The Ecumenical Creeds 5

The Definition of Chalcedon

This post is part of a series on The Ecumenical Creeds of Christendom. If you would like to go back to the beginning of this series you may do so by clicking HERE.

Just as a man who veers unintentionally into one ditch while driving may overcorrect his steering and so, inadvertently, end up in the ditch on the other side of the road, so also this can happen in matters of family, society, politics, and theology. A harsh and overbearing father sometimes creates libertine children. As with the French Revolution, men sometimes cry out for justice from their oppressors only to become the new regime of oppressors and to deprive the rights of others. Many other such examples could be heaped up besides these, of course, but as with these cases so is the situation which gave rise to the need for yet another creed in Christendom. 

Whereas the Nicene Creed stressed the true divinity of the person of Jesus Christ over and against Arianism it soon became evident that one could fully affirm this creed and yet be in significant error about Christ on another front. While steering away from the error of thinking that Jesus is not truly God some began to teach that he was not truly human. In the study of the person and nature of Christ, which theologians call “Christology,” there are a number of major errors, or heresies, which orthodox Christians have had to combat. One of these has already been addressed, namely the Arian heresy, but some other major Christological errors include Docetism, Nestorianism, Apollinarianism (also known as Monothelitism), and Eutychianism (or Monophysitism). 

Docetism

This heresy denies that Jesus has a true human nature or body. The name of the heresy is derived from the Greek term δόκησις which may be translated variously as “semblance,” “appearance,” or “phantom.” Docetists often claimed that Jesus had what appeared to be a true human body but that this was merely an illusion. 

Nestorianism

This heresy, named after Nestorius of Constantinople, affirms correctly that Jesus had two distinct natures, one human and the other divine, but it errs in stressing the two nature of Christ to the point of affirming two distinct persons in Christ rather than only one person (as Scripture teaches).

Apollinarianism (Monothelitism)

This heresy, named after Apollinaris of Laodicea, affirms that Jesus Christ has a true human body, but it denies that Jesus’ human nature includes a rational mind (or soul). In other words, Jesus had a truly human body and something akin to an animal’s soul (sensible though not rational), but it lacked a truly human soul/mind. According to this heresy the divine nature’s mind, then, made up for the lack of any true human mind, will, or higher soul.

Eutychianism (Monophysitism)

This heresy teaches that in the incarnation of the Word that the human and divine nature were conflated (confused or mixed) with each other and that Jesus’ Christ’s nature was neither human or divine but some new third kind of nature produced by the mixture of the two.

There are many variants of the above heresies and various heretics have articulated each of these in different ways, but these are representative of the kind of issues the church was forced to address. In what is known as the Fourth Ecumenical Council, held in the ancient city of Chalcedon in 451 A.D., the following statement was adopted concerning the person of Jesus Christ in an attempt to clarify against confusion among believers, condemn the false teaching of wolves among the sheep, and to set forth in a straightforward manner, for the whole world, what Christians have always believed and taught concerning who Jesus is according to the Scriptures.

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

When one compares each of the heresies mentioned in the chart above against the Chalcedonian Creed (often referred to as “The Definition of Chalcedon”) it can be seen how each of the heretical positions proposed is carefully addressed and refuted by the language of this statement. The council reaffirmed the biblical teaching that Jesus Christ is truly man (in every sense you and I are human, Jesus is human) and truly God (in every sense the Father and the Spirit are God, Jesus is God). The technical term for this doctrine is “the hypostatic-union.” The term indicates the uniting of the two distinct natures (divine and human) into the one person of Jesus Christ in the incarnation. It may be helpful to break this doctrine down a bit and think about its various aspects individually.

1. The incarnation was real and permanent. When the divine nature  of the second person of the Trinity, the “Word” (λόγος), took on flesh and dwelt among us (as John puts it in his Gospel), he did not merely wrap himself externally in flesh like a robe which could be easily discarded at a later point and which needs to be put on in order to animate it at all. The incarnation was not a pouring of divinity into an empty husk of humanity, it was adding a real human nature to the real divine nature of the Son so that they forevermore coexist in one person. The Son always has been and always will be God, but from the moment of the incarnation, and forever after, the Son has also came to exist as a true human being. Jesus is, right now, God and man.

2. Nature and person are distinct terms denoting different concepts. By the term “nature” Christians mean to say “substance” or the most fundamental powers and qualities possessed by a being which define its very existence. By the term “person” Christians mean to refer to that sense of self or identity that belongs to an individual subject who acts upon the world. In the singular person of Jesus of Nazareth there exists all of the real qualities and powers of divinity and humanity. 

