As I noted in the previous post, 1700 years ago this year church leaders gathered together in the city of Nicaea (present day Iznik, Turkey). The primary reason for this gathering was to solve a crisis that had developed concerning beliefs about Jesus due to the influence of a man named Arius. Therefore, it is unsurprising that the bulk of the creed produced at this Council concerns the person of Jesus (other sections were added in the 381 revision that we usually call the Nicene Creed).
Here is what the Nicene Creed of 325 says concerning the person of Jesus:
“And [we believe] in one Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, the Only Begotten, begotten from the Father, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, Light for Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial; through all things were made, those in heaven and those on earth” (translation from Jared Ortiz and Daniel Keating, The Nicene Creed: A Scriptural, Historical, and Theological Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2024])
This lengthy explanation uses some terms that may be familiar to Christians today but whose significance may not be fully appreciated. In addition, there are also a number of words or phrases that seem unusual to contemporary ears or a bit redundant that are worth exploring as well. After walking through some of these elements, I’ll return to the overarching message we find in these words.
“One Lord Jesus Christ”
It is pretty common for Christians to refer to Jesus as Lord, often in the context of saying that Jesus is one’s Lord and Savior. That is a fitting title for Jesus, as it is one that we see applied to Jesus at numerous points in the New Testament (e,g., Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 12:3; Corinthians 4:5; Philippians 2:9-11). In fact, nearly every letter in the New Testament will use the phrase “the Lord Jesus Christ.” The familiarity of this title, though, may cause us to overlook the particular wording here in the creed. Because the Nicene Creed opens by saying, “We believe in one God, the Father almighty,” we are likely to expect (and maybe even assume) that this line would start with the idea of Jesus being the son of God. But rather than saying “His Son” or “the Son,” it starts by saying that we believe in “one Lord” and then identifies that Lord as Jesus. This wording recalls what the Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 8:6, when he speaks about one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. That passage points back to the important confession in Deuteronomy 6:4 (often called the Great Shema), which declares that there is one God and that this God’s name is Yahweh – which is translated as “Lord.” The creed is thus applying the name of God to Jesus here and equating him with the one true God; the Bible declares that there is one Lord (e.g., Isaiah 45:18, 23), and in calling Jesus “Lord,” we proclaim that he is this God.
“Begotten”
Another word that could be familiar to Christians but may not be understood is the word “begotten,” which appears multiple times in the creed. The familiarity with this word is not due to its use in everyday speech but rather from its use in a famous Bible passage (John 3:16) in the old King James Version: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” There is some debate, however, on whether this is the best way to render the underlying Greek word in this passage, so you often won’t find it translated this way in modern translation but rather as the “one and only son.”
We need to remember, though, that the creed seeks to help us understand what the Bible teaches and will do so both by drawing direct wording from the Bible but also in supplying other sorts of phrases at times to bring clarity; just as we don’t define a word by using the word itself, we may have to use words that are not directly in the Bible to help us understand what the wording of the Bible means. The idea of “begotten” is embedded within the concept of a father-son relationship, as the word “begotten” means to bring a child into existence. A son is thus by definition “begotten.”
The creed doesn’t just say that Jesus was begotten by the Father but that he is the “only begotten,” pointing to the idea that Jesus is the Son of God in a way that differs from us being called “sons” or “children of God.” Jesus speaks repeatedly about his special relationship to the Father, showing that he is not calling God “father” in the same way that we might. In addition, the creed notes that he is begotten “from the Father, that is, from the substance of the Father,” and that he is “begotten, not made.” Jesus is not a creature that God made but rather one “begotten” of the Father; in the same way that human fathers make human children who thus share in that same nature, so Jesus as Son is of the same quality and status as the Father.
I recognize that the phrase “begotten” may make it sound like there was a time that Jesus was not in existence, being “born” at a point in time. However, we need to remember that this is something of an analogy, using language that we can understand to make a point. The nature of such language proves some point, but the comparison does not extend to every point. The point that is being affirmed here is not that Jesus had a beginning but that he is equal to God. This stress is confirmed by the fact the creed notes that he is “from the substance of the Father.” In addition, the creed later makes it clear that Jesus has no beginning in a couple of ways. One is that it states that all things, including those things in heaven, were made by the Lord Jesus Christ, which means that he is not a created angelic being. In addition, the creed later explicitly rules out the idea (which was taught by Arius) that Jesus had a beginning (I’ll deal with that section in another post). The revision of the Nicene Creed in 381 seeks to bring more clarity to this topic in noting that this begetting is “before the ages” and thus eternal. Therefore, the language does not emphasize beginning or birth but rather status and nature in line with the overarching point of this section being that Jesus is not less than God but is God, a concept that other words within the creed also make clear.
“God from God, Light for Light, true God from true God”
These words from the creed can be a little confusing and seem a little redundant. Why bring this reference to light? And why say he is “God from God” and then again “true God from true God”? The reference to light comes from the fact that God is often said to be light in Scripture (Psalm 27:1; 1 John 1:5), making it another way of describing deity. Jesus’s words about light (e.g., John 8:12; 12:46) and words about him being light (John 1:9) make this a fitting connection. The double reference to God and the addition of the phrase “true” the second time is a reminder that this was the very issue being discussed and clarified at the council due to Arius’s teaching; rather than being redundant, this phrase points to emphasis (while also drawing upon biblical imagery, as Jesus is called “true God” in 1 John 5:20). Therefore, we should not just gloss over it but linger on it, to make sure that we are getting the point it is making as it is essential. And that point is that Jesus is not a lower being, one like God but less than God, rather, he is distinct from God the Father but equal to God and to be called God.
“Consubstantial”
Another phrase that is likely odd to our ears today is “consubstantial.” The Greek word here could also be translated as “of the same substance,” which may use words that are less odd to us but still need explanation. In many ways, these words were the pivotal point of discussion at the council as the issue was whether Jesus is God or is like God. The council could have chosen a word that would have noted that Jesus is of “similar substance” from the Father and some may have preferred that as it would have made even more clear that the Father and the Son are different persons but equal in quality. However, the danger that the council was trying to confront was not too close of an association of the Father and Son that eliminated any distinction between them (what is often called “modalism” in that one sees the Father and Son as the same but in different manifestations). Instead, it was trying to confront those who drew too great a separation between the Father and the Son and in the process were lowering the divine status of Jesus. Therefore, this phrase was chosen as a way to show that the Father and the Son are not different gods nor that Jesus is lower than the Father but have the same qualities and essence, meaning that Jesus is not inherently inferior to or subordinate to the Father. It also means that it is not that each is “part” of God that then adds up to one God. How exactly this works is not explained, likely because human words might not be able to fully explain this. In my mind, the oddity of this English word may be a good reminder of the mystery that it seeks to reflect.
The Bottom Line: Jesus is Divine
This section points to the purpose of the council as a whole and this creed it produced: Jesus is not less than God but is God Himself. Therefore, we are called to worship the Lord Jesus Christ as the one true God. Help us not just to understand these words but to celebrate and apply the truth that is found in them, looking to Jesus and proclaiming like Thomas does in John 20:28, “My Lord and my God.”
Questions about the Bible or theology? Email them to Pastor Brian at Theology@WeAreFaith.org. You can also request to receive weekly emails with our blog posts by filling out the information on the right side.
