Sermon -- Commemoration of the Council of Nicaea (June 15, 2025)

ACTS 20:17-21,28-32

WE CONFESS NOT WHAT SEEMS REASONABLE, BUT WHAT IS REVEALED.

In the name + of Jesus.

     We might like to think that there was a golden age in the Christian Church when God’s people had everything right and there was great harmony.  But that is not true.  There have always been enemies both outside and inside the Church.  St. Paul mentioned “the trials that came to me due to the plots of the Jews” (Acts 20:19).  When Paul came to a new city, he went to synagogue to declare that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ they had been waiting for.  He had fulfilled all God’s promises and died as the atoning sacrifice for our salvation.  Many received that message with great joy.  Others fought fiercely against him.  They slandered him, attacked him, and drove him from various cities.  In addition, the Roman government persecuted Christians because they refused to confess, “Caesar is Lord.”  We are not surprised that those outside the Church would attack it.

     When St. Paul met with the pastors who served the church in Ephesus, he warned them, “I know that after my departure savage wolves, who will not spare the flock, will come in among you.  Even from your own group men will rise up, twisting the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.  Therefore be always on the alert” (Acts 20:29-31)!  These attacks are more dangerous and damaging because they rise up from within.  Pastors and teachers, who were presumably trustworthy, perverted the words of God.  They did not reject God’s word, but twisted it to make it say what they wanted it to say.  Sometimes this twisting is done with evil intent; sometimes it is because they themselves have been deceived.  Our Lord calls us to be alert, not to be swayed by any pastor no matter how nice he is or how smoothly he speaks.  We must cling to the word of God and let nothing budge us from the sure teachings of God.

     In 313 AD, Emperor Constantine passed the Edict of Milan which legalized the Christian religion.  Constantine not only legalized Christianity, he was converted to it.  All good news for the Christian church, right?  But it was about this time that a pastor from Alexandria, Egypt, began teaching a new doctrine.  His name was Arius.  In short, Arius taught that Jesus is not really God.

     The way Arius taught this was so deceptive because of how reasonable he made it all sound.  Arius argued that, if Jesus is the Son of God, and if the Son was begotten of the Father, then there was a time when he did not exist.  After all, I did not exist in 1950.  My beginning is usually marked by my birthday.  So, if God the Son is begotten of the Father, then he had a beginning.  If he had a beginning, he is not eternal.  If he is not eternal, then he is not really God.  Perhaps he had a special status, but not God from eternity.  Arius’ logic appealed to many.  Arius even drafted hymns to reinforce his teaching.  Arius’ teaching threatened to divide, if not destroy, the Christian Church. 

     Emperor Constantine took action.  Perhaps it was because he had a legitimate concern for the Christian faith.  Perhaps it was because he wanted to retain unity and harmony in his Empire.  Probably a bit of both.  In any case, Emperor Constantine summoned bishops from all over the Roman Empire to convene at a city called Nicaea which is in modern-day Turkey.  So, 1,700 years ago this week, more than 300 bishops gathered to address Arius’ teaching and some other issues that were threatening to divide the Christian Church.  Their goal was to maintain the unity of the Christian confession.  They were to confess not what seemed reasonable, but what was revealed.

     Perhaps this issue sounds like pastors debating over doctrinal minutiae that has no real significance in day-to-day life.  Tomorrow, you will head off to work, give diligent attention to your responsibilities, and go home.  You will prepare a meal, eat, and clean up.  You might take a walk, mow the lawn, or scroll on your phone before going to bed.  Not once will you think about the theological wranglings that happened at Nicaea 1,700 years go.  I don’t say that as a rebuke, but understanding reality.

     In the same way, we don’t really give our attention to major events which have affected our lives.  We don’t think of the Magna Carta, the Revolutionary War, or the Battle of Midway.  If these events had turned out differently, our lives would be significantly different, too.  So also with the Council of Nicaea.  From it, we have received a confession of the true, Christian faith.  From those bishops, we learn to confess not what seems reasonable, but what is revealed.

