Introduction
After the whirlwind of events surrounding the second Council of Ephesus (449), which would later be called the Robber’s Synod, Flavian the Patriarch of Constantinople (from 447-449), lay dead due to injuries inflicted by a beating from Alexandrian monks who were energized by Patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscorus (died 454), and by extension Eutyches’ (378-454) victory at the council. Dioscorus and the Alexandrians had successfully swung the official position on Christ’s two natures to the extreme Alexandrian position. Prior to the events of the council, Flavian had written to Pope Leo I, informing Leo, that Eutyches was reviving the heresies of Apollinarius and Valentinus.[1] Leo would respond with his Tome, which would be the primary source used in forming the Chalcedonian Definition, but it would not be read, as Dioscorus strong-armed the council and prevented it from being read. Rather, the heretic Eutyches would be reinstated, and the Formula of Union (433) would be overturned resulting in the official stance on Christology moving to the extreme Alexandrian position that over emphasized Christ’s deity to the point of losing His humanity.[2] Dioscorus used political influence and power to claim the victory, and it cost a man his life. This, however, was not simply a political stunt, rather the theological battle of this time took place due to real convictions and beliefs about Who Christ was and how His human and divine natures were to be understood and stated. Wrong or right, blood has been shed on the theological battlefield of Christology. What is believed about Jesus, His incarnation, the Virgin Birth, and His dual natures matters. It mattered to men in the past, and it matters today as error concerning Who Christ is costly to the Church today. Chalcedon was an attempt to deal with these errors that had sprung up over time in the early Church.
Eutyches believed that Christ’s divine nature had devoured or ate up His human nature, resulting in a third type of human-divine hybrid. Euthychianism followed various other Christological heresies of the time, as it specifically appeared in the aftermath of Nestorianism. Nestorius (381-451) argued that Mary the Virgin was not to be called theotokos (mother of God).[3] For Nestorius calling her this would over stress Jesus’ humanity. Nestorius had learned this from his teacher Theodore, the Bishop of Mopsuestia, who developed his Antiochene Christology in response to the heresies of Apollinarius (300-390).[4] Apollinarius asserted that Christ did not have a human soul, rather He had a divine soul, thereby making Him not truly human. It was in response to these errors, amongst other older errors, that made the Council of Chalcedon (451) necessary. Biblical clarity is the best response to error, and this was the goal and result of the Council of Chalcedon, as expressed in the Chalcedonian Definition. The Definition sought to establish an orthodox understanding of the Divine Son, asserting that Christ was One Person in two natures: a truly human nature and a truly divine nature. The orthodox position that God the Son incarnate is One Person with a human and a divine nature, as established at the Council of Chalcedon best represents the Biblical data on the person of Christ and His incarnation. This can be demonstrated by surveying both the Biblical and historical materials upon which the definition stands.
Examining the Biblical Data
Analysis of Key Christological Texts
John 1:1-18
The prologue of John’s Gospel clearly presents Jesus of Nazareth as God the Son incarnate Who has both a human and divine nature. John begins by echoing the words of Genesis, “In the beginning,” with a key difference in that it focuses on the Λόγος(Word) of God, the eternal Son, placing Him in eternity past with God the Father (Jn 1:1).[5] With the word λόγος here meaning that the preincarnate Son, is the message of God, Who in the passage’s context, reveals God by taking on flesh. In the Apostle John’s portrayal, the Son did not find His beginning at the Virgin Birth or the immaculate conception, which is where Matthew and Luke begin their narratives, rather the Son is with the Father before creation. Not only is He with the Father, but John states that the “Word was God” (ESV, Jn 1:1). Christ “was with God” and “was God” which rather explicitly expresses sameness and distinction simultaneously (1).[6] Hitting here at both the doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of the Son, John makes clear from the very first sentence that the Son is God, while also being distinct but not separate from God, He is the second Person of the Trinity Who is eternally co-equal with the Father and of the same essence of the Father.
The Son is then credited with being instrumental in creation, in that “All things were made through him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made” (3). John leaves no room for speculation here: stated plainly he says the Son is God: stated implicitly through the Son’s work in creation He is God because He does what the Father is also attributed with doing—creating all things (Gen 1:1). It is almost as if He foresees objections on both sides: if the Son is God, then why does He not do what God does? He does. All has been created through Him and nothing was made apart from Him (Jn 1:3, 10). Or, if the Son does works that only God can do then surely, He must be God. To that truth John again would say, He is (1).
