all the apostles. It is true that
they had before the passion and death of Christ been brought to a
believing confession of His Messianic reality. But in their mind there
remained an irreconcilability of this reality with the passion and
death. The resurrection, however, reconciled this conflict for them.
He was to them now the same Christ who has descended into the
lower parts of the earth and is ascended up far above all heavens, in
order that He might fulfill all things (Eph. 4:9). Speaking of Christ,
the apostles think in one and the same breath of the deceased and of
the raised Christ, of the crucified and of the glorified Christ. They
connect their gospel with the historical Jesus not only, who lived a
few years back in Palestine and died there, but also to that same
Jesus as He is, exalted, and seated at the right hand of God’s power.
They stand, so to speak, at the point of bisection of the horizontal
line, which is tied to the past, to history, and the vertical line, which
connects them with the living Lord in heaven. Christianity is
therefore an historical religion, but at the same time a religion which
lives in the present out of eternity. The disciples of Jesus are not,
according to His historical name, Jesuites, but, according to the
name of His office, Christians.
* * * * *
This peculiar position which the apostles took in their preaching
after the resurrection is the reason why they no longer referred to
Jesus by His historical name merely, but virtually always spoke of
Him as Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus, our Lord Jesus Christ, and so on.
As a matter of fact the name Christ soon lost its official significance
in the circle of the disciples and began to take on that of a given
name. The conviction that Jesus was the Christ was so strong that He
could simply be called Christ, even without the article preceding it.
This occurs a few times even in the gospels.8 But with the apostles,
particularly with Paul, this becomes the rule. Moreover, the two
names, Jesus Christ, were more than once reversed, especially by
Paul, with a view to accentuating even more the Messianic reality of
Christ, and then the name became Christ Jesus. This designation,
Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus, was the pre-eminent name for the early
churches. The use and significance of the name in the Old Testament
is carried over to Christ in the New. The Name of the Lord, or the
Name alone, was in the Old Testament the denomination of the
revealed glory of God. In the days of the New Testament that glory
has appeared in the person of Jesus Christ; and thus the strength of
the church now stands in His name. In that name the apostles
baptize (Acts 2:38), speak and teach (Acts 4:18), heal the cripple
(Acts 3 :6), and forgive sin (Acts 10:43). This name is resisted and it
is attacked (Acts 26:9). The confession of it brings on suffering (Acts
5 :41). It is appealed to (Acts 22:8) and is magnified (Acts 19:17). In
this sense the name of Jesus Christ was a sort of compendium of the
confession of the church, the strength of its faith, and the anchor of
its hope. Just as Israel in ancient times gloried in the name of
Jehovah, so the church of the New Testament finds its strength in the
name of Jesus Christ. In this name the name of Jehovah has come
into its full revelation.
The name of Lord, which in the New Testament is constantly
connected with that of Jesus Christ, points in the same direction. In
the gospels Jesus is addressed by the name Lord a number of times
by persons who were not of the disciples, but nevertheless call on
Him for help. In such instances the name usually carries no more
force than that of Rabbi or Master. But we also find this name often
spoken by the disciples.9 Further, in the gospel accounts the name of
Jesus is sometimes interchanged by Luke and John with that of
Lord.10 And, finally, Jesus Himself also makes use of that name,
designating Himself as the Lord.11
In the mouth of Jesus Himself and of the disciples this name of the
Lord takes on a much profounder significance than is contained in
the appellation Rabbi or Master. Just what everybody who came to
Jesus for help and addressed Him with the name Lord meant by it
cannot be said with certainty. But Jesus was in His own
consciousness the teacher, the master, the Lord pre-eminently, and
He ascribed an authority to Himself which went far beyond that of
the scribes. So much is evident already in such passages as Matthew
23:1-11 and Mark 1:22 and 27 where Jesus exalts Himself as the only
Master above all other. But it is much more resolutely expressed, and
is put beyond all possibility of doubt, when He calls Himself a Lord
of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8) and elsewhere calls Himself David’s Son
and David’s Lord (Matt. 22:4345). In these claims nothing less is
involved than that He is the Messiah, who is seated at the right hand
of God, shares His power, and judges of the living and the dead.12
This deep significance which attaches itself to the name of Lord is
owing in part also, presumably, to the fact that the names of Jehovah
and Adonai of the Old Testament were translated by the Greek
kurios, Lord, in the New, that is, by the same word which was also
applied to the Christ. As Christ more and more clearly explained
Himself, who He was, and as the disciples understood better and
better which revelation of God had come to them in Christ, the name
of Lord took on a richer and richer significance. Texts of the Old
Testament in which God was spoken of were applied to the Christ in
the New without hesitation. Thus in Mark 1:3 the text from Isaiah,
Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight, is referred
to and applied to the preparation by John the Baptist as its
fulfillment. In Christ, God Himself, the Lord, has come to His people.
