Introduction
In the development of the Church’s understanding of Christology over the past two-thousand years it is impossible to ignore the Council of Chalcedon. There is perhaps no more important and defining moment in the development of Christology then what ensued at and surrounding the event of the Council of Chalcedon, specifically in relation to the Person and dual natures of Christ Jesus. To rightly frame and understand Chalcedon’s confirmation of the two natures of Christ unified in the single Person of God the Son incarnate an analysis of the development of the doctrine throughout the patristic era is more than necessary for two reasons. Firstly, seeing how the doctrine developed from the time of the Apostles into the fifth century will demonstrate that the position taken at Chalcedon on the two natures of Christ is not merely a theological innovation of the time, but a doctrine developed starting with the inspired writings of the Apostles and moving throughout the history of the early Church to Chalcedon. Secondly, an analysis of the period will reveal that the understanding of Christ’s two unified natures as contended by Chalcedon was held by many of the Church Fathers but had yet to be so clearly and authoritatively stated as it was at Chalcedon. Thus, understanding how the Church in this time understood the Incarnate Son of God is crucial in understanding the Chalcedonian Definition.
Historical Narrative
The First and Second Centuries
Beginning with the Apostles themselves, a great deal of care was given to formulating what the incarnation meant regarding Christ’s human and divine natures. A Biblical example of this is seen in the writings of the Apostle John where he pushed back against an early form of Docetism in the late first century. Docetism essentially asserted that Christ only appeared to be human, as in this view all matter was evil. Thus, the Divine surely would not have taken on flesh.[1] The Apostle John responded bluntly to this in the opening of his first epistle stating that he had seen, examined, and touched Christ himself (1 Jn 1:1-4). It is clear in John’s own words that the Divine Word of God indeed came in human flesh, and John not only witnessed it but experienced it with his own senses.
Throughout the second century the leaders of the early Church stuck close to the understanding of the person and work of Christ as presented in the teachings and writings of the Apostles. In the face of Ebionism, which denied the divinity of Christ, leaders such as Justin Martyr (100-165) and Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202) strongly pushed back against the doctrine of the Ebionites.[2] With Irenaeus also speaking against Gnostic and Docetic heresies. For second century theologians and pastors Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate. When faced with heretical teachings about who Christ was or was not, the leaders of the Church time and time again and stood up to say that Jesus was God in the flesh, but the exact theological language to express this belief had not been fully developed yet, the pathway there however, was forming.
The Third and Fourth Centuries
Like the first and second centuries, the third and fourth centuries were marked by heresies espousing themselves, only to be quickly met with an orthodox response from the leaders of the Church. Of the various difficulties with Christological heresies in the third and fourth century there were none more prominent than Arianism. Arius (256-336), a presbyter, argued that Jesus Christ, the Word of God, was not God, rather He was the “first of all creatures.”[3] That is, Christ, in Arius’ view, was not God, but a lesser deity Who was created and who is heteroousios, (of a different substance) than the Father.[4] Together the Church at the Council of Nicea (325) condemned Arianism with the writing of the Nicene Creed, which was signed by all but two of the over three hundred bishops present at the council.[5] In the creed the deity of Christ was affirmed, in that Christ was declared to be homoousios (of the same essence) with the Father. Again, at Nicea the incarnate Son’s deity was upheld.
Following the Council of Nicea, the world turned Arian, and the defense of the Nicene understanding of Christ fell to a handful of bold champions of Nicene orthodoxy. Though not an exhaustive list these champions included Athanasius (296-373), Basil the Great (330-379), Gregory of Nyssa (335-394), and Gregory of Nazianzus (330-390), with the latter three being known as the Great Cappadocians. Gregory would specifically defend Nicene Christology against Apollinarianism at the Council of Constantinople (381) and in his writings.[6] Apollinarianism contended that Christ did not have a human soul, making Christ not fully human. Gregory wrote in response to Apollinarianism, that the “unassumed is the unhealed, but what is united with God is also being saved.”[7] Put another way, all of man is fallen, thus Christ must assume or take up full humanity to be able to save and sanctify man. Anything less will not result in the complete restoration of man. Additionally, the Cappadocians asserted that the word hypostasis must be understood as referring to person not nature in the context of the Trinity, which laid the foundation for using the same work to describe the person of Christ at Chalcedon.[8] The ball was teed up, and now the fifth century theologians were up to bat.
