The Definition of Chalcedon
Following, then, the holy Fathers, we unite in teaching all men to confess the one and only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. This selfsame one is perfect [teleion] both in deity but also in human-ness; this selfsame one is also actually God and actually man, with a rational soul and a body. He is of the same reality as God [homoousion to patri] as far as his deity is concerned, and of the same reality as we are ourselves as far as his human-ness is concerned; thus like us in all respects, sin only excepted. Before time began, he was begotten of the Father, in respect of his deity, and now in these "last days," for us and on behalf of our salvation, this selfsame one was born of Mary the Virgin, who is God-bearer [theotokos] in respect of his human-ness.
[We also teach] that we apprehend this one and only Christ--Son, Lord, Only-Begotten--in two natures; [and we do this] without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing them into two separate categories, without contrasting them according to area or function. The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union. Instead, the "properties" of each nature are conserved and both natures concur in one "person" and in one hypostasis. They are not divided or cut into two prosopa {persons}, but are together the one and only and only-begotten Logos of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus have the prophets of old testified; thus the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us; thus the Symbol of the Fathers has handed down to us.
If The Da Vinci Code intrigues you, keep reading!
The Chalcedonian Definition was another major chapter in the creedal development of the Church. Following Nicaea and Constantinople (see previous creeds), some important points of Christology (the study of the Messiah, Jesus Christ...I say christology rather than theology for the sake of precision) were in question. Specifically, how is Christ human? How is he divine? Nicaea and Constantinople refuted Arius, who claimed that Jesus was a creature, created by God. However, new heresies arose that affirmed the deity, but endangered other aspects of Christ's person.
Apollinarianism claimed that Christ was fully divine, and even had a human body, but did not actually possess a 'human, rational soul' so that he was not, in essence, human. To use modern horror-film terms, it was like a body was created without life, a la Frankenstein, and then the Spirit of Christ inhabited the body, possessed it; but did not dispossess anyone else of it, because there was no living human to it. So Christ was fully divine, and even had material flesh...but he was not human.
Nestorianism affirmed Christ's divinity and humanity, but almost claimed that they took turns showing themselves. Nestorius reasoned that a divine being would not require rest or food, so whenever the Gospel accounts record Jesus eating or sleeping, we are observing the record of the human nature of Christ. Conversely, a human being cannot perform miracles or raise the dead, so when we observe such acts in the Gospels, we are observing the divine nature of Christ. However, this is clearly a set-up for some bad things...was Christ psychotic, suffering from Dissosiative Identity Disorder? Or just a human possessed by God, instead of a demon? Nestorius affirmed the divinity and humanity of Christ, but denied the unity of his one person.
Eutychianism affirmed Christ's divinity and humanity, but over-emphasized the unity. Rather than accepting that the one person, Christ, had a divine and a human nature, Eutyches reasoned that the divine and human natures came together to form a single 'half-breed' nature, neither divine nor human. The co-mingling and confusion of the natures obviously compromises Christ's divinity, as affirmed by Nicaea; but it also compromises his humanity, which is every bit as important as his divinity (even if we don't realize that).
Now try reading the creed again. You'll notice a number of specific uses of language aimed against each of these heresies. In fact, knowing the background will probably cause the creed make much more sense to you than it did before.
Now, I teased you above with something about The Da Vinci Code, so I'll deliver like I promised. {Spoilers ahead if you somehow haven't managed to hear about the basic premise of The Da Vinci Code!} If you're familiar with the story enough to remember some of the historical details Dan Brown throws into his book, then you may remember that he implicates Nicaea as the beginning of the major church cover-up of Christ's marriage to Mary Magdelene and the subsequent children, according to him. That does make some sense, since the Council of Nicaea was called to battle the Arian heresy that Christ was not God, but rather a creation. However, Arianism NEVER EVER ONCE claimed that Jesus Christ was 'merely human.' For Arians, Christ is the 'firstborn of all creation,' the 'first of God's works,' the highest created being. Much higher and more powerful than humans, more demi-god than anything else. Was Nicaea interested in affirming Christ's divinity? Absolutely, yes! Against charges that he had married and fathered children? No. This becomes very interesting when we approch the Council of Chalcedon, which flies in the face of Dan Brown's account of historical cover-up.
The major work of Chalcedon was to affirm that Christ was human, in every way possible except for sin! If the church was trying to cover-up a "royal bloodline" fathered from Jesus Christ, why, not 126 years later, would the Church turn around and offer a major theological frame for the full humanity of Jesus? If Christ was in full possession of a human nature, and having sex (that's how you'd get children) within marriage is not a sin (1 Corinthians 7), then it would fit, according to Chalcedon, that Christ had married and fathered kids.
