Way to Chalcedon

Way to Chalcedon


The Chalcedonian Council which formed the two-nature Christological formula has been the most decisive Council with regard to Christology. Chalcedonia consolidated the eastern and western positions and attempted to work out a formula acceptable to most of the Churches. However, there were some Churches in the east who rejected the authority of Chalcedon for historical reasons rather than theological reasons. The Eastern Orthodox churches do not consider the Chalcedon as an ecumenical council and do not consider the formula as an adequate description of the person of Jesus Christ. For them the theological position of the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus and the Cyrillian formuala of Mia physis tou theou Logou sesarkomene (One incarnate nature of God the word) provided the necessarily authentic Christology.

Several developments in the early Church in the form of heresies led the early Church to three ecumenical Councils and the Chalcedon council. The First Council at Nicea (CE 325) met to solve the impasse created by the Arian definition of Homoiousion with regard to the divinity of Jesus Christ. Homoiusion meant that Jesus is a divine person “similar” to the divinity of God and Jesus divinity is created divinity secondary to the Supreme Divinity. This was not acceptable to the Council whose decision was finally guided by the poignant arguments of Athanasius, a deacon and secretary to Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. The Council reaffirmed the traditional faith of the Church in terms of Homoousion without the Arian addition of iota (”i”) which meant “same” substance with the father, and rejected the Arian insertion of iota intended to describe Jesus less than equal to God. Arius argued that there was a time when the Son was not. The Nicene Council, at the insistence of Athanasius, made it an anathema to believe that there was a time when the Son was not. Athanasius’ Discourses Against Arius and his De Incarnatione Verbi (The Incarnation of the Word) remain the most important documents of the early church in defining Christology. The Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in CE 381 was a continuation of the first one in defending what Nicea declared and adding one more clause applying the Nicene formula to the divinity of the Holy Spirit which the semi-Arians denied. The Council of Constantinople affirmed the co-eternity and co-equality of the Holy Spirit with God and the Son by ascribing the term “procession” to the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the First person of the Divine Godhead; thus the Council firmly established the doctrine of the Trinity as the Christian definition of God. The Cappadocian Trio, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzen, who presided the council, and Gregory of Nyssa, played key roles in formulating the decision of the Council.

The Third Ecumenical Council (431) which met at Ephesus resolved the question regrading the nature of humanity and divinity in the person of Christ. The dispute this time was around the usage of the title, Theotokos (God-bearer) to Mary, the mother of Jesus. Nestorius and the Antiochene school challenged the title and argued that it is proper to use only the title, “Christotokos” (Mother of Christ). Cyril of Alexandria argued that this will sacrifice the divinity of Jesus in the womb of Mary. The Ephesus Council condemned Nestorius’ arguments and the Alexandrians got their Cyrillian phrase Mia physis tou theou Logou sesarkomene (One incarnate nature of God the word) accepted by the Council. To the Nestorians the unity of divinity and humanity was a moral unity and not a hypostatic unity at the deepest level; for them it was a union of two natures and not union of two characters as held by Nestorians. The human nature, in the Cyrillian formaula, had not a separate personality of its own as Nestorians understood. The Council also rejected the earlier interpretation of the same formula by Apollinaris of Laodicea who held that Jesus had no human soul (nous), but only divine Logos. Thus the Council rejected both extremes, the separation of humanity and divinity in Jesus as Nestorians interpreted and the replacement of human soul by the Divine Soul as interpreted by Apollinaris. With the help of the Cappadocian concept of Communicatio idiomatum (communication of properties) Cyril argued that Christ is one “out of two natures” (ek duo phuseon) which was later upheld by Chalcedon. Luther later endorsed this theory of communicatio idiomatum to describe the nature of unity of divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ. However, scholars like Harnack accused Cyril of Monophysitism, making the humanity of Jesus absorbed by the Divinity. Many modern scholars consider that neither Monophysites nor Nestorians were guilty of Monophysitism or Nestorianism that were attributed to them by their opponents as there was some confusion and misunderstanding about the usage of the Greek term “hypostasis” between the Antiochean and Alexandrian schools. Hypostasis, or “subsistence” which was acutually a New Testament word used in the letter to the Hebrews (1:3) denoted actual concrete existence in the writings of early Church in contrast with abstract categories of Platonism. The Cappadocians used it to distinguish the three persons (hypostasis) from the One Essence Ousia (nature). The Cappadocians describedTrinity in the well known phrase: One ousis three hypostasis. Apollinaris on the other hand used hypostasis differently to denote ” one nature.” Eutychus, to whom Monophysitism is attributed, argued that Jesus had only one nature, divine merged into human. Chalcedon used hypostasis as the Cappadocian used (hypostasis to indicate “person” and not nature: Jesus Christ is one person (hypostatic unity) out of two natures (divine and human ousia). (For a detailed and accurate interpretation of these terms see V. C. Samuel,The Council of Chalcedon Re-examined: A Historical and Theological Survey (Madras: CLS for the Senate of Serampore College, 1977). In India one needs to ask seriously whether these disputation of the early church really matter in our context, whether they contribute to any knowledge of God or incarnation of Christ. Without these Greek terminologies Indian Christians can adequately explain their faith without any confusion.