lOMoARcPSD|22015503
Research Paper on the Incarnation
of Chr
Survey of History of Christianity (Liberty University)
lOMoARcPSD|22015503
LIBERTY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DIVINITY
Understanding and Explaining the Incarnation of Christ
Submitted to Dr. Robert Olsen,
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the completion of
CHHI 510-B03
Survey of the History of Christianity
by
Edward Burgess Jr.
(Student ID # L24953022)
January 17, 2020
lOMoARcPSD|22015503
Contents
Introduction....................................................................................................................................3
The Council of Nicaea...................................................................................................................3
The Crisis.............................................................................................................................4
The Problem Examined.......................................................................................................6
The Council of Chalcedon.............................................................................................................8
The Crisis.............................................................................................................................9
The Problem Examined.....................................................................................................11
The Church’s Understanding of the Incarnation of Christ.....................................................13
The Person of Christ in Relation to the Father..................................................................13
The Relation of the Two Natures of Christ’s Person.........................................................13
Conclusion....................................................................................................................................13
Bibliography.................................................................................................................................15
lOMoARcPSD|22015503
Thesis Statement: The Council of Nicaea and the Council of Chalcedon played the most
influential role in shaping the way that the church understands the biblical concept of the
incarnation of Christ.
Outline
Introduction
I. The Council of Nicaea
A. The Crisis
1. The Arian Controversy
2. Alexander’s Complaint
3. Constantine’s Concern
B. The Problem Examined
1. The Ecumenical Call
2. The Great Debate of 325 A.D.
II. The Council of Chalcedon
A. The Crisis
1. Apollinaris
2. Nestorius
3. Eutyches
B. The Problem Examined
1. Leo’s Tome
2. The Great Debate of 451 A.D.
III. The Church’s Understanding of the Incarnation of Christ
A. The Person of Christ in Relation to the Father
B. The Relation of the Two Natures of Christ’s Person
Conclusion
2
lOMoARcPSD|22015503
Introduction
The incarnation of Christ is a theological subject has been the center of much debate in
the early church and has been the source of no small amount of consternation throughout church
history as a whole. All Christians it would seem, who profess faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord
and Savior, believe universally, that Jesus is the Son of God and that he was sent on a divine
mission from the Father to save sinners from the penalty of their sins (Matt. 1:21).1 However,
the question that loomed largely in the minds of many followers of Christ, particularly, in the
early church, was Jesus’ relationship to the Father and what was the true nature of his person,
that is, in what way is Jesus related to the Father (i.e., same or similar substance) and how should
one understand the two natures of Christ’s person (i.e., human and divine nature). In the course
of the following paper, the author will endeavor to show that the Council of Nicaea and the
Council of Chalcedon played the most influential role in shaping the way that the church
understands the biblical concept of the incarnation of Christ.
The Council of Nicaea
The Council of Nicaea, which took place in the year 325 A. D., is considered by most
scholars to be the First Ecumenical (e.g., universal) Council of the early church.2 While this
point is up for debate, one thing is crystal clear, the Council of Nicaea served as a critical turning
point in the history of Christianity.3 During this particular time in church history, the church was
no longer under persecution by the state as a result of Constantine’s conversion. On the heels of
1 Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced are in the English Standard Version (Wheaton,
IL: Crossway, 2016).
2 Although this is popularly known as the First Ecumenical Council, for all intents and purposes, the First
Ecumenical Council took place in Jerusalem during the apostolic age. See, for example, Acts 15.
3 Mark Noll, Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker Academic, 2012), 44.
3
lOMoARcPSD|22015503
his conversion, the church enjoyed a period of relative peace and the threat of martyrdom
appeared to be a thing of the past. Now that the bitterness of persecution was behind them, one
would think that a period of peace in the church would certainly be the case, but new challenges
arose that needed to be met and the outbreak of controversy threatened to divide the church.
The Crisis
The Arian Controversy
The controversy that gave rise to the Council of Nicaea was the Christological views of a
man named Arius, who was a presbyter in the Alexandrian church. Arius believed that Jesus
was the first creature God had made and through him, God created everything else; and so,
although Jesus was very similar to God, according Arius, he was not the same as God. Hence,
the Arian controversy was categorically over the divine status of Jesus. In other words, this
particular controversy centered on Jesus’ relation to the Father (i.e., Is Jesus of a lower class
than the Father or is Jesus equal to the Father). The Arian view of Christ did not sit well with the
bishop of Alexandria, Alexander. It ultimately became the cause of a local disagreement which
eventually gave rise to the ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 A. D.