The Fifth Century and The Council of Chalcedon
By the time of the fifth century, all the pieces of the puzzle for rightly explaining the two natures of Christ were present or in play, and through two controversies the pieces of the puzzle would be put together in an authoritative definition stated with absolute clarity in what is known as the Chalcedonian Definition. The first controversy climaxed in an event known as the Second Council of Ephesus (449). Here the Alexandrian bishop Dioscorus, friend of Eutyches (378-454), a heretic who held to an extreme Alexandrian form of Christology that asserted that Christ’s deity consumed his humanity, essentially overtook the council by force, reinstated the deposed Eutyches and swung Christology to the extreme Alexandrian position. However, with the installation of a new emperor, and a new council held at Chalcedon (451), unity between Antiochene Christology, and Alexandrian Christology was sought. A combined Christology was established here that emphasized the unity of the Person of Christ while still distinguishing between His two natures.[9] This combined Christology is expressed in the Definition of Chalcedon. Pope Leo I paved the way for the definition through his leadership and specifically through his Tome, which provided the language needed to reconcile the deity and humanity of Christ in the definition.[10] Importantly, the council and definition state that Christ was “one hypostasis in two physeis [natures].”[11] This combined the two Christologies and combatted the extremes of both sides. It is here that the puzzle of Christ’s two natures was put together, the definition represents both the pinnacle and mosaic of patristic thought on the two natures of Christ. The significance of the definition would lay the groundwork for Christological debates to come, including discussions about whether Christ possessed one or two wills in accordance with each nature.[12] Chalcedon’s importance cannot be over stressed.
Case study: Pope Leo I and Christological Shenanigans
In the aftermath of Apollinarius’ (300-390) heretical teachings that contended that Christ did not have a human soul but a divine one, Antiochene and Alexandrian bishops and theologians were seeking to respond to this Christological error. It was in this climate that Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia, developed an Antiochene Christology in which he denied that Mary the Virgin should be called theotokos (Mother of God).[13] This understanding was then passed down to his disciple Nestorius (381-451) who blatantly rejected the title of theotokos for the Virgin Mary outright. In response to Nestorius the rambunctious and fiery Cyril of Alexandria (died in 444) responded with several letters to Nestorius and even penned multiple works condemning Nestorius’ heresies. Ultimately however, the conflict was temporarily settled at the first Council of Ephesus (431) where Cyril forcefully claimed victory over Nestorius.[14]
Surprisingly, these events were not the end of the controversies surrounding the Person and natures of Christ. Eutyches, an archimandrite of Constantinople was up to bat with a heresy that would continue the controversy and eventually lead to the Council of Chalcedon. Differing from Nestorius, Eutyches held to an extreme Alexandrian Christology that essentially argued that Christ’s divine nature consumed His human nature. The patriarch of Constantinople (from 447-449), Flavian, held a moderately Antiochene position and opposed Eutyches’ doctrine, condemning it outright. Flavian went so far as to even contact Pope Leo I to alert him of Eutyches’ heresies. Calling Eutyches, in his second letter, a “wicked monk” who was guilty of “reviving” the heresies of Apollinarius and Valentinus.[15] Eutyches had friends in high places however, one of which was Dioscorus (died 454), patriarch of Alexandria, who has been described as a “theological thug, a gangster strutting around in a bishop’s robe.”[16] Though Eutyches was Flavian’s primary opponent, Dioscorus would prove to be a greater threat to Flavian.
It was at the second Council of Ephesus (449) that this rendition of the Alexandrian and Antiochene Christological controversy first came to a head. With all his power and influence Dioscorus and the Alexandrians on his side took control of the council, reinstated Eutyches, deposed Flavian, refused to allow Pope Leo’s letter to Flavian (the Tome, 449) to be read, and overturned the Formula of Union (433); swinging the official stance on Christology to the Alexandrian position, which under the sway influence of Dioscorus and Eutyches was of the extreme variety.[17] Sadly, in the aftermath of the council, which as a result of the political shenanigans was called the Robber’s Synod by Leo, Flavian was beat up by Alexandrian monks, and died days later due to his injuries.[18] Despite the death of Flavian and the Alexandrian’s refusal to read Leo’s letter to Flavian, the Tome would not slip into obscurity however, as under the reign of a new Emperor, the Council of Chalcedon took place, where the Tome would finally have its time in the light and provide the needed language that would be used to form the definition.
The Tome was a pivotal source in the formation of the definition and established a new standard for approaching Christology, specifically as it pertains to the two natures of Christ.[19] The Tome was central to the formation of the definition, and to Christology at large, as it “was accepted as a standard of Christological orthodoxy.”[20] The language and content of the Tome provide the “definitive interpretation of what Chalcedon intended to say.”[21] It is difficult to rightly frame and interpret the definition apart from this document and Leo’s understanding of the Person and dual natures of Christ.