     The Council of Nicaea thwarted a heresy which would destroy the Christian faith.  If Arius was right and Jesus is not true God, then you are damned.  If Jesus of Nazareth is not true God, then it was a man who went to the cross and died.  All his claims are lies.  All his promises are useless.  Even if we say that Jesus of Nazareth was a holy man, then he earned his place in the kingdom of God, but he has done nothing for you.  This is what the Lord says: “Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life” (Psalm 49:7).  If Jesus is only a man—even a special man, given special gifts by God—then he has done nothing to help you. 

     This is what the Council of Nicaea addressed.  They did not vote on whether or not Jesus is God as The DaVinci Code asserted.  They did not invent doctrine.  They turned to the Scriptures to see what God had revealed there.  Arius trusted in reasoning; the bishops confessed what was revealed: Jesus is Immanuel, God with us.  Jesus declared, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30).  Since there is only one God, Jesus’ claim is that he is God.  Jesus told the Pharisees, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58).  That means he is eternal.  Only God is eternal; therefore, Jesus is God.  Even Jesus’ enemies understood his claim.  That’s why they tried to stone him for blasphemy.  Most important of all is that Jesus declared he would suffer, die, and rise on the third day, just as the Old Testament had prophesied.  And then he did it.  The Church did not invent these things.  The apostles witnessed them and then recorded them.  We confess not what seems reasonable, but what is revealed.

     The Council of Nicaea drafted a confession to determine which pastors were faithful to the Christian faith and which were not.  It was the first draft of the Nicene Creed.  (This confession was updated and adopted at the Council of Constantinople in 381 and is our current Nicene Creed.)  To confess what Scripture reveals, the Nicene Creed is more detailed than the Apostles’ Creed.  The bishops at Nicaea confessed that Jesus Christ is “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father” (Nicene Creed).  Arius would never make this confession.  Nor do Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons today.  This confession is a symbol of the true Christian faith.  We confess not what seems reasonable, but what is revealed.

     The spirit of Arius still persists within Christendom.  It is the spirit of using one’s reason to try to unravel the mysteries of God.  It is the desire to make God and the Bible agreeable to our way of thinking.  The prayer is, “Make it make sense!”  But reason does not always mesh with what God has revealed.  For example, the Bible teaches that God “chose us in (Christ) before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.  In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ” (Ephesians 1:4-5).  Now, if God chose some for salvation, reason concludes that those who were not chosen to be saved were chosen by God to be damned.  That sounds reasonable.  But what has God revealed?  “God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:3-4).  God is not willing that any should perish, so he certainly did not predestine people to be damned.  We confess not what seems reasonable, but what has been revealed.

     When we use our reason to rule over the Scriptures, the result is dangerous at best and destructive of the faith at worst.  Your defense of your sins seems reasonable to you because if you are determined to do something, it makes sense to you.  “I had good reasons to lie, to cheat, to blame God, to curse my neighbor.”  Why?  “Because: reasons!”    Everything we think, say, and do makes a confession.  The question is: Whose word are you confessing?

     To confess means to say the same thing.  To confess the Christian faith, we say the same thing as God reveals in his word.  When God’s word reveals, “You are a sinner,” we confess, “I am a sinner.”  When God’s word reveals that Jesus, the Son of God, came to take away our sins, we confess, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and my Savior.”  When God reveals that he created the universe in six 24-hour days, we confess, “I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.  I reject evolution which says he did not.”  When Jesus tells us regarding the consecrated bread and wine, “This is my body.  This is my blood,” we confess, “It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and the wine, given to Christians to eat and to drink for the forgiveness of sins.”  When God reveals that marriage is a union of one man and one woman, we confess, “Marriage is the life-long union of one man and one woman.  Anything that differs from it is wicked.”  When God reveals that the pastoral office is limited to men, we confess that only males may serve as pastors.  When God reveals that we are to forgive those who sin against us, we pray, “Forgive us our trespasses, as we also forgive those who trespass against us.”  We confess not what seems reasonable, but what is revealed.

     Granted, sometimes what God reveals is hard.  It may offend your reason.  It certainly offends our culture, which has instructed and influenced us more than we would want to admit.  Much of what our culture teaches us seems reasonable because so many people live by it and defend it.  But the question is not, “Is it reasonable?”  The question is, “Did God reveal it?”  We confess not what is reasonable, but what is revealed. 

