How the Chalcedon Creed Dealt with the heresies regarding Christ’s two natures

The question of divinity concerning the Second Person of the Trinity was settled at the Council of Nicaea and Constantinople. Now the debate concerning his two natures that being his divinity and humanity persisted beyond the Council of Constantinople as these ended up creating heretical teachings as these heresies tended to be drawn towards either one or another of these natures of Christ.

Appollinarianism

Apollinaris of Laodicea believed that Christ had a divine mind in his humility which was problematic. Christ is not fully man as he was downplaying and denying his humanity as Christ had a human body with a fully divine mind which is no human being as Christ needed to be fully human so that he could save humanity.

This view is questionable in its anthropology makeup this was condemned by the early church at the Council of Constantinople as this denies the full humanity of Christ. As one of the Early Church Father Gregory of Nazianzus states, “ Our salvation depends as much on Christ’s identity as the son of Adam, Abraham, and David as on his being eternally begotten of the Father” (Horton, 2011) and Hebrew 4: 15 tells us that  “ in every respect has been tempted as we are yet without sin”.

The Chalcedon Creed dealt with this heresy as it stated: “Our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same Son, the same perfect in Godhead and the same perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, the same of a rational soul and body, consubstantial with the Father in Godhead, and the same consubstantial with us in manhood, like us in all things except sin” (Pienaar, 2020).

Nestorianism

Nestorius was of the view that Christ had two natures and two-person, one divine and the other human. This was against the position taken by the Latin-speaking West early church who took Tertullian’s formulation (two natures united in one person) to become the standard Christological position.  He believed that the human nature born of the Virgin Mary was not divine and that Mary should not be called the bearer of God but she was the bearer of Christ instead.

He separated his human character from his divinity as he was afraid that his human nature would contaminate and overtake his divinity hence, he separated them into two persons and two natures to prevent this cross-contamination. 

Nestorianism was condemned at the Council of Ephesus of 431 AD and this was also affirmed at the Council of Chalcedon 451 AD which in the Chalcedon Creed stated “ because of our salvation begotten from the Virgin Mary, the ‘Theotokos’, as regards His manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, made known in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation, the difference of the natures being by no means removed because of the union, but the property of each nature being preserved and coalescing in one ‘prosopon’ (person) and one ‘hypostasis’ – not parted or divided into two ‘prosopa” (Pienaar, 2020)

Eutychianism

Eutyches a monk in Constantinople argued that at the incarnation the Son had two natures divine and human but his human nature ended up being absorbed by His divine nature forming a third thing  (tertium quid ) or a third or a divine human substance to become one nature.

Eutyches believed that before the union they were two natures who were distinct but once united Son’s human nature ceased to exist like ours as it was swallowed up by the divine nature to become God’s very confusing body.

In 451 at the directive of Leo, the Council of Chalcedon condemned this heresy which believed that the incarnation formed a third thing (a tertium quid) and, that it undermined Jesus' humanity as it implies that Jesus did not possess true humanity. They confirmed the statement that Tertullian had declared centuries earlier that Christ has two natures in one person.

 The Chalcedon Creed made this statement of faith to counter the Eutechianism heresy “In agreement, therefore, with the holy fathers, we all unanimously teach that we should confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same Son, the same perfect in Godhead and the same perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man”

In conclusion, when talking about the two natures of Christ I think about Philippians 2:5-6 which says “ Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus. Who being in very nature God did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the nature of a servant being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man he humbled himself and became obedience to death- even death on a cross”  This Scripture should always be our reminder when we try to downplay any of the two natures of Christ that Christ was equally God and equally man and we should not separate these two natures as Christ is two natures but one person the God-man the Second person of the Trinity. Depending on our culture and context it is possible to uplift one of Christ’s nature at the expense of another. Some cultures are happy to accept his human nature as the son of Mary and Joseph and undermine his divinity nature the Logos(Word) was in the beginning and beginning here in the original Greek the word arche refer to eternity that the Second Member of the Trinity existed in eternity with God the Father and the Holy Spirit. 

In some cultures, Christ’s divine nature is more excepted than his human nature as the flesh is seen as sinful and dirty and God cannot take the form of a man. Both views are wrong and not Biblical and we should not make Jesus palatable to our cultural diet but our views of him should be influenced by the Biblical view which affirms both his humanity and divinity natures. 

Bibliography

Horton, M. (2011). The Christian Faith. Grand Rapids,MI: Zondervan.

Pienaar, C. (2020). Lecture 14 – The Council of Chalcedon. Cape Town: George Whitefield College-Unpublished.