The doctrine of the Trinity began to be articulated in the early centuries of the Christian church. The Apostles’ Creed began a formal articulation of trinitarian belief by stating it in three parts, “I believe in God the Father, almighty . . . and in Jesus Christ his only begotten Son . . . and in the Holy Ghost.”
But the Apostles’ Creed did not articulate much about the relationship between the Father and Son. In the fourth century, the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople sought to articulate who Jesus Christ is, especially with relation to the Father.
The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 reads, “And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father.”
The key idea was “of one substance with the Father” (homoousias). Jesus was not a separate being, as Arius taught. He was substantively unified with the Father. Not two beings, but one.
However, further debates ensued after Constantinople. There were various men who, in seeking to understand who Christ was, offered erroneous views which were ultimately rejected as heterodox beliefs.
Jesus Christ is the God/Man—fully God and fully man, without sin. One person with two natures. We may not be able to understand it fully, but we cannot deny it and still be orthodox.
Apollinaris of Laodicea essentially denied the full humanity of Jesus, while Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, essentially downplayed the full deity of Jesus. Eutyches, a monk from Constantinople believed that Christ’s divine nature essentially absorbed his human nature.
Though these erroneous views were rejected in various councils, it did not end the debates. A fourth ecumenical council was called for in 451 in Chalcedon, which sought to resolve the issue, with a special focus on addressing the errors of Eutychianism.
Eutyches taught that Christ’s two natures essentially mixed together in the incarnation, with the humanity being absorbed by the divine. It was an attempt to understand both the divinity and the humanity of Jesus, but it did away with the tension that exists. If Jesus was more divine than human, or more human than divine, that is problematic. If he was two persons in one body, that is also problematic. If he only had one nature, where the divine absorbed the human, that is also problematic.
Perhaps the one crucial passage in this discussion is Philippians 2:5–8, especially the phrase in v. 7 which reads, “but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men” (ESV).
The Greek word translated “emptied” is kenoo (ekenose to be precise). The theological term is the kenosis of Jesus.
People can ask, “of what did Jesus empty himself?” as if Christ rid himself of something. The key lies in what is before it and what is after it. Verse 6 reads, “who, though he was in the form of God.” This speaks to his pre-incarnation existence as the eternal Son of God, co-equal with the Father. Verse 7 then reads, “by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” This speaks to his incarnation. The eternal Son of God prior to the incarnation was in the form of God. The eternal Son of God in his incarnation took upon himself human flesh and blood.
This is also what Hebrews 2:14 teaches: “inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same” (NKJV).
Humanity but without the divestment of deity: the eternal divine Son just put on human flesh and blood, the form of a servant in the likeness of humanity. Now he was divine and human. Prior to his incarnation, he was only divine, but not human.
If Jesus was divine but not fully human, then he cannot rightly be our substitutionary atonement.
If Jesus was human, but not fully divine, or even if his deity was dismissed or deemed of lesser import, then he cannot rightly atone for all our sins.
This tightrope of theology must be carefully walked, otherwise one falls into theological error Christologically, and therefore soteriologically.
Back to Chalcedon.
Chalcedon sought to clarify things by rejecting both Nestorianism and Eutychianism. Rather than develop a new creed, they wrote what is usually referred to as the Definition of Chalcedon.
The council began by giving its complete affirmation of both the Nicene Creed of 325 and the Creed of Constantinople of 381, but then gave a full paragraph to the person of Jesus.
The Definition of Chalcedon, 451
Following, then, the holy fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us one and the same Son, the self-same perfect in Godhead, the self-same perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man; the self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the self-same co-essential with us according to the manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten; acknowledged in two natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the natures being in no way removed because of the union, but rather the properties of each nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into one person and one hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into two persons, but one and the self-same Son and only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the symbol of the fathers hath handed down to us.
In the careful wording of this, the former errors are all refuted as heretical teaching.
Thus was the person and identity of Jesus Christ articulated in ways that are still spoken of today. Jesus Christ is the God/Man—fully God and fully man, without sin. One person with two natures. We may not be able to understand it fully, but we cannot deny it and still be orthodox.