     In 325 AD, about 300 Christian bishops met to make a bold and faithful confession of the Christian faith.  That also meant condemning what stood against the faith.  It meant forsaking what seemed reasonable to maintain what is revealed.  We pray the Holy Spirit will instill in our spirit the same conviction to the Scriptures in word and deed.  “And now I entrust you to God and to the word of his grace, which has power to build you up and to give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified” (Acts 20:32). 

In the name of the Father and of the Son + and of the Holy Spirit.  Amen.

Worship Notes: The Nicene Creed

NICENE CREED – 1700^TH ANNIVERSARY

A short, simplified version:

            In 325 AD, Emperor Constantine called a council of Christian bishops from around the Roman Empire to meet in Nicaea (modern-day Turkey).  Several issues were addressed in order to come to a consensus and maintain unity within Christendom.  One issue of particular urgency was the teaching of a bishop from northern Africa named Arius.  Arius was teaching that Jesus Christ was not truly God.  He reasoned that, if the Son of God was begotten of the Father, there was a time when he did not exist.  This teaching affects the salvation of mankind and the heart of the Christian faith.  So, bishops convened in Nicaea from roughly June 12 – July 25.  They drafted a creed to confess what the true Christian faith is.  All but two of the attending bishops signed on to this creed.  They did not invent a doctrine, but formally composed a statement that confessed correct doctrine.  The Christian Church still confesses that statement today; it is the Nicene Creed.

A longer, more extensive version:

The Council of Nicaea: How the Early Church Sought Unity — With the Help of an Emperor

By Joel Elowsky

1,700 years ago, there was a newly united Roman Empire headed by a young emperor from Serbia named Constantine. The horrific persecution of Christians under Diocletian (A.D. 303–313) had just ended, and decrees pronouncing toleration of Christians had been issued by Galerius in 311 and by Constantine I and Licinius with the Edict of Milan in 313. In 312, Constantine had made his famous defeat of Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge: During the battle, “he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and an inscription, CONQUER BY THIS, attached to it.” Later that night, Constantine had a dream where Christ told him to mark this cross on the shields of his soldiers. Was this a sign of a new age, with a new emperor favorable to Christianity?

The debate over Constantine’s actual conversion continues among scholars. I see no problem with the account as written and believe it is authentic. Yet whether the emperor’s conversion was sincere or not, something had changed in the empire — and Roman emperors knew the power of faith in the public sphere. By the early fourth century, even before Constantine ascended the throne, Christianity had already grown into a force to be reckoned with. But with the growth also came tension and division. It was important to keep the empire united not only politically but also in matters of faith.

Divisions in the Church

The Diocletian persecution had put Christianity to the test. Divisions had developed in the church over what to do with those who had denied the faith under threat of torture or death. During the persecutions, while Bishop Peter of Alexandria languished in prison, Bishop Meletius of Lycopolis in Egypt began ordaining bishops. Meletius was part of the rigorist camp who thought the church was too lax in its requirements for readmission. He thought those he ordained could help right the ship of the church and bring it back to a purer form.

Another division in the church had deeper roots. It dated back at least to the second century and concerned when to celebrate Easter. Churches in Asia Minor and Syria followed the Jewish calendar, celebrating Easter on the 14th day of Nisan, the day when the Jews celebrated Passover. It could occur any day of the week. These Christians celebrated Easter on this date because the events of the Passion and resurrection recorded in the Gospels took place around the time of the Jewish Passover. Churches in Rome, Alexandria and Palestine, on the other hand, celebrated Easter on whatever Sunday followed the Jewish celebration of the Passover. They insisted that Easter always be celebrated on a Sunday, the day of the week when Christ rose from the dead. It was an important question for the church because pagans, like Porphyry and the second-century philosopher Celsus, had ridiculed the church for not being able to agree on the celebration of one of its most important commemorations.

While these issues were important, trouble was also brewing on another front that would occasion the calling of the Council of Nicaea. An upstart presbyter in the Alexandrian suburb of Baucalis named Arius had charged his bishop, Alexander, with false doctrine. The historian Socrates reports that Alexander had embarked on too ambitious a theological discussion of the unity of the Trinity in front of his presbyters and the rest of the clergy. Arius publicly challenged him, asserting that Alexander was espousing the heresy of modalism, ignoring the distinctions of the persons in the godhead.