And the disciples, by confessing Jesus as Lord, have thus more and
more clearly expressed that God Himself had revealed and given
Himself to them in the person of Christ. It is Thomas who mounts to
the very climax of this confession during Jesus’ sojourn on earth
when he falls at the feet of the resurrected Christ and addresses Him
with the words: My Lord and my God (John 20:28).
After the resurrection the name of Lord becomes the name
commonly used for Jesus in the circle of His disciples. We find it
continually in the Acts and in the letters, especially the letters of
Paul. Sometimes the name Lord is used alone, but usually it goes
combined with other designations: the Lord Jesus, or the Lord Jesus
Christ, or our Lord Jesus Christ, or our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
and so on. By using this name of Lord the believers express that
Jesus Christ who was humiliated to the point of death and the cross,
has by reason of His perfect obedience been raised to Lord and
Prince (Acts 2:35 and 5:31), who is seated at God’s right hand (Acts
2:34), who is Lord of all (Acts 10:36): first of all the church which He
has purchased with His blood (Acts 20:28), and further of all
creation which He will sometime judge as the Judge of living and
dead (Acts 10:42 and 17:31).
Whoever, therefore, shall call upon the name of Jesus as Christ and
Lord, shall be saved (Acts 2:21 and 1 Cor. 1:2). To be Christian is to
confess with the mouth and to believe with the heart that God has
raised Him up from the dead.13 The content of the preaching is:
Christ Jesus, the Lord (2 Cor. 4:5). So completely is the essence of
Christianity epitomized in this confession that in the writings of Paul
the name of Lord almost comes to be used as a given name applied to
Christ in His distinction from the Father and the Spirit. As Christians
we have one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him,
and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him,
and one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as
He will (1 Cor. 8:6 and 12:11). Just as the name of God in the writings
of Paul becomes the domestic name of the Father, so the name of
Lord becomes the domestic name of Christ.
The apostolic blessing, accordingly, prays that the church may have
the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship
of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 13:13). The one name of God interprets
itself in the three persons of Father, Son, and Spirit (Matt. 28:19).
* * * * *
If Christ, according to the testimony of the apostles, occupies so high
a place, it is no wonder that all kinds of Divine attributes and works
are ascribed to Him, and that even the Divine nature is recognized in
Him.
The figure we encounter in the person of Christ on the pages of
Scripture is a unique figure. On the one hand, He is very man. He
became flesh and came into the flesh (John 1:14 and 1 John 4:2-3).
He bore the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom. 8:3). He came of the
fathers, according to the flesh (Rom. 9:5), of Abraham’s seed (Gal.
3:16), of Judah’s line (Heb. 7:14), and of David’s generation (Rom
1:3). He was born of a woman (Gal. 4:4), partook of our flesh and
blood (Heb. 2:14), possessed a spirit (Matt. 27:50), a soul (Matt.
26:38), and a body (1 Peter 2:24), and was human in the full, true
sense. As a child He grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and increased
in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man (Luke 2:40
and 52). He was hungry and thirsty, sorrowful and joyful, was moved
by emotion and stirred to anger.14 He placed Himself under the law
and was obedient to it until death.15 He suffered, died on the cross,
and was buried in a garden. He was without form or comeliness.
