Heresies 5

Overview

Nestorianism and the Two Natures of Christ

Nestorius, a bishop of Constantinople in 428 AD, taught that the divine and human natures of Christ have no real communion with one another. Picture two boards glued together side by side: joined in proximity, but with no sharing of properties between them. Nestorius further claimed that Mary did not give birth to God, but rather to a man Jesus who was then adopted as the Son. Scripture decisively refutes this. The angel tells Mary that "the child to be born will be holy; he will be called the Son of God" Luke 1:35, and Elizabeth calls Mary "the mother of my Lord" Luke 1:43. Paul writes that "when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman" Galatians 4:4. Christ's true humanity is essential for our redemption Hebrews 2:14, and his true divinity is what gives us confidence that he holds the keys of death and Hades Revelation 1:17.

The orthodox confession is that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man—not a percentage split, not a new third substance, not two natures merely glued together. As the Athanasian Creed puts it, "As the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one in Christ." The Formula of Concord likewise teaches that "God is man and man is God, which could not be if the divine and human natures had indeed and truth absolutely no communion with one another." The two natures are so united that what belongs to one can be truly said of the whole person, while each retains its own characteristics.

Why This Matters for the Lord's Supper

Nestorianism is not merely a fifth-century curiosity. At the Reformation, Ulrich Zwingli reasoned that since Christ's human body is in heaven, his body and blood cannot be truly present in the bread and wine on earth. Underneath that argument lies a Nestorian assumption: that the human nature can be cordoned off from the divine. From Zwingli flows the memorial view of communion now common in many traditions. Lutherans confess instead what Scripture plainly says: "Take, eat; this is my body… this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" Matthew 26:26-28. Paul confirms it: "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" 1 Corinthians 10:16. The word is means is.

Three understandings of communion can be summarized this way: the Roman Catholic view (transubstantiation) says the bread and wine are changed into body and blood; the Baptist/Reformed memorial view says the bread and wine merely represent or symbolize body and blood; the Lutheran confession, drawn from Scripture, is that the body and blood of Christ are truly given with the bread and wine—"in, with, and under"—for the forgiveness of sins. The sacrament is made valid not by the pastor's power but by Christ's own word, and the sacramental action belongs to the eating and drinking itself.

Pastoral Application

The doctrine of Christ's two natures is not abstract speculation; it guards the Gospel's comfort. Because the divine nature so permeates the human nature in the one person of Christ, the risen and exalted Jesus can give us his very body and blood at his table. If communion were only a memorial, it would throw us back upon our own minds, our own remembering, our own decisions—offering no concrete word of forgiveness from outside ourselves. But because Christ is truly present, the sacrament is God's tangible "for you": take, eat, drink, and know your sins are forgiven. The Word made flesh still comes to feed his people, and that is the assurance the church has confessed against every heresy that would divide him.

Transcript

Races seven, they father, thank you for this time now in your word, your word is truth. 0s

Thank you for the privilege of delving in to your word and by your Holy Spirit, 5s

plumbing the depths of it, the breadth of it, the height of it. We ask now, O Lord, that as we study 13s

today, that we might be embraced by your word and go forth with clarity of proclamation, in Jesus' 21s

man. Well last week we took a look at a group of folks called the Sibelians and you'll recall that 30s

the Sibelians said that the members of the Trinity are not distinct persons and at the heart of 38s

Sibelianism is what is called monolithic monarchy andism, which is just a fancy way of saying 47s

that those who hold up to this to this heresy and it consists of about 25% of charismatic 53s

pentacostals will hold to this is that God simply appears in different forms. It's one God 62s

correct. The incorrectness is that there's not distinct members of the Trinity, but the belief is 72s

that sometimes the Father, God will simply appear as the Father, other times he'll appear as the 79s

Son, other times he'll appear as the Holy Spirit. It's what's called the Oneness Pentecostal 85s

Movement. We affirmed of course the scriptural understanding that we believe in one God, 94s

three persons, one essence and how at our baptism we are given the right take on God. That is 99s

children we are adopted by the Father. We're joined to the death and resurrection of Jesus and 107s

the Holy Spirit is poured out upon us. Well today I'd like to explore with you a group called the 112s