Arius was concerned that the distinction between the Father and the Son was not being maintained. There could be only one creator and originator of all things: God the Father, who had no beginning. Arius challenged Alexander with a logical syllogism: “If the Father had begotten the Son, the one begotten had a beginning to his existence; from this clearly one must conclude that there was a time when the Son did not exist. It then follows necessarily that his substance arose out of nothing.” Arius believed that the Son was a creature — different from the rest of creation, but a creature nonetheless — whom God created to bring the rest of creation, including us, into being.

Over the next five years, the controversy escalated. In the meantime, Constantine became sole emperor in 324, defeating Licinius, his rival in the east who had been persecuting Christians. With this new and hard-fought political unity, Constantine was concerned about the theological dispute taking place in Alexandria. Thinking all of this was simply an argument over words that could be solved through negotiation, he sent his representative Bishop Hosius of Cordoba to Alexandria to try and resolve the matter. Hosius was not successful. Constantine decided to try something that had never been done on the scale he was envisioning. He wanted to call a church council that would include all the bishops of the empire.

The Great Council and the Nicene Creed

The historian Eusebius notes there was some urgency to hold the council: “All hurried eagerly to Nicaea as if competing in a race,” hoping for peace to be restored quickly to the church and the empire, and also eager for a chance to see this emperor who was so favorable toward the church. Somewhere between 250 and 318 bishops attended. These bishops were accompanied by acolytes, deacons, presbyters and others too many to count — perhaps as many as 2,000 — from “Europe, Africa and Asia.” There were also many laymen who were skilled in the art of philosophy and debate, each “eager to advocate the cause of his own party.” Priests and people were invested in this theological debate. It garnered as much attention as the Super Bowl or March Madness does today.

The council was convened sometime around May 20, 325, for preliminary discussions. It most likely officially opened around June 19 or 20. Bishops were seated according to rank and lined the palace hall on both sides, having the decisive vote (votum decisivum) in all matters of church discipline and theology. Constantine entered last, preceded by friends and members of his family, but no military entourage. He addressed the assembly, expressing his deep concern over the division in the church, and implored the bishops to find peace, just as he had brought peace to the land. Just like in the Roman senate, he had no vote. But according to Eusebius, he most likely participated in debate. And there was plenty of debate before the council and during the proceedings.

The key issue of the debates concerned Arius and his insistence that the Son was a creature of the Father, albeit highly exalted. The chief point of contention was the term homoousios (the Son being “of the same essence” with the Father). The Arians rejected this term, believing that it parceled out God’s essence into different entities so that God was no longer one. Further, they argued, since the Son had become incarnate and suffered, this meant He was subject to change; therefore, He could not be God. The orthodox countered that homoousios was the only term that could speak to the unity and equality of the Son with the Father. The Son is “not only like, but also inseparable from the essence of the Father. He and the Father are one [John 10:30].” God took on flesh and suffered in order to change our nature, not His.

After many days of debate, they settled on the wording of the Nicene Creed, utilizing many of the same phrases that had appeared in a creed earlier that year at a council held in Antioch. They sent it to Constantine, noting that there were 18 or so detractors among the Arians. Most of these promptly signed after Constantine threatened them with exile. Arius was exiled, along with a couple of other bishops, and his writings were ordered to be burned (which is why we have to rely on his opponents for most of what we know about his teaching).

We assume the council lasted until July 25, with most bishops staying around to observe the celebration of Constantine’s 20th anniversary as emperor. At the conclusion of the council, the creed was adopted, with threats of banishment for those who disagreed. The council also decided that Easter would be observed on the first Sunday after the vernal equinox. In order to resolve the Meletian schism, the bishops resolved to recognize the ordinations Meletius had performed, although the clergy would be of secondary rank in the churches of their diocese. They also insisted that Meletius not ordain any new clergy. There were 20 disciplinary canons issued as well, concerning clergy misconduct, church discipline for those who had lapsed during the Diocletian persecution, church structure and oversight, the readmission of heretics and schismatics, and liturgical matters. A letter detailing the decisions of the council was sent to Egypt and presumably the rest of the churches. Constantine held a closing banquet and sent the bishops home with parting gifts according to rank, guaranteeing them safe passage home.