Leo understood that Christ’s dual natures are derived from his dual origin. This is expressed in the Tome when he states that “the only-begotten, eternal Son of the eternal Father was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary.”[22] Leo emphasizes the distinctness of Christ’s two natures without compromising their essential unity and for him the distinctness of Christ’s dual natures flows from His dual origin, as He was born of the Spirit and of the Virgin Mary. This emphasis on Christ being born of the Spirit and Mary specifically combatted Nestorius’ rejection of theotokos and would likewise be expressed in the definition. Gerald Bray states that Leo saw that “the two natures derive from this dual origin and coexist in tension with one another in the incarnate Christ”, just as Leo expressed in his rendition of the Apostles’ Creed.[23] Leo’s understanding of the dual natures of Christ also informed his understanding of how these natures played out in the life of Christ. Bray notes here that “Leo insisted that, in Christ, each nature does what is proper to itself, but in communion with the other, a communion assured by the person who united them.”[24] This understanding is again stressed in the Tome, as Leo states, “The property or distinctive character then of each nature and substance remaining entire, and coalescing into one person, humility was assumed by majesty, by might weakness, by eternity morality…”[25] In stating this Leo preserved both the unity and distinctiveness of Christ’s dual natures in His Person, which would later be echoed in the definition. The language and content of the Tome shaped the Chalcedonian Definition and Christology in the west, and apart from the drama from which the Tome and definition came out of it is difficult to say how long it would have taken the Church to arrive at a clear statement regarding Christ’s two unified natures.
For the Church
The two natures in the Person of Christ as confirmed at the Council of Chalcedon has a great deal to say to the Church today. Firstly, it reminds the Church today that Christ was indeed fully human and therefore believers today are fully saved. In Christ they are dead to sin and free from its power, fully redeemed and being brought by God unto glorification all due to the divine Son taking up humanity and dying on a cross (Rom 6:5-11, 8:26-30). Moreover, because the eternal Son took up a human nature and because He is our High Priest, He can sympathize with human weakness (Heb 4:14-16). This sets an example for believers today in that Jesus was tempted and yet was without sin. For this reason, the author of Hebrews says that believers can approach the throne of grace with confidence and find help and grace and mercy in a time of need (Heb 4:15-16). Chalcedonian Christology also reminds the Church today that Jesus is truly God. Though a friend of sinners, He is not a “buddy.” He is not to be treated trivially or flippantly. He is truly God, and He will return someday in glory; His appearance will strike fear and wonder in the hearts of man (Rev 1:12-20). It is at the name of Jesus that all shall bow and confess that He is Lord, all to the glory of the Father (Phil 2:5-11). May the Church never forget that Jesus is God, and that it is through His incarnation that salvation is made possible for all who would believe, and may the Church know that she is loved and known by the perfect Son of God, the man Christ Jesus.
[1] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 650. [2] Jason G. Duesing and Nathan A. Finn eds., Historical Theology for the Church, (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2021), 26. [3] Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation, vol. 1, (New York: HarperCollins, 2010), 184. [4] Gregg R. Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 369. [5] Ibid, 370. [6] Nick Needham, 2,000 years of Christ’s Power: The Age of the Early Church Fathers, vol. 1, (Ross-shire: Christian Focus, 2016), 296-7. [7] 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. [8] Nick Needham, 2,000 years of Christ’s Power: The Age of the Early Church Fathers, vol. 1, (London: Christian Focus, 2016), 300. [9] Ibid, 304-5.
[10] Jason G. Duesing and Nathan A. Finn eds., Historical Theology for the Church, (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2021), 42. [11] Nick Needham, 2,000 years of Christ’s Power: The Age of the Early Church Fathers, vol. 1, (London: Christian Focus, 2016), 305. [12] R. Lucas Stamps, “A Chalcedonian Argument Against Cartesian Dualism”, in The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 19.1 (2015), 75. [13] Nick Needham, 2,000 years of Christ’s Power: The Age of the Early Church Fathers, vol. 1, (London: Christian Focus, 2016), 297. [14] Ibid, 300-301. [15] 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. [16] Nick Needham, 2,000 years of Christ’s Power: The Age of the Early Church Fathers, vol. 1, (London: Christian Focus, 2016), 302. [17] Ibid, 302.
[18] Ibid, 303. [19] Jaroslav Pelikan, Credo: Historical and Theological Guide to Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, (London: Yale University, 2003), 417. [20] F. L. Cross, et al., eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church 3rd ed., (Oxford: Oxford University, 2005), 972. [21] Gerald Bray, God Has Spoken: A History of Christian Theology, (Wheaton: Crossway, 2014), 361. [22] St Leo, St. Leo’s Epistle to Flavian: The Tome of St. Leo, trans. Charles A. Heurtley, (London: Parker, 1885), 18. [23] Gerald Bray, God Has Spoken: A History of Christian Theology, (Wheaton: Crossway, 2014), 361. [24] Ibid, 361.
[25] St. Leo, St. Leo’s Epistle to Flavian: The Tome of St. Leo, trans. Charles A. Heurtley, (London: Parker, 1885), 21.