John not only speaks to the divinity of the Son in his prologue but also to His humanity. The Word of God “became flesh and dwelt among us” (ESV, Jn 1:14). The word for flesh here is σαρζ likely refers to human nature in this passage, while in other uses of the word it refers to the physicality of the human body or even earthly existence, but here human nature in its fulness is in view.[7] The word’s use here emphasizes that the Word, Who is God, and Who has eternally existed with God has become God in human flesh. The Son has taken on a human nature or added a human nature. The adding of Christ’s human nature must be understood here as the result of divine action (i.e., the Preincarnate Son taking on flesh).[8] Prior to or apart from the divine action of the incarnation there is not a separate existence of the human nature of Christ.[9] This can be drawn clearly from John’s prologue, as before time the Son was with the Father (1), and it is when He came and dwelt among humans that He took on flesh (14), but prior to this there was no human nature of Christ. Now in the flesh the Son reveals the Father Who has never been seen, as God has become human (18).
Matthew 1:18-25
Matthew’s Gospel begins with the genealogy of Christ and the story of Jesus’ birth where he records that Mary, a virgin, “was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit” (ESV, Matt 1:18). This child is to be named Jesus, and He is the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy (Is 7:14) about a virgin bearing a Son Who will be called Immanuel which means God with us (Mat 1:22-23). Moreover, the angel that appeared to Joseph told him that this baby was “conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit,” which is a phrase normally used to describe the husband’s act in conceiving a child with his wife (20).[10] Importantly however, the use of the word έστινhere prohibits readers from understanding the Spirit as the agent of conception (i.e., sex) but rather it delineates Him as the source from which Jesus originated.[11] In Matthew’s estimation Jesus was not merely a human, rather He was God coming to be with His people by being born of a virgin by the work of the Spirit, having a human mother and the Holy Spirit conceiving in her Jesus, Who is God in human flesh. It would be difficult to say that Jesus does not have both a divine and human nature based on this text and based on the theology of the virgin birth. For Jesus to be Immanuel (God with us), the human child of Mary, and conceived by the Spirit He would have to be both God and man.
Philippians 2:5-11
The Apostle Paul’s understanding of God the Son incarnate falls right in line with Matthew and John’s theology regarding the Person and nature of Christ. Paul describes the incarnation in terms of humility. Paul, exhorting the Church of Philippi wants the Church to take on the humble and selfless attitude of Christ which is expressed in Him taking the form of a slave (ESV, Phil 2:1-5, 7). Paul expresses this in hymn form, beginning by speaking of the preincarnate Christ Who before the incarnation existed in the form of God (6). The word “form” here, though contested, must be understood considering the Old Testament’s explanation of the glory of God and parallelism between “form of God” and “form of a servant” (6, 7).[12] Interpreting the word “form” in light of the Old Testament and New Testament’s explanation of the glory of God is consistent with other Christological texts, such as where the author of Hebrews states that the Son is the radiance of God’s glory (Heb 1:1-4). Christ is the very nature of God, manifesting His glory being equal to God and yet not exploiting that equality.[13] Consequently, the preincarnate Son took the form of a servant, taking on full humanity, and thereby humbling Himself even to the point of death (6-8). Christ emptying Himself here should be understood in terms of humility and taking on a human nature that is limited when contrasted against divinity, rather than being understood as a removal of divine attributes.[14] Christ took the form of a servant thereby becoming (lit. entering into a new condition) a human being, which is expressed when Paul says He was “born in the likeness of men” and was “found in human form” (7-8).[15] In Paul’s theology the preincarnate Son became a human being in an ultimate act of humility, and for this reason Jesus is highly exalted and given a name above every other name (9-11).
Biblical Theology and the Person of Christ: Son of Man
When considering the overarching story of Scripture, prophecy, and typology the passages analyzed thus far are not surprising, as the story of Scripture has been moving towards God taking on human flesh, becoming a man, and dying for the sins of the world. From the fall onward, a human-divine savior is anticipated. God told the serpent that the offspring of the woman would crush his head in what is known as the protoevangelium (Gen 3:15). “Offspring” is in reference here to mankind eventually claiming victory over Satan.[16] The One Who would crush the serpent would be of human descent. Scripture anticipated a coming Son of Man Who would be given an everlasting kingdom and dominion over people from all nations and would come on the clouds (Dan 7:13-14). It is likely that the title of Son of Man reflects God’s curse on the serpent in the garden, as a Son of Man would be the One to batter the head of Satan.[17] Jesus would assume this title for Himself during His earthly ministry (Mark 14:62). Fulfilment of the protoevangelium would be realized at the cross where though Jesus was killed (His heel struck) He would rise again and deal a deadly blow to Satan by His victory over sin, death, and the grave. All of Scripture anticipated a coming Messiah, the Son of Man Who would rule the nations from an everlasting throne and over an everlasting kingdom (2 Sam 7:13, Daniel 7:13-14). No sinful human could rule over an everlasting Kingdom and defeat the powers of Satan, death, and sin, however. Surely these descriptions anticipate a divine and human savior.
