The Church as The People of the Triune God:To the Praise of the Son—Part 1

The Church as The People of the Triune God:
To the Praise of the Son—Part I

This article is now the third in this series. You can find the introductory article here and the second article here. In addition to the articles, we will be including links to the sermons from which these articles have come. In the end, our hope is to be who we are in Christ, to the praise of his glory!

Who is Jesus?  This is the central question of Christology, and the one asked of the disciples. We affirm with Peter that he is the Christ, the Son of the living God. But we quickly find out that more needed to be said. Others can affirm this too. We must affirm more! In a world of lies, we cannot settle for simple affirmations of who Jesus is.

It could not be stated more clearly: our response to this question is a matter of eternal significance.
If we get this wrong, we are unfit to bear the name of ‘Christian’ or call upon Christ as Lord. We may even be found to be calling upon a Christ of our own imagination and a gospel that is no good news at all!

Historically, this theological question of ‘who Jesus is’ comes alongside the development of Trinitarian orthodoxy. Over a century after the Council of Nicaea in 325 and seventy years after the Council of Constantinople which formalized what we now call the Nicene Creed, there was another council at Chalcedon in 451. While those gathered at Nicaea and Constantinople were concerned with upholding and defending the doctrine of the Trinity, Chalcedon further developed a biblical understanding of the person of Christ.

The resulting document came to be known as the Chalcedonian Definition, and it has been the touchstone of orthodoxy on this question for nearly the last sixteen centuries. Throughout that time, the affirmations of the person and work of Christ that were fought over and written down at Chalcedon has safeguarded theological development and biblical fidelity.

One of the most significant developments of this time was the introduction of Greek terminology to clarify both the oneness and the threeness of God by differentiating between person and nature—persons act through or according to natures. This person-nature distinction became the orthodox and common terminology to defend both the oneness and the threeness of the Triune God and it was formative to Christology as well.

In opposing heretical answers the Jesus question, Chalcedon added further clarity to strengthen defense of the biblical witness. Some of these core ideas directly confronted one or the other of these heresies while other statements condemned the overlapping error of more than one of them. Very briefly, here is what was affirmed:

- The Son is one person with two natures—taking to himself a human nature without emptying his divine nature.

- He is truly God and truly man—one essence with the Father in his deity and of one essence with us and for our salvation, like us in every way except without sin.

- He is without confusion, division, separation, or change—that is, the person of the Son exists in two natures without compromising his divinity or his humanity in any way.

- Preservation of properties—that is, his divine attributes and his human attributes are retained in their fullness. Each remains distinct while adhering in one person.

Today, this view of the incarnation and the person of Christ is challenged. The need for clarity concerning the person and work of Christ in light of the progressive unfolding of Scripture is just as pressing today as ever before. We cannot settle for anything less than a Savior who is like us in every way except for sin, yet we need God himself to act on our behalf. How can this be? The two have become one in the person of Christ.

This is the only way that we can we make sense of the human experience of Christ without contradicting the witness of Scripture. When Christ endured hunger, thirst, or ignorance, he did so according to the capacity of his human nature. The person of the Son can rightly be said to have died on the cross—this he did according to his human nature. Even during his earthly life, he upheld the universe by the word of his power—this he did according to his divine nature. When he prayed to the Father that his will be done, this he spoke according to his human nature, with the will in submission being that of his human nature. He never emptied himself of divine attributes or put them on pause, but remains unchanged and is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

As we consider these truths and wrestle with the tensions of how God the Son can be both fully human and fully divine, we must not be so quick to overlook the battles for clarity that resulted in a document like the Chalcedonian Definition. Chalcedon is not only relevant but essential for preserving the apostolic faith handed down to us and safeguarding us from error in our thinking about the question of who Jesus is.

So, we continue moving through the text of Ephesians 1:3–14, looking at the specific ways that Paul is directing us to worship the Triune God of our salvation as Father, Son, and Spirit. In this article, we begin to consider the redeeming work of the Son(stay tuned for part 2). We are who we are because of who our Triune God is and what he has done, and because of the Son:

We are a blood-bought people predestined for praise.

We are going to unpack that idea in two points, first seeking to understand what it means that we are redeemed by Christ [a blood-bought people] and second what it means that we are co-heirs with Christ [predestined for praise]. In short, we will find that we are a blood-bought people brought into union with Christ (1:7-10) and that we are predestined for praise through our hope in Christ (1:11–12). The end result: that we might live to the praise of his glory (1:13).

To the praise of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Coram Deo.

**For a more detailed consideration of this article and the next, you can listen to the sermon here.