Chalcedon and Christology: A 1530th Anniversary

By Craig A. Blaising

[Craig A. Blaising, Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology, Dallas Theological Seminary]

[Editor’s Note: The year 1981 marks the 1530th anniversary of the significant Council of Chalcedon of A.D. 451. Interestingly, it also marks the 1600th anniversary of the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381) and the 1550th anniversary of the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431).]

Anniversaries are times of remembering a special event or occasion in the past. The kind of anniversary dear to most people is the one that looks back to the forming of a relationship. For example, when the word “anniversary” is heard, who does not think of a wedding anniversary? Furthermore the older the relationship, the more special its anniversary becomes. How very special is a silver or golden wedding anniversary!

Thirty years ago many articles and some books were written commemorating the fifteen-hundredth anniversary of the Council of Chalcedon.[1] Chalcedon was both an event to remember and the forming of a relationship. The event was the coming together of over five hundred bishops and other representatives from all the various portions of the church under the order of the Emperor Marcian in A.D. 451. The purpose was to establish ecclesiastical unity throughout the church by resolving the tension in Christology stemming from the differences of expression in Alexandrian and Antiochian traditions. That tension was resolved to an extent by a definition of faith agreed on finally in the fifth session of the council (on Oct. 22).[2] The definition of faith not only excluded the extremes of Nestorianism and Eutychianism from orthodoxy, but also provided some positive considerations on the person of Christ. The most important section of the definition is as follows:

Following therefore the holy Fathers, we confess one and the same our Lord Jesus Christ, and we all teach harmoniously [that he is] the same perfect in Godhead, the same perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, the same of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father in Godhead, and the same consubstantial with us in manhood, like us in all things except sin; begotten before ages of the Father in Godhead, the same in the last days for us; and for our salvation [born] of Mary the virgin theotokos in manhood, one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, unique; acknowledged in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation—the difference of the natures being by no means taken away because of the union, but rather the distinctive character of each nature being preserved, and [each] combining in one Person and hupostasis—not divided or separated into two Persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets of old and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us about him, and the symbol of the Fathers has handed down to us.[3]

With the development of this definition of faith, Chalcedon became more than just an event. It marked the beginning of a relationship, a relationship between Chalcedon and Christology that has continued in the history of theology down to the present day. However, the relationship has not always been peaceful. Chalcedon has always had its detractors, but the advent of higher criticism in the nineteenth century brought the greatest challenge of all. New Christologies were formed which declared their independence from Chalcedon.

In the last half decade, the attack on Chalcedon has been renewed. The purpose of this article on the 1530th anniversary is to review these most recent attacks with a view toward answering the question, What is the relationship between Chalcedon and Christology? This question will be considered from two perspectives: the significance of that relationship at its formation, and its significance today.

“The Myth of God Incarnate”

In 1977 a group of seven Anglican theologians, later labeled “the seven against Christ,” launched a full scale attack on traditional Chalcedonian Christology. Their manifesto was entitled The Myth of God Incarnate and was edited by John Hick.[4] Since its appearance, several other books have been written on both sides of the issue.[5]

An important point to note about the myth-of-God-Incarnate debate is that there is nothing new among the views and presuppositions of the participants. Many of these can be traced directly to early nineteenth-century liberalism. Most of their views reflect the more radical side of the historical-critical tradition. What is new is perhaps the way in which many theological and philosophical opinions together with results from the critical tradition have been brought to focus on one doctrine, the hypostatic union as expressed in the definitio fidei of Chalcedon. As a result, the myth-of-God-Incarnate theologians are quite definite on how they think the relationship between Chalcedon and Christology should be understood.

The Relationship between Chalcedon and Christology

In order to address the relationship between Chalcedon and Christology, one must come to grips with the issue of authority in theological expression. To their credit, the contributors to The Myth of God Incarnate discuss this issue directly. In the preface Hick admits that the contributors accept the basic presuppositions of nineteenth-century liberalism which include a dynamic view of God and the world and the judgment that “the books of the Bible…cannot be accorded a verbal divine authority.”[6] The reason for this rejection of Scripture is that the contributors all accept a basic tenet (which began with Schleiermacher) that truth about God is not discerned through rational propositions but is felt through an experience of Him. Statements about God are simply testimonies to an otherwise inexpressible experience. They are to be taken not literally but as myth.