When we looked upon Him there was no beauty that we should
desire Him. He was despised, and unworthy of esteem, a man of
sorrows and acquainted with grief (Isa. 53:2-3).
Nevertheless this same man was distinguished from all men and
raised high above them. Not only was He according to His human
nature conceived by the Holy Spirit; not only was He throughout His
life, despite all temptation, free from sin; and not only was He after
His death raised up again and taken into heaven; but the same
subject, the same person, the same I who humiliated Himself so
deeply that He assumed the form of a servant and became obedient
unto the death of the cross, already existed in a different form of
existence long before His incarnation and humiliation. He existed
then in the form of God and thought it no robbery to be equal with
God (Phil. 2:6). At His resurrection and ascension He simply
received again the glory which He had with the Father before the
world was (John 17:5). He is eternal as God Himself, having been
with Him already in the beginning (John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1). He is
the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and
the end (Rev. 22:13); He is omnipresent, so that, though walking
about on the face of the earth, He is simultaneously in the bosom of
the Father in heaven (John 1:18 and 3:13) ; and after His glorification
He remains with His church and fulfills all in all;16 He is
unchangeable and faithful and is the same yesterday, and today, and
forever (Heb. 13:8); He is omniscient, so that He hears prayers;17 He
is the One who knows all men’s hearts (Acts 1 :24; unless the
reference here is to the Father); He is omnipotent so that all things
are subjected unto Him and all power is given to Him in heaven and
on earth, and is the chief of all kings.18
While in possession of all these Divine attributes, He also shares in
the Divine works. Together with the Father and the Spirit He is the
creator of all things (John 1:3 and Col. 1:5). He is the firstborn, the
beginning, and the Head of all creatures (Col. 1:15 and Rev. 3:14). He
upholds all things by the word of His might, so that they are not only
of Him but also continuously in Him and through Him (Heb. 1:3 and
Col. 1:17). And, above all, He preserves, reconciles, and restores all
things and gathers them into one under Himself as Head. As such He
bears especially the name of the Savior of the world. In the Old
Testament the name of Savior or Redeemer was given to God,19 but
in the New Testament the Son as well as the Father bears this name.
In some places this name is given to God,20 and in some places it is
given to Christ.21 Sometimes it is not clear whether the name refers
to God or to Christ (Tit. 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1). But it is Christ in whom
and through whom the saving work of God is wholly effected.
All this points to a unity between Father and Son, between God and
Christ, such as nowhere else exists between the Creator and His
creature. Even though Christ has assumed a human nature which is
finite and limited and which began to exist in time, as person, as Self,
Christ does not in Scripture stand on the side of the creature but on
the side of God. He partakes of God’s virtues and of His works; He
possesses the same Divine nature. This last point comes into
particularly clear expression in the three names which are given
Christ: that of the Image, the Word, and the Son of God.
Christ is the Image of God, the brightness of God’s glory, and the
express image of His person.22 In Christ the invisible God has
become visible. Whoever sees Him sees the Father (John 14:9).
Whoever wants to know who God is and what He is must behold the
Christ. As Christ is, such is the Father. Further, Christ is the Word of
God (John 1:1 and Rev. 19:13). In Him the Father has perfectly
expressed Himself: His wisdom, His will, His excellences, His whole
being. He has given Christ to have life in Himself (John 5 :26).
Whoever wants to learn to know God’s thought, God’s counsel, and
God’s will for mankind and the world, let him listen to Christ, and
hear Him (Matt. 17:5). Finally, Christ is the Son of God, the Son, as
John describes Him, often without any further qualification (1 John
2:22 if. and Heb. 1:1, 8), the one and only-begotten, the own and
beloved Son, in whom the Father is well pleased.23 Whoever would
be a child of God, let him accept Christ, for all who accept Him
receive the right and the power to be called the children of God (John
1:12).
