I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God—The Nicene Creed for Non-Creedal Christians Post Number 10.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,

God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,

begotten, not made, of one being with the Father.

                As I return to my journey through the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, we move from the Creed’s confession regarding the identity of God the Father to the second member of the Trinity, Jesus, God’s only Son. This is the most expansive part of the Creed, not because it resolved everything regarding Jesus' identity, but because the purpose of the Creed was to acknowledge Christ’s divine status. The Creed, as originally written in 325, addressed Arius’ claim that Jesus was a creature, not the “only begotten Son of God.” The Creed, as we will see in a later posting, describes the role Jesus played in human salvation. In this first extended sentence, the first point is made. That point is, Jesus is “one being with the Father.” The Greek word that was used in the Creed is homoousios, or “one substance.”

                So, let’s take this line by line. We start with the confession of belief  in “one Lord, Jesus Christ.” It is a confession that has scriptural foundation, such as in 1 Corinthians 8: “⁵ Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as in fact there are many gods and many lords— ⁶ yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist” (1 Cor. 8:5-6).

                The use of the word Lord is problematic. It is biblical, of course, but it has connotations that many modern Christians have problems with. You can understand why when you ponder Karl Barth’s description of Jesus’ lordship.

That Jesus Christ is our Lord means first of all that He has the authority and power over us that a Lord has over his servants. He taught them as one having ἐξουσία, authority, power, freedom over them (Matt. 7:29). He has a claim on us, He commands, He rules and disposes of us. But “servants” in Scripture are always slaves: they belong to their lord; they have no rights of their own, are not independent persons over against him; they act not on their own responsibility, but strictly under his. [Barth, Karl. Credo (Kindle p. 57). ANTHEM PUBLISHING].

 Barth continues defining what this means, contrasting human lordship with that of Jesus. He concludes:

For in contrast to all other lordships, it is the only true and the only effective Lordship. As βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ it is the kingdom of which all other kingdoms are only paltry and distorted adumbrations. It therefore abides, while all the mighty (rightly, all of them!) are being put down from their seats (Luke 1:52). Its subjects, if they really know the things which belong to their peace, will constantly require to pray and plead for its being established ever afresh: Thy Kingdom come! [Barth, Credo (Kindle, pp. 58-59)].

When we proclaim Jesus to be Lord, which in the New Testament was made in contrast to Caesar’s claim of lordship, we are saying that Jesus, not Caesar, is lord over us. Jesus, not Caesar, has a claim on our lives.

                As we move to the next line, we confess that Jesus is the “only Son of God.” As such, Jesus is “eternally begotten of the Father.” Jesus is called the Son of God often in the New Testament. In two cases, Jesus’ baptism and at his transfiguration, God claims him as God’s son. For example, in the Gospel of Mark, we read a brief account of his baptism: “In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.  And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove upon him. ¹¹ And a voice came from the heavens, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased” (Mk 1:9-11). 

When it comes to the confession of Christ’s divine sonship, note how the Creed speaks of Jesus being “eternally created.” This was a direct shot at Arius, who believed that there was a time when the Son did not exist. Instead of being eternally begotten, Arius believed Jesus was the first of God’s created beings. Thus, the creed rejects that claim. The message is clear—as the church builds its Trinitarian theology in the fourth century, the “orthodox” view is that whatever we say about Jesus,  he is fully divine. This message is reinforced by the next line, where the Creed  declares of Jesus that he is “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God.”

                The next phrase makes this even clearer, again in response to Arius. If we use the Creed, we confess that Jesus is “begotten, not made.”  Jesus is not a created being. He wasn’t adopted by God as a Son. He was begotten of God. In making this statement, the Creed doesn’t reveal how Jesus was begotten of God, only that he was begotten of God. That begetting was eternal. Therefore, Jesus is “of one being with the Father.” Here is where the keyword in the Creed is revealed. The Greek word, over which, that led to much debate in the fourth century, is homoousios.”  The version of the Creed I posted at the beginning uses the phrase “one being,” but the usual translation is “one substance.” He is not of “like substance” (homoiousios). In many ways, the two perspectives that were debated at Nicaea were not all that different, and in the end, most of the partisans agreed to use homoousios. Most of the opponents to the use of homoousios were concerned that it was a favorite term used by modalists such as Paul of Samosata. In other words, it was somewhat tainted. Therefore, the term needed to be used in a way that didn’t lead to a position already abandoned as heretical. Athanasius was a key figure in providing definitions that allowed for a distinction of persons within the Godhead. So, the Councils agreed that the Son is of the same substance as the Father. It should be noted that the two parties present at these councils shared a common opponent, the Arians.

                The first part of the confession concerning Jesus defines the divine part of the equation. Nothing has yet been said about Jesus’ humanity. That will come. When it comes to the “how” full divinity and full humanity can exist in one person, the question had yet to be resolved. Even though a sizable portion of the Christian world affirms the Decree of Chalcedon (451 CE), it raises as many questions as it resolves. But our focus in this series is on Nicaea, not Chalcedon.