Young addresses the nature of biblical and patristic writings and concludes that in both cases, “it was the dynamic reality of their experience which they sought to preach to and articulate for their contemporaries.”[7] In her article she attempts to show an evolutionary development between the New Testament and the church fathers. Both are efforts to create statements about Jesus due to the inexpressible reality of the experience of salvation through Him.[8] As time went on, these formulations resorted more and more to “supernatural and mythical categories” derived from the surrounding Hellenic culture and world view “to envisage his nature and origin.”[9]

More could be said here, but this gives the foundation for understanding what the contributors to The Myth of God Incarnate would see as the relationship between Chalcedon and Christology. The Chalcedonian definition of faith, like Scripture, is a formula created out of the experience of the early church cast in terms and expressions drawn from and consistent with the philosophical and mythological world view of that day. The purpose of such formulation was to create a representation of Christ that would give the greatest significance to the inexpressible reality of the experience of salvation through Him. Furthermore not only is this the method of Christology at Chalcedon (as well as the entire biblical and patristic era), but also this is the method which the myth-of-God-Incarnate theologians recommend today. Houlden, in his essay “The Creed of Experience,” gives precisely this positive assessment of Chalcedon.[10]

On the other hand the Chalcedonian declarations that Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man, are rejected by these theologians. The inexpressible reality of the experience of salvation in Christ is supposedly the same today as it was then. The method of going to one’s world view to find the concepts for constructing Christological statements that seem consistent with that experience is the same. However, the world view held today differs from that of the early church. Consequently the religious and philosophical concepts from which one must choose in constructing a Christology are decisively different from those used at Chalcedon.[11]

How then should one perceive the relationship between Chalcedon and Christology today? The answer of The Myth of God Incarnate is that the method is similar, but the content of the two must definitely be different.

It should be noted that other specific objections against the Chalcedonian definition of faith are raised in The Myth of God Incarnate. These include charges of logical incoherence, an abstract and metaphysical approach which ignores existential significance, a distortion of the biblical faith, and a Hellenizing of the gospel. These are all related to the problem of world view discussed above.

One further note should be made before criticizing this approach to Chalcedon and Christology. What if it is objected that this approach removes any real historical continuity in theology? The myth-of-God-Incarnate theologians recognize this problem and offer a solution of reinterpreting the creeds similar to the hermeneutical method of demythologization used on Scripture. Hick, for example, expressly calls the Incarnation “a mythological idea” and then explains what he means by myth and what one should do with such a myth.

And I am using the term “myth” in the following sense: a myth is a story which is told but which is not literally true, or an idea or image which is applied to someone or something but which does not literally apply, but which invites a particular attitude in its hearers. Thus the truth of a myth is a kind of practical truth consisting in the appropriateness of the attitude to its object. That Jesus was God the Son incarnate is not literally true, since it has no literal meaning, but it is an application to Jesus of a mythical concept whose function is analogous to that of the notion of divine sonship ascribed in the ancient world to a king.[12]

One cannot help but be distressed at such blatant Arianism. The distress increases as Hick proceeds to “demythologize” the Incarnation to an essential belief that Jesus is (in some way) efficacious for a salvation experience (whatever that means and certainly not in an exclusive sense) with the Ultimate![13] Wiles honestly admits that there is no telling where this procedure will lead, but he insists that it is necessary since religion is “an evolving, living tradition” and is confident that the results “can only be regarded as a gain.”[14]

Criticism

There is certainly much for which The Myth of God Incarnate deserves to be criticized, and there are many avenues on which to proceed (theological, philosophical, biblical, and historical). Obviously a comprehensive criticism is impossible here. One should survey the various review articles as well as the literature of the debate. The main problem is the acceptance of the presuppositions of higher criticism including a Kantian epistemology combined with a theology of religious experience. From the perspective of this article, however, the point to be made is that the method of forming Christological doctrine which these theologians attribute to Chalcedon is historically inaccurate and misleading. The low view of Scripture on the part of these theologians combined with a theory about the evolution of religion apparently prevents them from appreciating the high view of Scripture maintained by the Fathers at Chalcedon and the central stabilizing role played by Scripture in the development of the early conciliar theology. An examination of Chalcedonian Christology will attempt to demonstrate this point.

Christology at Chalcedon

Certainly one of the factors that came out of Chalcedon which created a continuing relationship between Chalcedon and Christology was a Christological method. Furthermore this method was employed to produce a definition of faith which was the most detailed statement of Christology at that time. Both the method and the definition should be examined.

Christological Method and Tradition

Christology, of course, did not begin at Chalcedon. Prior to Chalcedon the early church had already attempted to deal with various inadequate views of Christ. These attempts were recorded in the writings of various church fathers. In addition, various church councils, both local and ecumenical, had met to deal with Christological issues. Some of these produced statements of faith, the most important of which prior to Chalcedon was the Council of Nicea in 325.