Historical Theology
Chalcedonian Christology was not the product of theological novelty. Rather it was the natural consequence of the development of a biblically robust understanding of the Person of Jesus Christ throughout the Patristic era of Church history. In the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth centuries Christology was on a clear trajectory to Chalcedon, and the Chalcedonian understanding of the Person and two natures of Christ as expressed in the Chalcedonian Definition. Importantly, the Christology of the patristic period reflects the theology presented in the passages analyzed above. Thus, a brief survey of the development of Christology in the Patristic period will prove beneficial for framing the Christology confirmed at Chalcedon.
The First Century
Before even the canon was even closed difficulties with Christological heresies had already arisen in the very early Church. The Apostle John likely struggled with an embryotic form of the heresy known as Docetism. Docetists believed that Christ was not truly human. Instead, because the Docetists believed matter to be evil, Christ only appeared to be a human, but because He was divine, He surely could not have taken on a physical form, let alone flesh.[18] John responded clearly under the inspiration of the Spirit, speaking form His own experience with Jesus, as John claimed to have saw and touched Christ himself (1 Jn 1:1-4). For the Apostle John, Jesus Christ, the Word of God, was a man Who John saw, knew, and even touched with his own hands. Surely, when writing these words to the Churches of Asia Minor, John was thinking back to laying his head on the chest of the Son of God the night before He would be crucified for the old Apostle’s sins (Jn 13:25). John knew only a Jesus Who was both truly God and truly man.
The Second Century
In the second century, after the time of the Apostles, Christology continued to develop but it did not wander far from the tree of the Apostles teachings. Rather is stuck close to Christ as He was explained in the writings of the Apostles and disciples of Christ. Nonetheless heresy continued to rear its ugly head. This time in the form of Ebionism, which, opposite of Docetism, denied the deity of Christ. Yet, in the face of this heresy the early Church did not back down in the absence of the Apostles. Figures such as Justin Martyr (100-165) and Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202) fought back and held the line against the teachings of the Ebionites.[19] Irenaeus of Lyons did not only condemn the false doctrines of the Ebionites regarding the Person of Christ but also dealt strongly with Gnostic and Docetic heresies in his ministry as well. The theologians and pastors of the second century held the line and defended a Biblical understanding of Christology. However, despite their bold defense of Christology in their time, the exact language needed to formulate the Persona and dual natures of Christ with the clarity and uniformity had yet to arise, although it was developing with great promise. Clearly in the second century discussions about the Person and natures of Christ were at the forefront of discussion regarding Christology.
The Third and Fourth Centuries
Arianism and the Council of Nicea
Christological heresy persisted into the third and fourth centuries in new and striking ways. The foremost heresy of this time was known as Arianism. Started by a presbyter named Arius (256-336), Arianism asserted that Jesus Christ was a lesser and created being separate from and of a different essence than God the Father. For Aruis, Jesus was heteroousios (of a different substance) than that of the father.[20] It is important to note that Arius did not dismiss the Son altogether, rather He saw the Son as the fist creature to be created, and still held a prominent position in the Christian faith, but Christ was not to be understood as being of the same essence of the Father.[21] This was problematic for many of the Church leaders of the day, and as a result of the division caused by Arius’ view, trouble, conflict, and even riots ensued. Emperor Constantine consequently summoned the Council of Nicea (325) to work out the theological schism that had erupted in the early Church. At the council Arianism would be condemned by the leaders of the Church and the Nicene Creed would be penned and signed by the majority of the bishops present at the council. In response to Arianism the Nicene Creed started that Christ was homoousios (of the same essence) of the Father, which stood in direct contradiction to Arius' contention that the Son was heteroousios (of a different substance) than the Father. The Creed rightly affirmed a Biblical understanding of the Person of Christ Jesus and established an orthodox understanding of the Trinity. Arianism, however, did not die here, instead over the coming years it would gain a great deal of momentum and even win the empire for a time. However, figures such as Athanasius (296-373) and the Cappadocian Fathers would stand Biblical truth and rise as champions of Nicene orthodoxy.