Scripture finally places its crown upon this testimony of Scripture by
also allowing Him the Divine name. Thomas confessed Him already
before the ascension as his Lord and his God (John 20:28). John
testifies of Him that as the Word He was with God at the beginning
and Himself was God. Paul declares that He is from the fathers
according to the flesh but that according to His essence He is God
above all, to be blessed forever (Rom. 9:5). The letter to the Hebrews
states that He is exalted high above the angels and is by God Himself
addressed by the name of God (Heb. 1:8-9). Peter speaks of Him as
our God and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:1). In the baptismal
mandate of Jesus as reported in Matthew 28:19, and in the
benedictions of the apostles,24 Christ stands on one line with the
Father and the Spirit. The name and essence, the attributes and
works of the Godhead are recognized in the Son (and the Spirit) as
well as in the Father.
Jesus the Christ, the Son of the living God — upon this stone is the
church built. From the very beginning the wholly unique significance
of Christ was clear to all believers. He was confessed by them all as
the Lord who by His teaching and life had accomplished salvation,
the forgiveness of sins, and immortality, who was thereupon raised
by the Father to His right hand, and who would soon return as Judge
to judge the living and the dead. The same names that are given Him
in the letters of the apostles are given Him also in the earliest
Christian writings. By those names He is addressed in the early
prayers and songs. All were convinced that there is one God, that
they were His children, one Lord who had made sure and granted to
them the love of God, and one Spirit, who caused them all to walk in
newness of life. The baptismal mandate of Matthew 28:19, which
came into general use at the end of the apostolic period, is the
evidence of this unanimity of conviction.
But the moment Christians began to reflect on the content of this
confession, all kinds of difference of opinion became apparent. The
members of the church, who were previously educated in Jewry or
heathendom and for the most part were among the untutored of the
country, were not in position immediately to appropriate the
apostolic teaching in their own minds. They lived in a society in
which all kinds of ideas and currents of thought were criss-crossing,
and thus they continuously were subject to much temptation and
error. Even during the life of the apostles we notice that various
heretical teachers had forced their way into the church and tried to
wrench it from the fixity of its belief. At Colosse, for instance, there
were members who did injustice to the person and work of Christ
and changed the gospel into a new law (Col. 2:3ff. and 16ff.). At
Corinth certain libertines stood up, who, abusing Christian liberty,
wanted to be bound to no rule (1 Cor. 6:12 and 8:1). The apostle John
in his first letter conducts an argument against certain so-called
prophets who denied the coming of Christ into the flesh and thus did
violence to the genuineness of His human nature (1 John 2:18ff.;
4:1ff.; 5:5ff.).
And so it remained in the post-apostolic period. In fact, the errors
and heresies grew in variety, force, and distribution from the second
century on. There were those who believed in the real human nature
of Christ, in His supernatural birth, His resurrection and ascension,
but who recognized the Divine in Him in nothing more than an
unusual measure of the gifts and powers of the Spirit. These were
thought of as having been given Him at His baptism in order to equip
Him for His religious-moral task. The followers of this movement
lived under the influence of the deistic, Jewish idea of the
relationship of God and the world. They simply could not conceive of
a more intimate relationship between God and man than one which
consisted of a sharing of gifts and abilities. Jesus, accordingly, was
indeed a richly endowed person, a religious genius, but He was and
He remained a man.
But others, brought up formerly in heathendom, found themselves
attracted rather to the polytheistic idea. They thought that they could
very well understand that Christ, according to His inner nature,
should be one of the many, or even perhaps the highest, of all Divine
beings. But they could not believe that such a Divine, pure being
could have assumed a material and fleshly nature. And so they
sacrificed the real humanity of Christ and said that it was only
temporarily, and in appearance merely, that He had gone about on
earth, much as the Angels according to Old Testament report had
often done. Both thought-currents, both movements, continue up to
the present day. At one time the Divinity of Christ is sacrificed to the
humanity; at another it is the humanity that is sacrificed to the
Divinity. There are always extremes which sacrifice the idea to the
fact, or the fact to the idea. They do not comprehend the unity and
harmony of the two.
* * * * *
But the Christian church from the very beginning stood on a
different basis and in the person of Christ confessed the most
intimate, the profoundest, and therefore the altogether unique,
communion of God and man. Its representatives in the earliest
period sometimes expressed themselves in an awkward way. They
had to struggle, first to form a somewhat clear notion of the reality,
and then to give expression to this idea in clear language. But, all the
same, the church did not for that reason let itself be pushed off its
base. Rather, the church avoided the one and the other extreme and
clung to the teaching of the apostles concerning the person of Christ.