The creed of Nicea figured prominently in the Christological thinking of Chalcedon. In fact the bishops who assembled at Chalcedon would have been happy not to have produced a statement of faith at all, but simply to reaffirm their agreement to the creed of Nicea as had been the case in the two previous councils.[15] The emperor, however, wanted a formula, and as usual, what the emperor wanted, he got. Thus Chalcedon produced a certain advance in formal Christology with a new theological formula. However, the method for this advance included a careful acceptance of and harmonization with the previous level of Christological development, specifically the Nicene creed. As Sellers put it, Chalcedon employed a method containing the two principles of Christological confession and Christological inquiry.[16]

Since the Nicene creed played a confessional or traditional role in the Christology of Chalcedon, it is important to examine its view of authority. To do so, one can simply turn to Athanasius’ defense of Nicea, De Decretis. Here there is no picture of theologians grappling with an inexpressible experience of the Ultimate, scanning the Hellenic philosophical and religious world view for an apt description of Christ. Instead they were earnestly seeking to be faithful to Scripture. They believed “that the sayings of Scripture are divinely inspired” (εἶναι θεόπνευστα τὰ τῆς γραφῆς ῥήματα) and attempted to refute the Arians on the basis of Scripture.[17] It was not the Nicene Fathers who were attempting to Hellenize Christ, but the Arians. Of them Athanasius writes that “they proceeded to borrow from the Greeks” certain philosophical terms such as “unoriginate” (ἀγένητον) which they attempted to make the primary attribute of deity “that, under the shelter of it, they might reckon among the things originated and the creatures, that Word of God, by whom these very things came to be.”[18]

In formulating the creed of Nicea, the bishops attempted to present a statement about Christ using as much as possible the titles and descriptions of Him in the Scriptures. However, as they were putting the statement together using exact scriptural terms and phrases, Athanasius stated that the Arians were observed “whispering to each other and winking with their eyes…that it was no difficulty to agree to these.”[19] Recognizing the Arian deceit, “the Bishops…were again compelled on their part to collect the sense of the Scriptures, and to re-say and re-write what they had said before, more definitely still, namely, that the Son is ‘one in essence’ (ὁμοούσιον) with the Father.”[20] This then is the origin of the doctrine of the homoousion. It was not the product of philosophizing about what Christ must be, but rather the attempt to be precise about the scriptural presentation of Him.

Space does not permit a more thorough examination of the Nicene creed, but this brief discussion should help illustrate the point that it was Scripture, not Greek philosophical opinion, that played the authoritative role. The same point is made continuously in Athanasius’ Orations against the Arians. It was the Arians who were using Hellenic concepts foreign to Scripture to produce a heretical view of Christ.[21]

The same point could be made about the creed of Constantinople which Chalcedon also affirmed. Chalcedon states its own opinion on the matter when it says that the creed of Constantinople was drawn up “not by adding anything which was left out by their predecessors but by clarifying, through scriptural testimonies, their understanding of the Holy Spirit in opposition to those who were trying to reject his rule.”[22]

It is important to see the authority of Scripture at the formative stage of that which was to play the role of tradition at Chalcedon. Many analyses of patristic theology focus on the authoritative use of developing tradition by the Fathers without paying enough attention to its formation. This leads many times to an uncritical acceptance of the Roman view of tradition on an equal level with Scripture. It is not being denied that such a view of tradition did develop. Already by the time of Chalcedon, there is Cyril’s statement in his third letter to Nestorius that the Nicene fathers drew up their confession “as the Holy Spirit spoke in them.”[23] Nevertheless it seems more accurate to note that the Nicene creed enjoyed wide theological authority at the time of Chalcedon because of its success in expressing the sense of Scripture against Arianism, as had been noted by Athanasius.

Christological Method and Scripture

In addition to the ecumenical creeds, Chalcedon accepted as de fide Cyril of Alexandria’s letters to Nestorius and to John of Antioch as well as Leo of Rome’s Tome. Much has been written by way of helpful insight on how Chalcedon drew from these sources in putting together, phrase by phrase, its definition of faith.[24] These works are examples of the development of Christology in the fifth century which included and culminated in the definitio fidei of Chalcedon. It has already been noted that the Christological advance proceeded with a sense of continuity and harmony with the existing traditional Christology. When this method of advance is examined carefully, one does not find the Fathers scouring the Hellenic world view to express the inexpressible. Rather, one finds the same method which was operative in the formation of the traditional Christology (the Nicene creed). It is an attempt to make a precise statement about the person of Christ as found in the Scriptures. Of particular concern were certain passages which demonstrate what has become known as the communion of attributes, which simply means that the attributes of both humanity and deity are predicated of the same person, Jesus Christ.[25]