Constantine and the bishops had achieved their desired unity through a combination of persuasion and force. The peace was short lived, however, as often happens when there is a forced consensus. Within a decade or so, Arius had been welcomed back, Constantine was baptized on his deathbed by his Arian bishop, and a new era of disunity ensued with Arian emperors and their bishops enforcing a pro-Arian interpretation of Nicaea over the next 50 years. Athanasius faced five exiles for his staunch defense of Nicaea. A second ecumenical council was called by emperor Theodosius I at Constantinople in 381 to resolve the divisions and expand the third article of the creed to take up the subject of the Holy Spirit, where a similar fight occurred over His divinity.

Copied from: https://witness.lcms.org/2025/the-council-of-nicaea/

BIBLE BITS -- Psalm 49

In the past, I had run into quite a few Jehovah's Witnesses.  They are rather slow to get to a confession which puts them outside the Christian Chruch.  They say that Jesus is NOT "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God" (Nicene Creed).  To deny that Jesus is God is to deny the Christian faith, as the Athanasian Creed also confesses very pointedly: "Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe faithfully the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of His mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect Man..."  Note: "It is necessary for everlasting salvation" to believe that Jesus is God.  

I don't expect Jehovah's Witnesses to acknowledge that these creeds are a correct confession of the Bible, especially when the Jehovah's Witnesses have their own unique translation of the Bible which conveniently (and falsely) "translates" verses to validate their false teachings.

I have found Psalm 49 to be especially helpful in this matter (though, to be honest, I don't know how the Jehovah's Witness translation handles this Psalm).  Psalm 49 states, "Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life, for the ransom of their life is costly and can never suffice, that he should live on forever and never see the pit" (Psalm 49:7-9)

Jehovah's Witnesses will confess that Jesus is a man, and even a perfect man.  They confess that Jesus is a creation of God, the first creation, but a creation nonetheless.  As a creation, they claim that Jesus is not eternal and, therefore, not true God.  If that were true, what does Psalm 49 teach?  It teaches that Jesus cannot be the Savior; for, no man can redeem the life of another.  If Jesus is merely a perfect man, he has earned his place in the kingdom of God.  Good for him.  But he does nothing for anyone else.  How could he if no man can ransom another?

But Psalm 49 goes on: "But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol" (Psalm 49:15).  If Jesus is the Savior who delivers us from the grave and from hell (both valid translations for "Sheol"), then he has to be God.  As true man, Jesus is the legitimate substitute for man.  As true God, Jesus' payment counts for everyone.  It is necessary for salvation for this to be true, and it is necessary for salvation to believe this.  

BIBLE BITS: Matthew 5-7

One of the claims that is often made against Jesus is that he never claimed to be God, and that this title was assigned to him later by his apostles and the early Church.  If there is any truth to this claim, it would only be that you will never find a verse in the Bible where Jesus says, "Ahem.  Let me make this as clear as I possibly can: I am God Almighty, Immortal, Eternal.  And don't you ever doubt it!"

Nevertheless, Jesus makes many statements that he could only make if he is God.  If he is not God, then his statements are rank blasphemy and he can be dismissed as a nut-job.  Well, Jesus' enemies DID understand his words clearly enough.  Therefore, they DID accuse him of blasphemy, making himself equal to God.  And since there is only one God, not several who share equal status, then by making himself equal to God, he is saying he IS God!  And while Jesus' enemies did not use the phrase "nut-job," they did accuse him of being possessed by a demon.

So, while people today insist that Jesus never made any claims to be God, his enemies recognized that he did just that.

In today's personal Bible reading, we have one of those instances where Jesus says something that only God could say.  Several times in Matthew 5, Jesus utters a phrase like this: "You have heard that it was said....  But I say to you."  In most cases, the "it was said" phrase is one of the Ten Commandments.  Verse 21 is the 5th Commandment.  Verse 27 is the 6th Commandment.  Verse 38 paraphrases the 8th Commandment.  Jesus does not deny the Commandments.  He intensifies them.  By saying, "But I say to you..." he seems to be trumping the very words of God.  Who would dare do this--unless Jesus IS God?