However, when one and the same person shares in the Divine nature
and also is very man, it follows that an effort at definition must be
made, and at a sharp delineation of how that person is related both
to the Deity and to the world. And when this effort was made, a path
of error and heresy defined itself again to the right ‘and to the left.
When, in other words, the unity of God — which is a fundamental
truth of Christianity — was understood in such a way that the being
of God was perfectly coterminus and coincident with the person of
the Father, then there remained no room in the Godhead for the
Christ. Christ then was pushed outside the pale of deity, and placed
alongside of man, for between the Creator and the creature there is
no gradual transition. One could then go on to say with Arius that in
time and status He transcended the whole world, that He was the
first among created creatures, and that He was superior to them all
in position and in honor. But Christ thus remains a creature. There
was a time when He did not exist, and it is in time that He, like every
other creature, was called into existence by God.
In the attempt, however, to hold to the unity of God and at the same
time to grant the person of Christ the place of, honor proper to Him,
it is easy to fail into another error, the error named after its foremost
proponent, Sabellius. While Arius, so to speak, identified the being of
the Godhead with the person of the Father, Sabellius sacrificed all
three of the persons to the being of the Godhead. According to His
teaching, the three persons, Father, Son, and Spirit, are not eternal
realities, contained in the being of the Godhead, but they are forms
and manifestations in which the one Divine Being manifests Himself
successively in the course of the centuries: namely, in the Old
Testament, in the earthly sojourn of Christ, and after Pentecost. Both
heresies have throughout the centuries found their adherents. The
so-called Groningen Theologie, for instance, renewed essentially the
doctrine of Arius, and Modern Theology at first walked in the way of Sabellius.
It required much prayer and much struggle for the church to take the
right way through all these heresies, the more so because each of
them was modified and mingled with all sorts of departures and
variations. But under the leadership of great men, eminent by reason
of their piety as well as their power of thought, and therefore justly
called fathers of the church, that church remained faithful to the
teaching of the apostles. At the Synod of Nicea in 325 the church
confessed its faith in the one God, the Father, the Almighty, creator
of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the
Son of God, who was begotten by the Father as the only-begotten,
that is, out of the being of God, God of God, Light of Light, very God
of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the
Father, by whom all things in heaven and earth were made, and in
the Holy Spirit.
Very significant as this Nicean result was it by no means put a stop to
the doctrinal disputes. On the contrary, the confession of Nicea gave
opportunity for new questions and different answers. For, although
the relationship of Christ to the being of God and to the world of men
was now determined in the sense that in His person He shared in
both, and that He was in His own person both God and man, the
question would not down as to the nature of that relationship
between those two natures in one person. In the answer to that
question, too, various ways were taken.
Nestorius concluded that if there were two natures in Christ, there
also had to be two persons, two selves, which could only be made one
by some moral tie such as that which obtains in the marriage of a
man and a woman. And Eutyches, proceeding from a like
identification of person and nature, came to the conclusion that if in
Christ there was but one person, one self, present, then the two
natures had to be so mingled and welded together that only one
nature, a Divine-human one, would emerge from the blending. In
Nestorius the distinction of the natures was maintained at the cost of
the unity of the person; in Eutyches the unity of the person was
maintained at the cost of the duality of the natures.
After a long and vehement struggle, however, the church got beyond
these disputes. At the Council of Chalcedon in 451 it stated that the
one person of Christ consisted of two natures, unchanged and
unmingled (against Eutyches), and not separated nor divided
(against Nestorius), and that these natures existed alongside of each
other, haying their unity in the one person. With this decision which,
later, at the Synod of Constantinople in 680 was amplified and
completed on one specific point, the century-long struggle about the
person of Christ came to an end. In these disputes the church had
preserved the essence of Christianity, the absolute character of the
Christian religion, and thus also its own independence.
* * * *