Skip to content
Union with Christ

Union with Christ: Interview with Robert Letham

Interview by Matthew Claridge–

Dr. Robert Letham has made a name for himself in Reformed circles for his integrative approach to biblical, systematic, and historical theology. That gift comes into full flower in his most recent book, Union with Christ, arguably the most integrative doctrine of all Christian theology. I had the privilege of asking Dr. Letham a number of questions concerning his book.

Robert Letham is Senior Lecturer in Systematic and Historical Theology at Wales Evangelical School of Theology (W.E.S.T.). He has advanced degrees from Westminster Theological Seminary and the University of Aberdeen. He is the author of several books and articles, including The Work of Christ and The Westminster Assembly: Reading its Theology in Historical Context.

In the introduction, you note that “Union with Christ is right at the center of … salvation,” but “when one asks what in fact this union consists in, what it actually is, there is a general silence.” How can this be?

Ultimately this is due to the incomprehensibility of God. We are dealing with matters that go beyond the realm of human logic. That is not to say that they are illogical or that they cannot be explained within the bounds of our competence. It is simply the fact that, while God has revealed such things as the Trinity, the incarnation, the indwelling of the Spirit, and the union of Christ and the church and we can know them truly, nevertheless they reach into the life of God himself and are, as Calvin said, more to be adored than investigated. So it is easier to discuss the relationship between union with Christ and this or that than to understand what it actually is.

You bring up the work of William B. Evans who argued that a rift between the imputational and the transformative aspect of Union with Christ arose in the theology of Edwards and came to a head in the Nevin-Hodge conflict (pgs. 2, 59, 122). Could you explain this “rift” and its impact the doctrine of “union with Christ” in our day?

 This rift was a severance between the forensic elements of union with Christ, relating to objective matters outside us, such as the atonement and justification, and the transformative elements focusing on the work of the Holy Spirit within us. Some even wrote of two distinct unions. This occurred under the impetus of analytic modes of thought that developed greatly during the Enlightenment, by which whole realities were broken down and considered as components, in atomistic fashion. This was a negative development compared with the more synthetic thought forms of the patristic and medieval period, starting from the whole and seeing the parts in that light. In the latter, connections were more to the fore than distinctions. 

Why is creation the starting point for your discussion of “union with Christ”?

 Redemption is a new creation and is grounded on the original. There are two covenant heads, Adam and Christ, representing two aeons. When considering union with Christ, we need to ask how we are related to God. The incarnation establishes the point that God and humanity have an affinity. Adam was made in the image of God. What is the image of God? The NT affirms that it is Christ (2 Cor 4:4-6, Col. 1:15, Heb. 1:1-2). The two great movements of God towards us in grace – the incarnation and Pentecost – where the Son assumes human nature and the Spirit is sent to indwell us both demonstrate this. Therefore we should begin to understand union with Christ by reflection on the Creator-creature distinction and the God-man compatibility.

In your chapter on “Incarnation,” there is an extended discussion of the church’s struggle to answer the heresy of Nestorianism. What challenge did this heresy pose to “Union with Christ” and how did orthodoxy eventually answer it?

 Nestorius, in seeking to stress the humanity of Christ, so focused on his two natures that he jeopardized the unity of his person. The church condemned this as heresy, affirming the unity of Christ. Without such a union between the eternal Son and our humanity we could not be united to Christ; in short, we could not be saved.

Many modern theologies (in the Platonic tradition) emphasize incarnation over atonement. How do you see both working together in connection with “Union with Christ”?

 The incarnation and atonement are part of the one plan of God for us and our salvation. They are indivisible; no incarnation without atonement, no atonement without incarnation. Again, we need to see these as aspects of the one work of God in Jesus Christ. That is not to forget a certain disparity; the Son took human nature but his intention in his death was to atone for the elect.

Critics of penal substitutionary atonement often complain that it represents a “legal fiction” in which the innocent is punished for the sins of another. You believe a proper emphasis on “union with Christ” puts the lie to this charge (pg. 64). How so?