Nistorians. The Nistorians. And this is a really interesting group and there was a person later on 120s

will get to it by the name of Svingli that held to the Nistorian understanding and that then fed 134s

into an understanding that has played out in terms of communion by held by many people and the 143s

roots of it the memorial understanding of communion really has its roots you can trace it all the way 155s

back to Svingli and you can go even further back into the Nistorianism. So it's an interesting 163s

exploration I think. Nistorius was a bishop of the Church of Constantinople in 428 AD and Nistorius 172s

simply said this that the two natures of Christ don't have communion with each other. The two 184s

natures of Christ don't have communion with each other. In other words there's no sharing of the 191s

characteristics. If I could give you an image here for Nistorius it would be this. Nistorius believed 197s

that you had the divinity of Jesus Christ you had the humanity of Jesus Christ and there were 203s

like two boards that were stuck together but there's no communion between the humanity and the divinity. 208s

You've just got two stuck boards together. Nistorius also taught that Mary did not give birth to 216s

God but that Mary's son Jesus was adopted by the Father as the son. Well a quick read through 228s

scripture can really take care of that argument. Go to Luke the first chapter. Would you please 238s

Luke chapter 1 verse 35 Matthew Mark and then Luke Luke chapter 1 verse 35 244s

and remember most of the heresies in the in the Church stand back to a misunderstanding of the 261s

Trinity and a misunderstanding of the two natures of Christ as where most heresies have their roots 271s

in the church. Well on Luke the first chapter verse 35 we read this the angel said to her 278s

the Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the most high will overshadow you. 289s

Therefore the child to be born will be holy he will be called son of God jumping over 296s

into verse 43 of chapter 1 and why has this happened to me that the mother of my Lord comes to me. 305s

Let's go over into Galatians the fourth chapter Matthew Mark Luke and John, 318s

Acts and then Romans, 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians, Galatians and then Ephesians, 324s

but Galatians chapter 4 verse 4 332s

and there we read but when the fullness of time had come God sent his son born of a woman 347s

born under the law in order to redeem those who were under the law so that we may receive adoption 357s

as children. Notice the phrase here but when the fullness of time had come God sent his son born 365s

of a woman. It's important that Jesus was not merely adopted as God's son but that he is truly 375s

God's son in human flesh. Let's go to Hebrews chapter 2 keep turning toward revelation. 385s

You'll eventually start crossing over the tea books. You're going to hit Titus 395s

by Lehman and then you bump into Hebrews. Hebrews chapter 2 verse 14. 404s

Since therefore the children share flesh and blood he himself likewise shared the same things. 418s

So that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death that is the devil. 427s

So the humanity is absolutely crucial because indeed he is dying in our place and so our sin 436s

is placed upon him. Let's go over to Revelation chapter 1 verse 17. Revelation 1 verse 17. 444s

Here's a reference to the divinity of Christ which gives us the confidence that indeed he can 466s

defeat death and hell. Revelation chapter 1 verse 17. When I saw him I fell at his feet as 472s

though dead but he placed his right hand on me saying do not be afraid I'm the first in the 480s

last and the living one. I was dead and see I am alive forever and ever and I have the keys of 485s

death and of Hades. So indeed Jesus Christ had to be true God and true man the two natures of 493s

Christ and remember it's not a percentage where we say 60 40 or 70 70 30 he's a hundred percent 503s

God he's a hundred percent human. Historia's then believed that the two natures of Christ then 509s

were held together like two boards and these two natures don't have communion with each each other. 519s

Scripture however compares that the two natures of Christ it compares it to the union that is ours 531s

of body and soul. The two natures of Jesus Christ are not so mingled that they form a new composition. 539s

Scripture never says that. They are not changed into one another. Scripture doesn't say that. 552s

The divine nature so permeates the human nature and the human nature so permeates the divine 561s

nature that you have one person. The Athanasian Creed which is as long as a sermon it's why we don't 568s

use it. It's a fantastic fantastic Creed revolving around the Trinity. Athanasian Creed has this line. 575s

As the reasonable soul and flesh is one man so God and man is one in Christ. So the two natures in 587s

all respects are united yet in such a way that they hold their individual characteristics. 596s