Athanasius Against Heterodox Christology
Following the events of Nicea, Athanasius, who was present at the council, would become one of the foremost defenders of Nicene Trinitarian Orthodoxy. For this Athanasius would experience a life of opposition, being exiled many times for his stance on a Biblical understanding of the Person of Christ. Positively for Athanasius’ boldness he would be titled Athanasius Contra Mundum, which means Athanasius against the world. Negatively his enemies would derogatorily label him the “black dwarf” in reference to his complexion and height.[22] Athanasius would face exile, trials, and various emperors and Church leaders who took different sides of the Arian debate naturally making them either allies or enemies. Athanasius’ greatest contribution to an orthodox understanding of the person of Jesus Christ is his work, On the Incarnation. In this work Athanasius would point to the necessity of the incarnation, as God being immoral could not die, therefore He had to take on flesh and humanity, that death and sin might be abolished through death.[23] For an immortal and impassible God to die to purchase and redeem sinners, He must take on mortal flesh, becoming truly human.
The Great Cappadocians
The Great Cappadocians likewise defended Nicene Orthodoxy. The Great Cappadocians included Macrina the teacher, Basil the Great (330-379), Gregory of Nyssa (335-394), and Gregory of Nazianzus (330-390). Macrina, Basil, and Gregory of Nyssa were siblings whose lives and ministries greatly affected one another. In-fact had it not been for Macrina rebuking her brother Basil for pride and pomp, it is unlikely that the Cappadocian’s would line the halls of Church history, as this rebuke jolted her brother into ministry.[24] All the Cappadocians played important roles in developing Christology and defending Nicene orthodoxy. Specifically, Gregory of Nazianzus asserted that whatever Christ did not take up in the incarnation would not be saved.[25] For instance, if Christ did not have a human soul as Apollinarius suggested, then the human soul was not redeemed by Christ’s death. Therefore, to truly save humanity, Christ had to be truly man and truly God. Gregory also contended that when talking about the Trinity, hypostasis ought to refer to person rather than nature, which would inform the Council of Chalcedon’s understanding of these terms.[26]
The Fifth Century and Chalcedon
The Council of Chalcedon stood on the shoulders of nearly five hundred years of tradition and exegesis, and it was now time for the theologians present at the council to formulate a statement on the Person and natures of Christ that rightly reflected Scripture and that was informed by tradition. It was at Chalcedon that unity between Antiochene and Alexandrian Christology would be sought, and a combined Christology would indeed be established in a way that preserved the Unity of the Person of Christ and also rightly distinguished between His human and divine natures.[27] The result of the council was the Definition of Chalcedon, which asserted that Christ must be understood as one hypostasis, or Person, in two distinct but unified physeis, or natures.[28] Central to the definition was Pope Leo I’s tome which in many ways provides interpretive clarity to Chalcedon’s conclusion.[29] In the tome Leo emphasizes the unity and distinction of the natures of Christ in His single person, which was indeed reflected in the definition itself.[30] According to Chalcedon Christ is One Person in Two Natures.
Theological Conclusion: One Person in Two Natures
On the basis of the Biblical data and the historical development of the doctrine of Christ to and at Chalcedon it can be confidently said that the Chalcedonian Definition rightly expresses in creedal form the Biblical understanding of the Person and natures of Christ. Three major theological affirmations should be deduced from the Christology presented at Chalcedon. The first of which is that the incarnation’s subject is the divine Son Who has eternally existed, is equal to the Father, and is specifically known as the second Person of the Trinity.[31] Chalcedon affirms that Christ is One Person in two natures. It is the Son, the Word of God, Who was with the Father in eternity past, took on flesh to dwell among men, and reveals the Father (Jn 1:1,14). The Son has always existed and is without beginning, He did not come into being at the incarnation, rather His taking on of flesh should be understood as Him entering in a new status, by adding a human nature.[32] Second, in the One Person of Christ Jesus are two natures that are perfectly unified but not blended or confused, with both natures retaining their unique properties and yet remains uniquely unified in the One Person of Christ.[33] At risk of falling into error, or even heresy, both natures must be rightly preserved while also maintaining the unity of the two natures in the single Person of Christ. One nature does not overshadow or absorb the other and both natures are unified. Finally, affirming that Christ is One Person with two unified natures, one truly human, and one truly God, is essential to the Gospel, as what is not assumed in the incarnation, cannot be saved.[34] If Christ is not truly human then He could not represent and redeem mankind fully as their federal head, and if He is not truly God His death and resurrection are emptied of power. Chalcedon succeeds in expressing what the Bible says about the Person and dual-natures of Christ, consequently it should be affirmed and upheld by the Church today.