Alexander’s Complaint
The main point of contention between the Christological views held by both Alexander
and Arius was salvific in nature. The very basis for their Christological views sprang forth from
the question of how is it that Christ saves.4 Alexander reasoned, that either the Christ who saves
is God in the flesh or the worship that the church is called to ascribe to Christ as recorded in
God’s Word is nothing less than gross idolatry. On the other hand, however, Arius “grounded
4 Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, vol. I: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation,
rev. and upd. (New York: HarperCollins, 2010), 184.
4
lOMoARcPSD|22015503
his faith in the absolute transcendence and absolute unity of God… it seemed only logical to
Arius that, however much the church should honor Jesus, it should not consider him in terms
reserved for the Father.”5 Therefore, Alexander was thoroughly convinced that the Arian view of
Christ threatened the very core of the Christian faith.6 Alexander was so outraged by the
perversion of Arius’ teaching that, he wasted no time in warning the neighboring jurisdictions of
the proliferation of this insidious doctrine. He implored them to stay clear of this false doctrine
and have nothing to do with its proponents.7 As this ecclesiastical issue began to spread from
one region to another, it did not take very long before it made its way to the doorstep of the
Emperor, Constantine.
Constantine’s Concern
While some church historians are divided on the matter of whether Constantine was more
interested in squelching this bitter controversy for the benefit of perpetuating unity in the Roman
Empire or to avoid a schism in the household of God, one thing is crystal clear, Constantine was
a well-established statesman and a brilliant politician. After Constantine had heard of the
magnitude to which this controversy had spread and how it potentially had the power to not only
bring division in the church, but division in the Roman Empire as well, Constantine wasted no
time in gathering no less than three-hundred bishops from the surrounding regions to settle this
controversial matter. Constantine addressed churches all over the Empire with the following
words,
5 Noll, Turning Points, 45.
6 Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, 187.
7 “Letter of Alexander, bishop of Alexandria,” in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, complete and
unbridged, new updated edition, trans. C. F. Cruse (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1998),
408.
5
lOMoARcPSD|22015503
Having experienced, in the flourishing state of public affairs, the greatness of the divine
goodness, I thought it especially incumbent on me to endeavor that the happy multitudes
of the Catholic Church should preserve one faith, be united in unfeigned love, and
harmoniously join in their devotions to Almighty God. But this could not otherwise be
effected in a firm and solid manner, than by an examination… by all the bishops, or the
greater part of them at least.8
In response to Constantine’s plea for this doctrinal issue to be addressed by the catholic church,
bishops from all over the Empire journeyed to Nicaea and the “First Ecumenical Council” was
born.
The Problem Examined
The Ecumenical Call
In order to get a clear picture of the atmosphere pertaining to what this ecumenical
gathering entailed, the words of Justo Gonzalez are very helpful at this point. He writes,
…it is necessary to remember that several of those attending the great assembly had
recently been imprisoned, tortured, or exiled, and that some bore on their bodies the
physical marks of their faithfulness. And now, a few years after such trials, these very
bishops were invited to gather at Nicea, and the emperor covered their expenses to do so.
Many of those present knew of each other via hearsay or through correspondence. But
now, for the first time in the history of Christianity, they had before their eyes physical
evidence of the universality of the church.9
The ecumenical call by the Emperor was unlike anything these men of God had ever experienced
before in their lives. Instead of being persecuted, tortured, and in some cases martyred for their
faith, the very same office that sought their demise was the same office that was now inviting
them on an all-expense paid trip to Nicaea for them to address an ecclesiastical issue which
threatened the unity of the church.
8 “Letter of Constantine” in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, 423.
9 Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, 187.
6
lOMoARcPSD|22015503
The Great Debate of 325 A.D.
In a spirit of optimism, the bishops who had gathered were hoping to reach a compromise
without the condemnation of any particular doctrine, but all of that quickly changed as soon as
they heard an exposition of Arius’ Christological position. “The assertion that the Word or Son
was no more than a creature, no matter how high a creature, provoked angry reactions from
many bishops.”10 Some of them shouted, “You lie!” “Blasphemy!” “Heresy!” Therefore, the
bishops unanimously agreed that the deity of Christ must be affirmed, if the worship ascribed to
Jesus in the Bible is not idolatry.11 They reasoned, during Christ’s earthly ministry he accepted
the worship and the prayers of people and not once did he forbid them as if this was an activity
that was reserved exclusively for the Father. Furthermore, “Athanasius argued—and the church
as a whole came to acknowledge the eternal significance of his conclusion—that without full
divinity, Christ could not impart the salvation the Bible and the church’s worship testified to.”12
Therefore, the production of the Nicene Creed condemned Arianism in no ambiguous terms.