So a new composition is informed but there is such a uniting here it's not like two boards stuck 605s

together. There's such a uniting of the divine and human nature here that there's uniting however 610s

each retains its own characteristics. The formula of conquered which is part of our doctrinal 618s

writings puts it this way. Hence we believe, teach and confess that God is man and man is God 625s

which could not be if the divine and human natures had indeed and truth absolutely no communion 634s

with one another. Let me read that to you again. Hence we believe teaching confess that God is man 643s

and man is God which could not be if the divine and human natures had indeed and truth absolutely 649s

no communion with one another. There was no sharing of the characteristics. So an 657s

an historic belief then that the two natures don't have communion with each other. 665s

Two glued boards. Okay so how does that play out? How does that play out and why is it so important 673s

that the church four years later after he became a bishop said you're a heretic and condemned 683s

the bishop of Constantinople. Why did the church say this is really important? The 693s

storyanism is not just a fifth century heresy. In fact you go to the Reformation the time of 701s

Luther and there was a fellow by the name of Svengli. Luther could not stand Svengli. I mean he just 708s

couldn't stand him. Svengli was the one that that Luther had the reported debate with where they're 718s

sitting at a table and they're arguing about communion and Luther and Luther's subtle way takes 728s

out his knife puts it into the table and he carves the word is into the table and underlines it 733s

with the knife and Luther was maintaining the real presence of Christ that when Jesus says this is 740s

my body and this is my blood that indeed what God says is is means is and so so Luther could not 749s

stand Svengli. He had disagreements with with Calvin most most certainly but there was a 759s

an acceptance on Luther's part in terms of of Calvin Svengli that was oil and water between the 770s

two of them. So time of Reformation you've got an historianism as the as the background Svengli 780s

comes and and what he's done is he's taken the very underpinnings of historianism and he says this 788s

he says if Jesus Christ is true God and true man and Jesus is in heaven and the divine and the 799s

human have been joined together for for all time which is correct when Jesus became 812s

and fleshed we celebrate of course at Christmas the incarnation that is is the forever joining there 818s

of the divine and the human the two natures of Christ. So in Svengli said well if Jesus is in heaven 826s

and he's true God and true man then there's no way for it to be the body and blood of Jesus that 837s

is received in heaven because how do you receive the physical body and blood of Jesus if Jesus is in 850s

heaven. So that that's where the underpinnings of historianism it starts to play out in Svengli 861s

and Svengli says no you don't receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ at holy community 873s

Jesus is not truly there as us Lutherans maintain based on Scripture Svengli said communion is a 880s

remembrance of what Jesus Christ has done for us and he based it upon the historian belief 890s

that the two natures of Christ don't commune with each other. You see how is it that we say that Jesus Christ 903s

is truly present in the bread and wine for the forgiveness of sins because we say God is man and man 912s

is God and the two natures while they don't combine here to form a new composition you have the 920s

two natures so joined together that where the divine nature is there must by necessity be why the 931s

human nature why because it's so pulled together. Presbyterians struggle with this. Presbyterians 940s

will talk about the spiritual presence of Jesus in communion they deny the real presence of Christ 947s

but but Svengli and you see Svengli here with the basis of the historianism then he's got the problem 958s

here about well if the human nature is in heaven then how can it be here then it really can't be 965s

the human nature so then it is all memorial that memorial understanding birthed out of Svengli 970s

as played out in a host of different denominational understandings of communion that denies the real presence 979s

of Jesus in the in the sacrament. Take a look with me please at Matthew chapter 26 990s

Matthew chapter 26 verse 26 1002s

so I am I am not please hear me I am not throwing a straight line from an 1021s

storyus to the memorial understanding of communion I'm throwing a straight line from the 1027s

storyus to Svengli right and then Svengli's memorial understanding and then it plays out on that 1034s

to just so you have that clarity. Matthew chapter 26 verse 26 while they were eating Jesus took a 1043s

breath and after blessing it he broke it gave it to the disciples and said take eat this is my body 1053s

then he took a cup and after giving thanks he gave it to them saying drink from it all of you 1061s

for this is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 1066s

Does that sound kind of familiar to you right whatever communion is done you got the words of 1075s

institution is based on Matthew chapter 26 Luther maintained and I think correctly so that the verb 1081s

is means is that scripture doesn't say it represents it doesn't say it symbolizes that when Jesus 1088s

birthed holy communion there just before the cross he says this is my body this is my blood let's go 1100s