For the record, I don't believe that happened. My point is this: the humanity of Christ is vital to the Christian faith. So, of course, is his full deity, but we cannot accept half of who Christ was, and think that to be sufficient. I'm not attacking The Da Vinci Code, I read it and enjoyed it (and I watched the movie...though I think the book was a little better). I just thought it'd be nice to relate this old creed to some of the water-cooler talk of our lives.
Oh, and Happy Fourth of July. :)
[We also teach] that we apprehend this one and only Christ--Son, Lord, Only-Begotten--in two natures; [and we do this] without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing them into two separate categories, without contrasting them according to area or function. The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union. Instead, the "properties" of each nature are conserved and both natures concur in one "person" and in one hypostasis. They are not divided or cut into two prosopa {persons}, but are together the one and only and only-begotten Logos of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus have the prophets of old testified; thus the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us; thus the Symbol of the Fathers has handed down to us.
If The Da Vinci Code intrigues you, keep reading!
The Chalcedonian Definition was another major chapter in the creedal development of the Church. Following Nicaea and Constantinople (see previous creeds), some important points of Christology (the study of the Messiah, Jesus Christ...I say christology rather than theology for the sake of precision) were in question. Specifically, how is Christ human? How is he divine? Nicaea and Constantinople refuted Arius, who claimed that Jesus was a creature, created by God. However, new heresies arose that affirmed the deity, but endangered other aspects of Christ's person.
Apollinarianism claimed that Christ was fully divine, and even had a human body, but did not actually possess a 'human, rational soul' so that he was not, in essence, human. To use modern horror-film terms, it was like a body was created without life, a la Frankenstein, and then the Spirit of Christ inhabited the body, possessed it; but did not dispossess anyone else of it, because there was no living human to it. So Christ was fully divine, and even had material flesh...but he was not human.
Nestorianism affirmed Christ's divinity and humanity, but almost claimed that they took turns showing themselves. Nestorius reasoned that a divine being would not require rest or food, so whenever the Gospel accounts record Jesus eating or sleeping, we are observing the record of the human nature of Christ. Conversely, a human being cannot perform miracles or raise the dead, so when we observe such acts in the Gospels, we are observing the divine nature of Christ. However, this is clearly a set-up for some bad things...was Christ psychotic, suffering from Dissosiative Identity Disorder? Or just a human possessed by God, instead of a demon? Nestorius affirmed the divinity and humanity of Christ, but denied the unity of his one person.
Eutychianism affirmed Christ's divinity and humanity, but over-emphasized the unity. Rather than accepting that the one person, Christ, had a divine and a human nature, Eutyches reasoned that the divine and human natures came together to form a single 'half-breed' nature, neither divine nor human. The co-mingling and confusion of the natures obviously compromises Christ's divinity, as affirmed by Nicaea; but it also compromises his humanity, which is every bit as important as his divinity (even if we don't realize that).
Now try reading the creed again. You'll notice a number of specific uses of language aimed against each of these heresies. In fact, knowing the background will probably cause the creed make much more sense to you than it did before.
Now, I teased you above with something about The Da Vinci Code, so I'll deliver like I promised. {Spoilers ahead if you somehow haven't managed to hear about the basic premise of The Da Vinci Code!} If you're familiar with the story enough to remember some of the historical details Dan Brown throws into his book, then you may remember that he implicates Nicaea as the beginning of the major church cover-up of Christ's marriage to Mary Magdelene and the subsequent children, according to him. That does make some sense, since the Council of Nicaea was called to battle the Arian heresy that Christ was not God, but rather a creation. However, Arianism NEVER EVER ONCE claimed that Jesus Christ was 'merely human.' For Arians, Christ is the 'firstborn of all creation,' the 'first of God's works,' the highest created being. Much higher and more powerful than humans, more demi-god than anything else. Was Nicaea interested in affirming Christ's divinity? Absolutely, yes! Against charges that he had married and fathered children? No. This becomes very interesting when we approch the Council of Chalcedon, which flies in the face of Dan Brown's account of historical cover-up.
The major work of Chalcedon was to affirm that Christ was human, in every way possible except for sin! If the church was trying to cover-up a "royal bloodline" fathered from Jesus Christ, why, not 126 years later, would the Church turn around and offer a major theological frame for the full humanity of Jesus? If Christ was in full possession of a human nature, and having sex (that's how you'd get children) within marriage is not a sin (1 Corinthians 7), then it would fit, according to Chalcedon, that Christ had married and fathered kids.
For the record, I don't believe that happened. My point is this: the humanity of Christ is vital to the Christian faith. So, of course, is his full deity, but we cannot accept half of who Christ was, and think that to be sufficient. I'm not attacking The Da Vinci Code, I read it and enjoyed it (and I watched the movie...though I think the book was a little better). I just thought it'd be nice to relate this old creed to some of the water-cooler talk of our lives.
Oh, and Happy Fourth of July. :)