Cyril, for example, in his third letter to Nestorius wrote:

We do not divide the terms used in the Gospels of the Saviour as God or man between two hypostases, or Persons, for the one and only Christ is not twofold, though he is thought of as out of two, and as uniting different entities into indivisible unity…. All the terms used in the Gospels are to be referred to one Person, the one incarnate hypostasis of the Word. There is one Lord Jesus Christ, according to the Scriptures….[26]

Again, in Cyril’s letter to John of Antioch, also known as the Formula of Union of 433, he wrote, “as to the evangelical and apostolic phrases about the Lord, we know that theologians treat some in common, as of one person, and distinguish others, as of two natures, and interpret the God-befitting ones in connection with the Godhead of Christ, and the humble ones of the manhood.”[27]

The Tome of Leo is essentially an extended exegesis of many passages which demonstrate the communion of Christ’s attributes. When it was read, it was immediately accepted with shouts of “so we all believe.”[28] The Council of Chalcedon, at the conclusion to the definitive portion of its declaration, explains its source of authority for recognizing the unity of Christ’s person and the differences in His natures: “as the prophets of old and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us about him, and the symbol of the Fathers has handed down to us.”

The Definition of Faith

Many have stressed the negative character of this definition. Certainly terms such as “without confusion” (ἀσυγχύτως), “without change” (ἀτρέπτως), “without division” (ἀδιαιρέτως), and “without separation” (ἀχωρίστως)—all of which refer to the union of Christ’s two natures—are negative in force. Their presence helps to define the boundaries within which proper Christological thinking should take place.

The definition, however, is also positive. He is “one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, unique,” being “the same perfect in Godhead, the same perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man.” This positive content is offered as a proper Christological statement within the boundaries set by the negative terminology. It is offered as a true description of the communion of His attributes, as found in the Scriptures.

The definition of faith also makes use of terms which were present in the Hellenic culture, such as οὐσία, ὑπόστασις, and φύσις.[29] However, the thesis of The Myth of God Incarnate that herein is a Hellenizing of Christianity cannot be maintained. The Chalcedonian fathers were not engaged in a philosophical discussion as to how the infinite could relate to the finite in an Incarnation in such a way as would make sense to the Greek philosophical mind. They were engaged not in a speculative task but in a descriptive task. They were concerned to make a precise as well as accurate (to the data) statement about the Incarnation recorded in the Scriptures. Like Nicea before them, they found it necessary to use terms not in Scripture to express the sense of Scripture. Herein is not a Hellenization of Christianity but its protection from such Hellenization because of the false teachings of Nestorianism and Eutychianism.

Chalcedon and Christology Today

What about the relationship between Chalcedon and Christology today? Chalcedon demonstrates a method of Christology which recognizes (a) the central authority of Scripture and also (b) the necessity of making theological statements which are descriptive of Christ as He is revealed in the Scriptures in order to protect the church from misleading presentations of Him. Protestant evangelicalism, continuing in the tradition of sola Scriptura, shares this same method and purpose. The Myth of God Incarnate not only stands out of continuity with this Christological method but also is an example of that very kind of distortion such a method is designed to avoid.

The definition of faith at Chalcedon has now taken its place in a tradition of Christological formulation which includes other elements which have also taken their place during the history of theology. The basic reason Protestant evangelicalism has continued to make use of these formulations is not because of a doctrine of the authority of tradition, but because those formulations are in fact descriptive of what is in Scripture.

Seeing in traditional Christology an authority derived from Scripture rather than one equal to it also makes it both possible and necessary to reexamine those formulations to see if they continue to fulfill the needs of Christological expression today or whether new expressions might more accurately present the picture of Christ in Scripture. Thus it is possible to critique the definition of Chalcedon, but only from the standpoint of Scripture.[30] Such a high view of Scripture in Christology today is not only a fitting observance of the anniversary of that relationship begun 1, 530 years ago, but is also the only way to keep it vital in years to come. In like manner Calvin wrote:

But whenever a decree of any council is brought forward, I should like men…to examine by the standard of Scripture what it dealt with—and to do this in such a way that the definition of the council may have its weight and be like a provisional judgement, yet not hinder the examination which I have mentioned…. Thus to councils would come the majesty that is their due; yet in the meantime Scripture would stand out in the higher place, with everything subject to its standard. In this way, we willingly embrace and reverence as holy the early councils, such as…Chalcedon…which were concerned with refuting errors—in so far as they relate to the teachings of faith. For they contain nothing but the pure and genuine exposition of Scripture, which the holy fathers applied with spiritual prudence to crush the enemies of religion who had then arisen.[31]