 The OT condemns those judges who punish the innocent and allow the guilty to go free. Some criticisms of penal substitution (PS) have a point if it is presented in isolation from union with Christ. In PS, a substitute is other than the one he replaces, and a representative while acting on behalf of others is different from the others. With union with Christ, Christ and his people are one; his acts are ours, just as ours have become his. This is a point mentioned by Hugh Martin in his book on the atonement.

Some suggest that penal substitution is just one metaphor among many for describing an inherently incomprehensible transaction. You seem to argue something similar in the way Scripture describes “union with Christ” (pg. 123). Do you see a difference between these two observations?

 The NT presents a range of descriptions of the atonement; sacrifice, obedience, expiation, propitiation, reconciliation, redemption, conquest. All together add up to the full picture. PS is a central part of this; all these models mutually interpret each other but in some way all are grounded on PS, understood in the context of union with Christ.

The ordo salutis of classic Reformed orthodoxy is fairly straightforward (i.e., effectual calling, regeneration, faith, justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification). However, you feel “Union with Christ” does not easily fit within this schema (pg. 89). Why is this so and how do you envision it in relation to this classic arrangement?

 First, the ordo salutis has a strong Biblical basis (cf. Paul in Rom. 8:29-30, Eph. 1:3-14). Second, it is not so straightforward as the question supposes. A variety of opinions have been presented for the relationship between regeneration and effectual calling, justification and adoption, and so on. Moreover, there are limits to human logic. Since justification is through faith, faith precedes justification. But faith is a gift of God, so regeneration precedes faith. Logically, that entails regeneration preceding justification, which would ground justification on something present in the one believing, albeit due to the grace of God; this would be akin to the Roman Catholic doctrine. Logic has a necessary place, as a servant not a master. In scientific terms we need to observe the reality and shape our thought accordingly.

 I argue that union with Christ does not fit so easily into the ordo salutis as it has customarily been understood. The reason is that it has been left out! Yet according to Paul it is the integrating factor in the application of redemption. The Westminster divines realized this since when they put the ordo salutis in the context of union and communion with Christ in grace and glory (WLC, 65-90).

I confess, I have difficulty getting my head around these two theses: 1) “We are not hypostatically united to the Son” and 2) “We are united with Christ’s person” (126). What is the precise difference between these two statements and what’s the pay-off?

 There is only one hypostatic union. That occurred when the Son took human nature into union. From that point the eternal Son of the Father has a human nature of his own, body and soul, and will have for eternity. There is one person (hypostasis) of the Word made flesh – only one. Therefore we are not united with Christ so as to form a personal union akin to that.

 However, since the Son has assumed human nature into union, the Holy Spirit unites us to him in such a way that we become partakers of him. It is important here to recall a distinction drawn in Greek patristic theology between what is “proper” (idios), what belongs appropriately and inherently, and being “partakers” (metochoi), or sharing in something or someone that is not intrinsic to who one is. Thus, as Athanasius wrote, the Son is idios to the Father – he is proper to the Father’s being. On the other hand, he insisted that we are metochoi or participants in the Holy Spirit, and thus in the Son, who is indivisible from the Spirit and the Father. In short, the Son belongs to the Father as he is of the identical being. As for us, we participate in the Son – by grace, by the Holy Spirit, through faith. However, it is not with something extraneous to Christ that we have to do for we are united to Christ himself.

In the final analysis, how should “Union with Christ” impact the piety of Christ’s church?

 It should dramatically and deeply impact it. I can draw attention to three ways. First, in the Lords’ Supper we do not have communion with the benefits of Christ – as if we were united to the doctrine of justification – but with Christ himself. Christ’s benefits flow from that. Second, in relation to assurance, we are not acceptable to God on the basis of our state of mind or heart at any given moment, not that that is unimportant. Since we are united to Christ, the Father regards us exactly as he does his Son and has done from eternity! That is why we can call on him as “Our Father …” Third, in relation to death. In union with us, God the Son has experienced human death and burial according to his flesh. Following this, in union with him, we will share his resurrection. Before I forget to say so, Christ’s resurrection and ours are the same reality, separated by indefinite time; the resurrection has already begun with his in 30AD, ours following. If you read 1 Corinthians 15:12-49 carefully you will see this.

Advertisment
Back to Top