The Creed explicitly stated,
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things
visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God,
begotten of the Father before all worlds; 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
were made…
10 Ibid., 188.
11 For a few biblical references that describe Christ’s divinity, please consider the following verses: Jesus
knew the heart of all men (John 2:24-25), he knew that Judas would betray him (John 13:18-19, 21-27), he knew
which particular fish would have a coin in its mouth (Matt. 17:24:27), he saw Nathaniel sitting under a fig tree
without being present (John 1:48), he foretold Peter’s denial (Luke 22:31-34), he predicted the future destruction of
Jerusalem (Mark 13:1-4), he commanded the weather and it obeyed him (Mark 4:35-41; Matt. 8:23-27), he forgave
sins (Mark 2:1-12), he openly excepted worship (Matt. 2:11; 14:33; 28:9-10, 16-17; Luke 24:51; John 9:37-38; Rev.
22:3), he repeatedly foretold his death (Matt. 20:17-19; Mark 10:32-34; Luke 18:31-33), he had the power to raise
himself from the dead (John 2:19), and he taught that He was God (Mark 2:1-12; John 8:48-59; 10:30-33, etc.).
12 Noll, Turning Points, 64.
7
lOMoARcPSD|22015503
For the very first time in church history did the church take the time to spell out in great detail
who the Christ of redemptive history was and who he was not. As a result of the Council of
Nicaea, the church maintained that: (1) Christ was not a creature (i.e., not made); (2) He was of
the same substance (Gk: homoousios) as the Father (i.e., being of one substance with the Father);
and (3) He was co-equal and co-eternal with the Father (i.e., God of God, Light of Light, very
God of very God). While Arianism did not die off with the condemnation that the Council levied
upon this position, two subsequent Councils (i.e., the Council of Rome in 341 and the Council of
Constantinople in 381) later ratified the Nicene Creed, which became the very basis of orthodoxy
to this day.13
The Council of Chalcedon
It the year 451, bishops from all over the Empire gathered once again in what can be
called the Fourth Ecumenical Council, only this time it was in the city Chalcedon. Prior to the
Council of Chalcedon, there were many heretical views of Christ that were being promoted by
several different sources. Amid the Christological turmoil of that day, the Council of
Chalcedonian sought to address most, if not all of the heretical views taught concerning Christ’s
nature up to this point, namely, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism and Eutychianism (aka.
Monophysitism). These three factors became the main reason why the church produced the
Chalcedonian Creed.
13 Erwin Lutzer, The Doctrines That Divide: A Fresh Look at the Historic Doctrines That Separate
Christians (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1998.), 32.
8
lOMoARcPSD|22015503
The Crisis
Apollinaris
One of the historical figures that played a leading role in precipitating the Council of
Chalcedon was a man named Apollinaris. Apollinaris was from the city of Laodicea, where he
lived the vast majority of his life.14 He was a staunch defender of the Nicene position, but in his
zeal to explain the incarnation of Christ, some of the human attributes were swallowed up by the
divine nature, particularly, the mind. Apollinaris taught that Jesus had a human nature like all
human beings, but instead of having a human intellect like the rest of humanity, he had a divine
mind, that is, Jesus’ human intellect was replaced by the Word of God. This understanding of
Jesus’ incarnation became problematic for one obvious reason. Gregory of Nazianzus probably
stated the argument best and he put in this way:
If any believe in Jesus Christ as a human being without human reason, they are the ones
devoid of all reason, and unworthy of salvation. For that which he has not taken up he
has not saved. He saved that which he joined to his divinity. If only half of Adam had
fallen, then it would be possible for Christ to take up and save only half. But if the entire
human nature fell, all of it must be united to the Word in order to be saved as a whole.15
Based on Gregory’s evaluation of Apollinaris’ position, if Jesus lacked an essential attribute
constituting the human nature, then, Christ is unable to redeem that part of humanity. Well, it
did not take very long before the church rejected Apollinaris’ position, because it portrayed a
very low view of the sufficiency of Christ’s salvific work on the cross, that is, it rejected the
extent to which Christ is able to save. Apollinaris’ position was condemned as heresy by the
Council of Constantinople in 381 A. D.