Notes

1. Note especially the work by R. V. Sellers, The Council of Chalcedon (London: SPCK,1953).
2. Complete agreement was not achieved at Chalcedon, for a faction of the Alexandrian party rejected the definition of faith. This formed the nucleus of the Monophysites who permanently split from the rest of the church. Reconciliation of the schism was attempted at Constantinople in 553 and again in 680, where the Monophysite and monothelite questions were addressed. The schism was still not reconciled and continues today in the Orthodox churches between Eastern Orthodox (Chalcedonian) and Oriental Orthodox (Monophysite). Modern-day attempts to heal the schism along with continued discussion of the events and the formulary of Chalcedon can be found in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 10 (Winter 1964–65): 13 (Fall 1968): and 16 (Spring and Fall 1971).
3. This translation is given by Edward R. Hardy, ed., Christology of the Later Fathers, The Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954), p. 373.
4. John Hick, ed., The Myth of God Incarnate (London: SCM Press. 1977).
5. See, for example, Michael Green, ed., The Truth of God Incarnate (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1977); M. D. Goulder, ed., Incarnation and Myth, The Debate Continued (London: SCM Press, 1979); Don Cupitt, The Debate about Christ (London: SCM Press, 1979).
6. Hick, The Myth of God Incarnate, p. ix.
7. Ibid., p. 30.
8. This follows the thesis of Harnack that beginning with Athanasius, the Fathers produced a Christology on the basis of soteriology.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid., pp. 125-32.
11. Wiles writes: “The setting in which the process [of developing theological expression] took place was one in which the idea of supernatural divine intervention was a natural category of thought and faith, in a way that is no longer true of the main body even of convinced believers today. It was within the context of such a general belief in divine intervention that belief in the specific form of divine intervention which we know as the incarnation grew up” (Maurice Wiles, “Myth in Theology,” in The Myth of God Incarnate, p. 4). This objection is essentially the same which Bultmann raised and stated so clearly in his essay “New Testament and Mythology,” in Kerygma and Myth, ed. Hans Werner Bartsch (New York: Harper & Row, 1961) pp. 1-16.
12. Hick, The Myth of God Incarnate, p. 178 (italics added).
13. Ibid., pp. 178-79.
14. Ibid., pp. 6, 9. He does note, however, that “the most likely change would be towards a less exclusive insistence on Jesus as the way for all peoples and all cultures,” Hick’s article deals with this very issue.
15. On the relationship of the creed of Constantinople to the Nicene creed see J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 3d ed. (New York: David McKay Co., 1972), pp. 296-331.
16. Sellers, The Council of Chalcedon, p. xiii.
17. Athanasius, De Decretis, trans. J. H. Newman, 15. “The Council wished to do away with the irreligious phrases of the Arians, and to use instead the acknowledged words of the Scriptures, that the Son is not from nothing but ‘from God,’ and is ‘Word’ and ‘Wisdom,’ and not creature or work, but a proper offspring from the Father” (ibid., 19).
18. Ibid., 28.
19. Ibid., 20.
20. Ibid.
21. Athanasius also accused the Arians of using such concepts as a hermeneutical device to distort Scripture (Athanasius Orationes Contra Arianos 1.12.52).
22. Richard A. Norris, Jr., ed. and trans., The Christological Controversy, Sources of Early Christian Thought, ed. William G. Rusch (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), p. 158.
23. Hardy, Christology of the Later Fathers, p. 349.
24. See Sellers, The Council of Chalcedon, pp. 207-53.
25. See John F. Walvoord, Jesus Christ Our Lord (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969), pp. 117-18.
26. Hardy, Christology of the Later Fathers, p. 352.
27. Ibid., p. 356.
28. Sellers, The Council of Chalcedon, p. 110.
29. See the examination of these terms in Sellers, ibid. Also see the discussion in G. Christopher Stead, Divine Substance (London: Oxford University Press, 1977). An excellent discussion by Stead of οὐσία and ὁμοσύσιος is also found in his article, “The Significance of the Homousios,” Studia Patristica 3 (1961): 397-412.
30. See G. C. Berkouwer, The Person of Christ, Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954), pp. 90-97.
31. John Calvin The Institutes of the Christian Religion (trans. F. L. Battles) 4.9.8.