over to 1 Corinthians the 10th chapter 1 Corinthians chapter 10 verse 16 1110s

the cup of blessing that we bless is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ the bread that we 1127s

break is it not a sharing in the body of Christ so the question that us Lutherans say is how can 1136s

you participate in the in the body and blood of Jesus Christ if he is not present there in the cup 1145s

and in the bread you can't say as scripture says here that we are participating in the very body 1151s

and blood of Christ so you've got an historicism then 5th century swingley comes along he's got 1161s

the same problem with the with the natures of Christ that plays out in communion and there you see 1169s

this this birthing of the understanding of the memorial understanding of communion so let me let me 1177s

hear the the three understandings of communion and we'll see if we can guess which one is the correct 1186s

one here okay so you've got we've got three three understandings one one understanding is that there 1197s

is no bread in communion there's no wine in communion what you have is you have the body 1209s

and blood of Jesus and the key word is changed into so this is the belief that in in communion you 1222s

don't have the the bread and the and the wine you have the body and blood of the Lord Jesus that 1237s

that indeed he is he is present and the key is changed into can anyone guess what denomination this 1243s

is yep there you go we got some former Catholics here that that recognize this true or Piscopelian I 1252s

would say for you Marcy or Catholic too okay okay yeah this is this is the view of what's 1260s

called a transubstantiation that's the Catholic view that when you when you look at the at the 1269s

elements in communion they may look like bread and wine but they have lost the property of bread and 1276s

wine they only have the appearance of that that's that that's the Catholic view the Lutheran understanding 1282s

the little phrase maybe back to your confirmation days if you've grown up a Lutheran that Jesus Christ 1288s

is truly present in the bread and wine for the forgiveness of sins that's a small catechism and the 1294s

little phrase that Christ is present in with and under the the bread and wine that's just that's just 1299s

a little phrase that that is going right after transubstantiation to to refute transubstantiation 1307s

because Luther said no in scripture Jesus highlights that there's bread and there's a cup and he says 1316s

body and a blood so Luther said that the Holy Communion is the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ 1324s

given with bread and wine for the forgiveness of sins okay now here's the here's the second one 1336s

bread and communion you've got bread and wine you have the body and blood of Jesus Christ 1345s

and the key word is is okay who's that that's us right that's us and and that's scripture 1358s

what the scripture says that indeed you've got bread and wine body and blood the key word is is 1369s

okay there's another understanding in communion you've got bread and wine 1374s

no body and blood 1382s

yeah 1388s

key word is represents and symbol yeah yeah that's yeah Baptist right it's that's Baptist 1389s

it's great you say here you go there you go yeah so you got you've got three different 1402s

understand you got transubstantiation you've got bread and wine here and the key word of is and 1407s

then you've got represents and the symbol okay let me let me approach it this way here 1412s

which one of these is correct the two 1419s

becomes four the two remain two or the two become two and what is meant here is bread and wine 1429s

so which one is the is the is the correct understanding here the two becomes four 1448s

the two remain two or the two become two yeah it's number one right what is holy communion holy 1454s

communion is the body and blood of Jesus Christ given with bread and wine for the forgiveness of sin 1465s

which one is this yeah that's Baptist theology memorial understanding and which one is this 1473s

it's Catholic understanding right right 1492s

yeah yeah yeah there's there's nothing that affects a sacrament by what a Lutheran pastor does in 1500s

fact that was a a big deal when the denomination we were formally a part of was merging in 1508s

for altering pulpit fellowship with the Episcopals Episcopals believe that at one's 1516s

ordination the priest is given special power by the fact that they are ordained to make the 1522s

sacrament than a sacrament in the Lutheran Church we say is absolutely nothing about us 1531s

that that makes the sacrament the sacrament know what makes the sacrament the sacrament is can you 1541s

guess the word right it it's just the it's just a word that's what makes the sacrament the sacrament 1546s

and so there were a bunch of us that when that was that was coming about we we said this is an 1554s

absolute denial of our of our Lutheran doctrine here and and of course the response that we that we 1563s

got was you you you don't have to believe it you just have to do it I kid you not that was a response 1573s

that came out of the bishops office on that and and really in the agreement it was it was waiting for 1580s

months our our term that we put on ourselves months like myself that were not ordained in historic 1587s