But that is precisely the claim.  Jesus can speak as one having authority because he does have divine authority.  Jesus has divine authority because he is divine.  

Jesus has, indeed, claimed to be God.  I suppose many will dismiss him as a nut-job or demon-possessed.  It is the joy of the Church to confess with the apostle Thomas, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28)!  And those who refuse to confess Jesus as Lord and God now will be forced to do it one day (Philippians 2:10-11).

Something from ... Martin Luther on the God and man being one in Jesus Christ

The great majesty of Jesus being born is the incarnation of our Lord, that is, that God and man are now united in one person.  This is a high and holy mystery and is worthy of a lifetime of contemplation.  

Martin Luther gives us something to contemplate about this.  While this quotation does not exhaust the mystery of the incarnation (far from it!), it is still worthy of pondering.

“These are marvelous things: to see a man and the lowliest creature humbled below all, to see the same creature sitting at the right hand of the Father and raised above all the angels, and to see Him in the bosom of the Father and soon subjected to the devil, as is stated in Ps. 8:5: ‘Thou hast made Him a little lower than the angels.’  Likewise in Eph. 4:9: ‘He had descended into the lower parts of the earth.’  This is a wonderful ascent and descent of the angels, to see the highest and the lowest completely united in one and the same Person, the highest God lying in the manger.  Therefore the angels adore Him there, rejoice, and sing: ‘Glory to God in the highest’ (Luke 2:14).  On the other hand, when they consider the lowliness of the human nature, they descend and sing: ‘And on earth peace.’” (Martin Luther.  Luther’s Works: American Edition, Volume 5 (Lectures in Genesis, chapters 26-30), p 218.)

Something from ... Pope Leo on the Two Natures of Jesus (3rd entry)

Here is something more from Pope Leo the Great ( c. 400 – 10 November 461) on the two natures of Jesus -- that Jesus is both God and man.  (For a longer introduction on the significance of this teaching and the attack against Christianity which prompted Leo's letter, see this blog entry.)

Pope Leo the Great

After the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD), Pope Leo wrote a letter to Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, regarding Eutyches who had been teaching that Jesus was not really a man, but bore only the form or appearance of a man.  What Pope Leo writes is the correct teaching of the Scripture and the faithful confession of the Church. 

It is a mystery worth pondering, especially as we are coming up on the celebration of the incarnation of our Lord, better known as Christmas.  

Here is another portion of Leo's letter:

"There is nothing unreal about this oneness, since both the lowliness of the man and the grandeur of the divinity are in mutual relation. As God is not changed by showing mercy, neither is humanity devoured by the dignity received. The activity of each form is what is proper to it in communion with the other: that is, the Word performs what belongs to the Word, and the flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. One of these performs brilliant miracles the other sustains acts of violence. As the Word does not lose its glory which is equal to that of the Father, so neither does the flesh leave the nature of its kind behind. We must say this again and again: one and the same is truly Son of God and truly son of man. God, by the fact that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; man, by the fact that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. God, by the fact that all things were made through him, and nothing was made without him, man, by the fact that he was made of a woman, made under the law. The birth of flesh reveals human nature; birth from a virgin is a proof of divine power. A lowly cradle manifests the infancy of the child; angels’ voices announce the greatness of the most High. Herod evilly strives to kill one who was like a human being at the earliest stage the Magi rejoice to adore on bended knee one who is the Lord of all. And when he came to be baptised by his precursor John, the Father’s voice spoke thunder from heaven, to ensure that he did not go unnoticed because the divinity was concealed by the veil of flesh: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Accordingly, the same one whom the devil craftily tempts as a man, the angels dutifully wait on as God. Hunger, thirst, weariness, sleep are patently human. But to satisfy five thousand people with five loaves; to dispense living water to the Samaritan woman, a drink of which will stop her being thirsty ever again; to walk on the surface of the sea with feet that do not sink; to rebuke the storm and level the mounting waves; there can be no doubt these are divine."

Source: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum04.htm

Something from ... Pope Leo on the Two Natures of Jesus (2nd entry)

Here is something more from Pope Leo the Great ( c. 400 – 10 November 461) on the two natures of Jesus -- that Jesus is both God and man.  (For a longer introduction on the significance of this teaching and the attack against Christianity which prompted Leo's letter, see this blog entry.)

