The Definition of Chalcedon was drafted out of the Council of Chalcedon, 451.[1] The occasion represented the “first few centuries” of Christological debate, a debate which would rage on for another “three-and-a-half centuries” after Chalcedon.[2] From Nicaea to Ephesus and now Chalcedon, orthodox and heretics gathered as bishops to settle the Christological dilemma. Leading up to 451, heretics had already been condemned: Arius, for denying the full deity of Christ; Apollinarius, who denied the full humanity of Christ; and Nestorius, for making Christ into two persons, rather than one person with two natures.[3] Now came the next condemnation by way of Eutyches. Eutyches headed-up a monastery in a rural area near Constantinople (Modern day Turkey), and while he was anti-Nestorian, he made the wrong assessment about the nature of Christ; namely, Eutyches, “the emphasis was on the union of the two natures of Christ, to the point that while there were two natures before the union, there was only one nature after the union of the incarnation; …Monophysitism.”[4] Eutyches blurred the lines of the nature of Christ into thrice-natures, consequently resulting in the Council of Chalcedon, which dealt specifically with the two natures of Christ.[5] We get a glimpse on the impact Eutyches’ in Leo’s Tome, which was written to condemn Eutyches, which resulted in the Second Council of Ephesus, 449. However, what Leo called the “robber synod” was an event by the Eastern church, which chose to not recite Leo’s Tome and disposed of the Eastern bishops who supported Leo’s view.[6] Leo died in 450, and the Council of Chalcedon convened the following year. Leo, obviously unable to attend, had previously instructed delegates whose mission at Chalcedon was for the drafting of a document to aid unity and peace in the realm: “Thus was born the Chalcedon Definition.”[7]
The Chalcedon Definition was drafted as a hope for unity. However, it did just the opposite. The Eastern church was infuriated, which resulted not only in a split within the Eastern Church, but it also severed unity with the Western church. The Council with its Definition “reversed the decisions of Ephesus and condemned Eutyches.[8] Lane summarizes the definition as follows:
“The Definition affirmed that Christ is “truly God,” “perfect in Godhead,” the Son of God who was “begotten of the Father before the ages.” Yet he is also “truly man,” “perfect in manhood” and was born of the Virgin Mary. The deity and humanity are “not parted or divided into two persons,” but Christ is “one person and one being.” Nor are his deity and humanity to be blurred together. “The difference of the [divine and human] natures is in no way taken away by reason of the union, but rather the properties of each are preserved.” Thus Christ is ‘made known in two natures [which exist] without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.’”[9]
One of the most important factors of the Chalcedon definition is its use of hypostasis, “which declared that the human nature of Christ did not exist as a person without the divine person of the Logos to assume it.[10] As to the importance of the Definition for modern day readers, one may not overlook the negative impact affected by using extra-biblical inferences such as, hypostasis. Church unity between the East and West has never fully recovered. Justin Holcomb is probably right in asserting advocacy for the use of extra-biblical words, and for his acknowledgement of the Definition coming off as more of a “rules of the game” approach, per se.[11] Therefore, it is fair, even where we see the use of extra-biblical words to contextualize an explanation that we use it graciously, as it would seem fair for churches to considerably examine the words treatment themselves. Especially when we are discussing Trinitarianism, the nature and character and role of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, it is essential for the church today to unify around the character and nature of Jesus’ human and divine origin and substance. To get this wrong opens a floodgate of potential heresies. We see this so clearly in our time, liberal theologies have long sought to divide Christ’s human and divine natures and person. And while the Definition itself is not held with Credal authority; it is an important contribution to the church’s historical progression of theological truth. Furthermore, it aids as a defense against early church heresies. Many of the liberal fallacies we see today are merely ancient heresies repackaged. For example, the Definition’s impact against Christological heresies throughout Western church history may be seen in the Reformer’s authoritative use of it. The definition has clearly been incorporated in the grafting of post-Reformation creeds and councils, and even to this day, the Definition and the weight the Reformer’s applied to it has served to counter the modern liberal attempt to challenge what is orthodox Christology.[12]
Because Christology is obviously the center of one’s understanding of biblical salvation, I have preached, written, and evangelized in agreement with the Definition for more than almost two decades. In agreement with Holcomb, it is necessary that we do not lose the full deity and full humanity of Christ, His two inseparable natures in one person, or we may lose the power of the salvation we preach.[13] While the doctrine of Trinitarianism is mingled with mystery, we must not sacrifice the two natures of Christ in one person to satisfy human logic. Furthermore, it is in the depths of studying Christ’s two natures that we find joy and peace in His divine power and authority to save, and it to the aid of our comfort that his human nature relates and sympathizes with the human plight, which is infected with the destructive nature of sin. This represents the love of God in our relating and participating with Him. Christ’s divinity establishes the infinite from the finite and relates to the finite in a way which finite may trust the infinite. It is to our wonder and worship by which Trinitarianism boggles the mind and comforts the human heart. Jesus really is infinite, divine God, and He is infinite with sympathy for the worrisome road of humanity because He is mysteriously both fully God and fully man. Finally, I think there is not better model for evangelism. Go after conversations centering around Christology. Christ truly is not worthy of worship if He is not fully God and fully man. The few times I have participated with Christ in leading someone to the Lord have all been related to discussing the nature and character of Christ. Both flesh and Spirit are one in the divine Logos, one person with two natures.
[1]Justin S. Holcomb. Know the Creeds and Councils. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014. P. 55. Print.
[2]Tony Lane. “451: The Council of Chalcedon.” Christian History Institute, 2024. Web. https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/council-of-chalcedon
[3]Ibid., Lane. Web.
[4]Ibid., Holcomb. P. 54.
[5]Ibid., Holcomb. P. 54.
[6]Ibid., Lane. Web.
[7]Ibid., Lane. Web.
[8]Ibid., Lane. Web.
[9]Ibid., Lane. Web.
[10]Ibid., Holcomb. P. 57.
[11]Ibid., Holcomb. P. 58.
[12]Ibid., Holcomb. P. 60.
[13]Ibid., Holcomb. P. 60.