3. Both natures of Christ are complete natures. In other words, whatever is essential to the nature of God (divinity) is true of Jesus Christ. Whatever is essential to the nature of human beings is true of Jesus Christ. Were Jesus not truly human and truly divine, at once united in the same person, then salvation would not be possible. He had to assume whatever he came to save and whatever he did not assume his work of redemption did not reach. If he was not man in every way that all human beings are, then in whatever manner he lacked true humanity, that part of man is not redeemed by his work. If Christ was not truly God in every way that the Father and Spirit are, then his work atonement lacked both in sufficiency and efficacy. 

4. In their coexistence the two natures remain distinct. In the incarnation there is no mixing between the human and divine nature to make a new kind of composite substance. Jesus Christ’s person is not some third thing besides human or divine, he is both human and divine at the same time without any confusion of the two natures. This allows Scripture to speak of the same person (Jesus) as being omnipotent in his divine nature and weary or hungry in his human nature, omniscient in his divine nature and ignorant of something in his human nature, immortal and incapable of death in his divine nature and yet mortal and dying on a cross in his human nature, etc.

The incarnation and hypostatic union of Christ is truly awesome. The humility of our God that he should look on us in our plight and step into the creation he made and take on human form, bear up our weaknesses, conquer our sins and sorrows and even death itself, so that he might restore us to his and our Father. There are no words sufficient to fully grasp this great miracle, but we honor him by doing our best to speak about Christ as he speaks about himself in the Scriptures. This is what the Definition of Chalcedon has attempted to do, to say what God has said, to make clear and summarize what God has revealed in his word. It has done this very well.

Study Questions

Grammar Questions: (The Information of the Text)

1. What analogy was given to explain the need for The Definition of Chalcedon?

2. What biblical doctrine did The Definition of Chalcedon particularly defend?

3. What is the heresy of Docetism?

4. What is the heresy of Nestorianism?

5. What is the heresy of Apollinarianism?

6. What is the heresy of Eutychianism?

7. What is the theological term for the biblical concept of Christ having two natures but only one person?

8. When the Word of God took on flesh, for how long did he take to himself a human nature?

9. What does the term “nature” designate in The Definition of Chalcedon?

10. What does the term “person” designate in The Definition of Chalcedon?

11. What would not be possible if Jesus were “not truly human and truly divine?”

12. What does Christ’s having two distinct natures in one person “allow Scripture to speak of” concerning Jesus Christ?

Logic Questions: (Interpreting, Comparing/Contrasting, Reasoning)

1. Why might some people have been inclined to believe the heresy of Docetism? What could motivate such a false belief?

2. Considering Nestorianism, Apollinarianism, and Eutychianism together, why do you think these different errors came to be? What do they have in common and how might this explain their origin?

3. The Definition of Chalcedon refers to Mary as “the Mother of God.” What do you think the writers of this creed mean by this? Why might some people object to this language? Why might some people strongly favor this language? 

4. Why is the permanence of the incarnation important? In other words, why would it have not been okay for the Word of God simply to take on a human form for a time and then later discard it?

5. Why is the distinction between the terms “nature” and “person” critically important in discussing the incarnation of Christ? 

6. Why is it essential that Christ should have both the divine and human natures in their most complete sense? In other words, why would it be insufficient for Jesus to be only mostly human or mostly divine?

7. Why would the mixing of the two natures of Christ (human and divine) be a problem? How does their distinction help us understand what we see in the Gospels better?

Rhetoric Questions: (The Analysis of Ideas in the Text)

1. Is it possible for someone to subscribe to one of the heresies mentioned in this reading and yet still be a true lover and follower of Jesus Christ? If so, why do you think so? If not, why not?

2. How important is it for the average Christian to study theology and to gain a more technical understanding of the faith? What is the appropriate level of expectations we should place on believers to be theologically savvy? Are there any dangers in either over or underemphasizing the need to study theology? Explain your thoughts carefully.

Theological Analysis: (Sola Scriptura)

1. Read 1 John 1:1-4. How does this passage of Scripture undermine the claim of the docetists who argued Jesus had no real human body but merely the appearance of it?

2. Read John 17:1-5. How does this passage help to demonstrate that though Jesus has both a human and a divine nature he is, nevertheless, only one person?

3. Read Matthew 26:36-46. How does this passage of Scripture make clear that Jesus truly had a human will in addition to a divine will?

4. Read John 4:1-30. How does this passage illustrate both the human and divine nature in the person of Jesus Christ?

5. Read Luke 2:41-52. How does this passage illustrate both the human and divine nature in the person of Jesus Christ?