Contextualizing and Applying the Doctrine
A right understanding of Christ Jesus is essential for the Church today and believers everywhere. Firstly, knowing that Christ is truly human and truly God reminds believers that God truly understands what they go through. Christ is able to sympathize with human weakness as High Priest Who was tempted just as believers are and yet did not sin (Heb 4:14-16). This ought to be of great comfort and cheer to the believer, as God the Son truly understands human struggle, which is only possible because of His human nature, as apart from taking on a human nature God the Son could not suffer or be tempted (Jas 1:13). Secondly and lastly, the events surrounding Chalcedon in regard to the various heresies out of which the definition would emerge from triumphantly ought to remind the Church today that sound doctrine matters, specifically what is believed about Christ, as it effects the Gospel, the very message of salvation which is essential to Christianity. Doctrine matters for the Church, especially when the Gospel is at risk.
Conclusion
The Chalcedonian Definition rightly expresses a Biblical understanding of the Person and two natures of Christ. It reflects the Biblical conviction that Christ is One Person in two natures, truly God and truly man. To misunderstand the Person of Christ would be to distort the Gospel. Therefore, to affirm Scripture’s presentation of Christ is essential. When looking to the tradition of the Church it is indeed Chalcedon that best states what the Bible says about Who Christ is and it therefore should be upheld in Churches today, as it reminds believers and Churches of Who Christ is and the importance of upholding sound doctrine.
[1] Pope St. Leo I, “Letter 236: A Second One from Flavian to Leo,” in Letters and Sermons of Pope St. Leo I (The Great), ed. Paul A. Boer, trans. Charles Lett, Feltoe, (Buffalo: Veritatis Splendor Publications, 2012), 133. [2] Nick Needham, 2,000 years of Christ’s Power: The Age of the Early Church Fathers, vol. 1, (London: Christian Focus, 2016), 302. [3] Nick Needham, 2,000 years of Christ’s Power: The Age of the Early Church Fathers, vol. 1, (London: Christian Focus, 2016), 297. [4] Ibid.
[5] G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson eds, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 421. [6] D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 117.
[7] William D. Mounce, Ed., Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 259. [8] Stephen J. Wellum, God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ, (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016), 305. [9] Christopher W. Morgan, Christian Theology: The Biblical Story and Our Faith, (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Academic, 2020), 260.
[10] Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 29. [11] Charles L. Quarles, Matthew, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament, eds. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Robert W. Yarbrough, (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Academic, 2017), 20.
[12] Moisés Silva, Philippians, 2nd ed. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 101. [13] G. Walter Hansen, The Letter to the Philippians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, ed. D. A. Carson, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 138. [14] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 670.
[15] G. Walter Hansen, The Letter to the Philippians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, ed. D. A. Carson, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 152-3. [16] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 79-80. [17] Ibid.
[18] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 650.
[19] Jason G. Duesing and Nathan A. Finn eds., Historical Theology for the Church, (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2021), 26.
[20] Gregg R. Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 369. [21] Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation, vol. 1, (New York: HarperCollins, 2010), 184.
[22] Ibid,199.
[23] Athanasius, On the Incarnation, trans, John Behr, (Yonkers: St. Vladimir’s Press, 2011), 58.
[24] Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation, vol. 1, (New York: HarperCollins, 2010), 210. [25] St. Gregory of Nazianzus, On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius, trans. Lionel Wickham (Crestwood: Saint Vladimir’s Seminary, 2002), 158. [26] Nick Needham, 2,000 years of Christ’s Power: The Age of the Early Church Fathers, vol. 1, (London: Christian Focus, 2016), 300. [27] Ibid, 304-5. [28] Ibid, 305. [29] Gerald Bray, God Has Spoken: A History of Christian Theology, (Wheaton: Crossway, 2014), 361. [30] St. Leo, St. Leo’s Epistle to Flavian: The Tome of St. Leo, trans. Charles A. Heurtley, (London: Parker, 1885), 21.
[31] Stephen J. Wellum, The Person of Christ: An Introduction, eds., Graham A. Cole and Oren R. Martin, (Wheaton: Crossway, 2021), 147-148. [32] John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans., Robert White, (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2014), 212-14. [33] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology 2nd ed., (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2020), 695. [34] St. Gregory of Nazianzus, On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius, trans. Lionel Wickham (Crestwood: Saint Vladimir’s Seminary, 2002), 158.