14 V. L. Walter, “Apollinarianism.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., Walter A. Elwell ed.
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 81.
15 Gregory of Nazianzus, quoted in Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, vol. I: The Early Church
to the Dawn of the Reformation, rev. and upd. (New York: HarperCollins, 2010), 297-98.
9
lOMoARcPSD|22015503
Nestorius
Another historical figure that played a role in causing the Council of Chalcedon was a
man named Nestorius. He was a patriarch of Constantinople and he received his theological
training in a monastery in Antioch, probably under Theodore of Mopsuesta.16 Nestorius is
probably best known for declaring that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was Christotokos (bearer of
Christ), as opposed to Theotokos (bearer of God). While on the surface, this distinction may
seem like an accurate theological observation in the minds of most Protestants today, just below
the surface, however, was a more sinister assertion being made by Nestorius. To be sure,
Nestorius was correct to observe that Mary did not give birth God, for that would be utterly
impossible (Theotokos). The problem with his Christological position, is that, when Nestorius
declared that Mary was the bearer of Christ (Christotokos), “he declared that in Jesus there were
‘two natures and two persons,’ one divine and one human. The human nature and person were
born of Mary; the divine was not.”17 While Nestorius’ distinction of Mary being the bearer of
Christ versus the bearer of God was a good theological observation, the subtle theological error
that Nestorius committed was the fact that he took the two natures of Christ and separated them
into two persons. Nestorius’ position was condemned as heresy at the Council of Ephesus in
June of 431 A. D.
Eutyches
The third historical figure that played a leading role in precipitating the Council of
Chalcedon was a man by the name of Eutyches. Eutyches was a monk from Constantinople. He
taught that the human and the divine natures of Christ were completely mixed into one nature in
16 H. Griffith, “Nestorius, Nestorianism.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., Walter A. Elwell
ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 823.
17 Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, 299.
10
lOMoARcPSD|22015503
the incarnation.18 The main problem with this position is that Christ no longer had two natures,
and thus, he was no longer the perfect representative of God and man. Rather, Christ only had
one nature that had been super-fused together so as to become something totally different,
putting him in a class all by himself. As a result, Eutyches’ position had come to be known as
monophysitism. The easy way to understand this term is by looking at the two Greek words that
make up its composition. Mono meaning “one” and physis meaning “nature,” thus,
monophysitism is a theological position that believes that Christ has only “one nature.” The
leading opponents who refuted this theological position and upheld the orthodox position were
two gentlemen by the name of Flavian and Leo I.
Leo’s Tome
The Problem Examined
In response to Eutyches’ outlandish concept about the dual nature of Christ, Leo I wrote
an extremely thorough-going refutation to the various errors, presumption, and bizarre
propositions found in Eutyches’ theological position. The name of this literary work produced
by Leo I is simply known as, The Tome of Leo I: Letter 28 to Flavian. In this literary work, Leo
I presented his argument in three primary propositions: (1) To expose the erroneous nature of
Eutyches’ ideas, (2) to lay out the terms on which Eutyches may be restored back to
Communion; and (3) to promote and defend the orthodox (i.e., biblical) position.
In 449 A. D., Emperor Theodosius II called a council to meet at Ephesus to settle this
theological matter, but when Flavian tried to present Leo’s Tome to the council, he was not
18 D. A. Hubbard, “Monophysitism.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., Walter A. Elwell ed.
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 788.
11
lOMoARcPSD|22015503
permitted to do so.19 In fact, Flavian was manhandled so violently that he literally died just a
few short days later.20 Needless to say, this “kangaroo” council was not seeking to engage in an
open and honest debate, for the outcome had already been decided before the council even
convened. Therefore, if this issue was going to be settled the right way and if Leo I was going to
get a fair hearing, this council needed to be held in another city.
The Great Debate of 451 A.D.