Pope Leo the Great

After the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD), Pope Leo wrote a letter to Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, regarding Eutyches who had been teaching that Jesus was not really a man, but bore only the form or appearance of a man.  What Pope Leo writes is the correct teaching of the Scripture and the faithful confession of the Church. 

It is a mystery worth pondering, especially as we are coming up on the celebration of the incarnation of our Lord, better known as Christmas.  

Here is another portion of Leo's letter:

"So without leaving his Father’s glory behind, the Son of God comes down from his heavenly throne and enters the depths of our world, born in an unprecedented order by an unprecedented kind of birth. In an unprecedented order, because one who is invisible at his own level was made visible at ours. The ungraspable willed to be grasped. Whilst remaining pre-existent, he begins to exist in time. The Lord of the universe veiled his measureless majesty and took on a servant’s form. The God who knew no suffering did not despise becoming a suffering man, and, deathless as he is, to be subject to the laws of death. By an unprecedented kind of birth, because it was inviolable virginity which supplied the material flesh without experiencing sexual desire. What was taken from the mother of the Lord was the nature without the guilt. And the fact that the birth was miraculous does not imply that in the lord Jesus Christ, born from the virgin’s womb, the nature is different from ours. The same one is true God and true man."

Sourece: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum04.htm

Something from ... Pope Leo on the Two Natures of Jesus

With Christmas approaching soon enough, we get to ponder once again one of the great mysteries of the Christian faith -- that Jesus is both God and man.  Logic dictates that he must be one or the other.  Scripture asserts that he is completely God and completely man at the same time.  How can this be?  That is the mystery.

Both are essential if Jesus is to be the Savior of the world.  He must be true man if he is to be our true substitute in life and in death.  As true man, Jesus fulfills the Commandments.  So, a man has earned God's favor.  As true man, Jesus dies.  And in Jesus, a man has conquered the grave, overcome death, and opened up heaven to all mankind.

And yet, as the Psalms remind us, "Truly no man can ransom another or give to God the price of his life." (Psalm 49:7)  So, if Jesus is only a man, he earned his spot in heaven.  Good for him; but he would have done nothing for you or me.  Therefore, he has to be God in order for his perfect life and sacrificial death to count for all.

This is not a Lutheran teaching, as if Lutherans invented this teaching.  This is the teaching of the Christian church, the church catholic--with which Lutherans concur.  We are declaring only what the Scriptures declare.  In teaching and confessing this, we find comfort that Jesus is the very Savior we need, and that his work of redemption guarantees our place in God's kingdom.

Pope Leo the Great

This was also decreed after the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) by a letter from Pope Leo I ( c. 400 – 10 November 461) to Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, regarding Eutyches who had been teaching that Jesus was not really a man, but bore only the form or appearance of a man.  What Pope Leo writes is the correct teaching of the Scripture and the faithful confession of the Church.  It is a mystery worth pondering.  Here is a portion of Leo's letter:

"So the proper character of both natures was maintained and came together in a single person. Lowliness was taken up by majesty, weakness by strength, mortality by eternity. To pay off the debt of our state, invulnerable nature was united to a nature that could suffer; so that in a way that corresponded to the remedies we needed, one and the same mediator between God and humanity the man Christ Jesus, could both on the one hand die and on the other be incapable of death. Thus was true God born in the undiminished and perfect nature of a true man, complete in what is his and complete in what is ours. By “ours” we mean what the Creator established in us from the beginning and what he took upon himself to restore. There was in the Saviour no trace of the things which the Deceiver brought upon us, and to which deceived humanity gave admittance. His subjection to human weaknesses in common with us did not mean that he shared our sins. He took on the form of a servant without the defilement of sin, thereby enhancing the human and not diminishing the divine. For that self-emptying whereby the Invisible rendered himself visible, and the Creator and Lord of all things chose to join the ranks of mortals, spelled no failure of power: it was an act of merciful favour. So the one who retained the form of God when he made humanity, was made man in the form of a servant. Each nature kept its proper character without loss; and just as the form of God does not take away the form of a servant, so the form of a servant does not detract from the form of God."

Sourece: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum04.htm