succession which the Episcopals say you have to be ordained in in order to get this special power 1597s

they said we'll enter into this agreement until people like Ible die off you see and then 1602s

everybody's going to be in historic succession so that the Episcopal understanding of communion 1609s

then is what what dominates I mean that was that was just the early seeds of a denomination leaving 1616s

the authority of the word of God abandoning abandoning a doctor on that yeah right that was that 1623s

was the plan that that was the plan because we lost we lost the vote on that and and the 1634s

understanding of of communion then was was was changed yeah in terms of of how communion is made 1640s

efficacious in in the in the Lutheran understanding sometimes you will hear this word 1649s

uh banard about with with the Catholic understanding you've got transubstantiation and sometimes 1656s

you'll hear people say the the Lutheran understanding is con substantiation that's actually not not true 1663s

because con substantiation means that that a a whole new substance is is formed so so 1670s

con substantiation is is not a correct terminology to put on on Lutheranism um sometimes you'll you'll 1682s

hear what's called impanation i m p a n a t i o o n which means that the that the body of Christ 1689s

is is localized inside the bread as if you kind of tunnel in you could you could get to it that's not 1699s

phrase is in with and under the the bread and wine so that as we receive the bread and wine 1711s

we receive the body and blood of Christ that Christ is truly present um in that bread and wine 1719s

for the forgiveness of our sins and how is that possible if Christ at this very moment is exalted 1727s

in heaven itself and he is there divine and human it's possible because you've got the communion 1735s

of the properties you've got the communion of the two natures that you don't have two 1742s

we 1765s

yeah because because you're getting right at the heart of the of the sacrament that indeed Christ 1778s

has established a stack sacrament for the purpose of the delivery of the assurance of our forgiveness 1785s

through Christ and so when we come to the table if communion is simply that which is a mental 1794s

exercise for us to remember back to the cross and the resurrection of Jesus Christ that offers no 1801s

comfort because you're throwing someone back upon themselves to their own mental approach which 1810s

interestingly ties into the whole synergistic understanding of I'll pick on our Baptist brothers 1818s

and sisters here again the whole synergistic understanding of cooperation in their salvation 1825s

which in the end throws you back on yourself and the decision you make as opposed to the decision 1831s

that God has made for you um if you if you deny the real presence of Christ then you also don't have 1836s

any comfort for someone when they receive the the sacrament which is that concrete way of God 1843s

saying your sins are forgiven swallow it you know it is for you yeah so it's the denial of the 1851s

sacramental nature that makes this a really important issue in the life of the church I've got 1861s

like two more minutes I'll let me just wrap this up and can I get you later on Bruce okay 1867s

when we receive holy communion the sacramental action only pertains to when we are 1875s

are eating and drinking so in other words if if we went into the words of institution in holy 1884s

communion and then we said never mind we wouldn't have the sacrament there because the sacrament 1892s

only occurs when you are consuming it that's why at the end of the of the service you you don't have 1900s

the the bread and the body and blood of Christ taken off and and going to the sacristy and as it 1910s

is on the plate there you still have the body and blood of Christ know what do you have you've 1918s

got remains of the bread right you've got the remains of the wine that's very various practices 1923s

that that churches do some will say out of respect for how it is how it is used we'll spread it 1930s

on the ground other churches will we'll just consume the rest of the of the bread because why 1935s

why let it go to waste or take the remaining wine and and pour it into the reserve to be used 1944s

next time but it's not as if you have the the bread and the wine or the body and blood Christ still 1951s

remaining that's why just as a little aside we don't have an acolyte coming along side in case 1958s

any crumbs are spilled at the at the at the communion rail right because it it only occurs in the 1968s

in the actual eating of the sacramental action that you've got the the sacrament so when you go all 1978s

the way back to the storyus that had implications on swingley that then has implications for how 1989s

communion is understood because swingley was basing off of the storyus in the understanding of 1998s

the lack of communion of the two natures and conceived of the two natures as a board stuck together 2007s

um I'd encourage you to to read the Athanasian creed it's an incredible creed gets at the whole 2016s

understanding of the Trinity gets at the one god three persons one essence well we're going to 2024s

continue next week and we're going to say who were the Utakeans who are the Utakeans what were 2032s

they all about and what the world did they believe we'll continue next week 2040s