Just two short years later in the year 451 A. D., Leo I finally got the audience he deserved
and the Council of Chalcedon was assembled. The council “affirmed that Christ was fully
human (opposing Apollinarianism) but he was one person (opposing Nestorianism) with two
natures that remained distinct (opposing Monophysitism).”21 Therefore, the Chalcedonian Creed
refuted all three of these heretical positions by upholding the Nicene position with the following
words,
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and
the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in
manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body (Apollinarianism)…
born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the
same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten (Nestorianism), to be acknowledged in two
natures, without confusion, mixture, division, or separation; the distinction of natures
being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being
preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into
two persons, but one and the same Son (Eutychianism)…
Consequently, this understanding of the incarnation of Christ became the very basis of the
orthodox position to this very day.
19 Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, 300.
20 Ibid.
21 Lutzer, The Doctrines That Divide, 48.
12
lOMoARcPSD|22015503
The Church’s Understanding of the Incarnation of Christ
While these heretical positions have resurfaced periodically throughout church history,
one of the ways in which the church today has benefited from these two Ecumenical Councils is
by having a clear and concise biblical definition of Jesus’ person and work by which to expose
false views of Christ. A brief overview of the church’s understanding of the incarnation of
Christ as a result of these two councils can be outlined as follows:
The Person of Christ in Relation to the Father
1) Christ is a distinct person of the Godhead not to be confused with the Father (Matt. 3:16-
17; John 1:1).
2) Christ is co-equal with the Father, and therefore, is of the same substance as the
Father (Phil. 2:5-6).
3) Jesus is one-hundred percent God and one hundred percent man (Col. 1:19; 1 Cor. 2:8; 1
Tim. 2:5, etc.).
4) Jesus preexisted his incarnation and is co-eternal with the Father (John 1:1; 8:58; Phil.
2:6).
The Relation of the Two Natures of Christ’s Person
1) The two natures of Christ are incapable of losing any of their attributes.
2) The two natures of Christ are inseparably united with each other in such a way so as
not to be confused, mixed, divided, nor separated.
3) Though the two natures of Christ are distinguishable, they remain constant and exist
simultaneously within one indivisible person.
Conclusion
In conclusion, when one considers the sheer amount of time and effort that has literally
been spent pouring over the Scriptures and addressing the heretical views of the person and work
of Christ throughout the first four centuries of the church, it is rather easy to see just how crucial
13
lOMoARcPSD|22015503
the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon were in formulating a biblical Christology of Jesus’
person and work. This process did not take place in a vacuum. There were several key figures
who played an extremely important role in fleshing out the biblical view Christ, which came to
be simply known as the orthodox view.
In these formative years, the orthodox view of Christ was borne out of a response to a
vast array of heretical views of the person and work of Christ, which ultimately, threatened to
derail many believers in their faith from believing in the one true God and Jesus Christ whom he
sent (John 17:3). As the proponents of the orthodox view defended the biblical view of Christ,
they in turn, laid a biblical foundation for how the church should rightly understand who Christ
is in his person and his relationship to the Father.
14
lOMoARcPSD|22015503
Bibliography
Boyd, Gregory A. and Paul R. Eddy. Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical
Theology. 2nd Edition. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2009.
Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. Complete and unbridged. New updated edition. Translated by
C. F. Cruse. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1998.
Gonzalez, Justo L., The Story of Christianity, Volume I: The Early Church to the Dawn of the
Reformation. Revised and Updated. New York: HarperCollins, 2010.
Griffith, H., “Nestorius, Nestorianism.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., Walter
A. Elwell ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.
Hubbard, D. A., “Monophysitism.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., Walter A.
Elwell ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.
Lane, Tony. A Concise History of Christian Thought. Revised Edition. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Baker Academic, 2006.
Leo I, Tome. Accessed on January 20, 2020. https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/leo_tome.htm.
Lutzer, Erwin. The Doctrines That Divide: A Fresh Look at the Historic Doctrines That Separate
Christians. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1998.
Noll, Mark A., Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity. 3rd Edition.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2012.
Paddison, Angus. “Engaging Scripture: Incarnation and the Gospel of John.” Scottish Journal of
Theology 60, no. 2 (2007): 144–60. Accessed on January 20, 2020. https://search-
ebscohost- com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0001603159&site
=ehost-live&scope=site.
Schaff, Philip, and Henry Wace, eds. St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters. Vol. 4. A Select
Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series.
New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892.
Stevenson, James, and B. J. Kidd, eds. Creeds, Councils, and Controversies: Documents
Illustrative of the History of the Church A.D. 337-461. New York: Seabury Press, 1966.
Walter, V. L., “Apollinarianism.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., Walter A.
Elwell ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.
15
