Theological Formulation: The Road to Chalcedon)

I. Introduction: The Historical and Theological Context of Chalcedon

A. The Post-Nicene Landscape: The Need for Further Clarification

i. Council of Nicaea (325 AD): The Starting Point

Affirmation of Christ’s Deity: The Council of Nicaea declared Jesus to be homoousios (of the same substance) with the Father, affirming that Jesus is fully divine. This declaration was critical to counter the Arian claim that the Son was a created being and not co-equal with the Father.The Incomplete Picture: Nicaea successfully defined the Son’s relationship to the Father but did not address the specific nature of Christ’s incarnation. Questions remained concerning how Jesus could be both God and man, and how His divine and human natures coexisted.

Trinitarian Development After Nicaea

The Cappadocian Legacy: The role of key theological leaders was instrumental in advancing Trinitarian thought. They made it clear that the Godhead comprised three distinct persons who shared one essence, but also set the groundwork for understanding how Christ’s divine nature might coexist with His human nature.

ii. Council of Constantinople (381 AD): The First Council of Constantinople further solidified the Trinitarian doctrine and defended the divinity of the Holy Spirit. However, questions regarding the nature of the incarnation persisted and set the stage for the controversies of the 5th century.

B. Christological Questions Remained Unanswered

i. How Are Christ's Two Natures United? The church had declared that Jesus was both fully God and fully human, but how these two natures coexist in one person without confusion or division was not yet clearly articulated.

ii. Tension Between Natures: Early church debates often swayed between emphasizing Christ's divinity or His humanity, but a balance was needed to maintain a coherent understanding of salvation.

C. The Core Concern: Preserving the Gospel

Any compromise on the integrity of Christ's natures could jeopardize the salvation that Christians receive in Christ. If Jesus is not fully divine, He lacks the power to save; if He is not fully human, He cannot represent humanity.

i. Link to Previous Lectures

The Trinitarian Foundation: Building on the Trinitarian doctrines articulated at Nicaea and Constantinople, we now explore how these doctrines shaped our understanding of the incarnation. The doctrines of eternal generation and perichoresis provided a foundation for understanding the unity of Christ's two natures.

Divine Simplicity and Perichoresis: These theological concepts are crucial as we approach Christology. The unity and simplicity of God inform us that Christ's divine nature cannot be divided or changed by the incarnation, while perichoresis helps us understand the intimate relationship between Christ’s two natures.

ii. The Gospel at Stake: Why Christological Precision Matters

Preserving the Integrity of Salvation

Mediator Between God and Humanity: For Jesus to act as the mediator, He must fully represent both parties involved—God and humanity. Compromising on either nature would invalidate His role as a mediator.

Union with Humanity: Jesus' full humanity is essential for Him to truly stand in our place, to bear our sin, and to overcome death. Without a true and complete human nature, His sacrifice would not be effective for us.

The Theological Balance Required

Avoiding Imbalance: The Church's challenge was to maintain a careful balance between affirming the fullness of Christ’s divinity and the fullness of His humanity. Any overemphasis on one aspect to the detriment of the other led to heretical teachings.

The Need for Orthodoxy: Orthodoxy is not merely about maintaining doctrinal purity but ensuring that our understanding of Christ aligns with the salvation He offers. This understanding ensures that the gospel is protected, and that the church proclaims the correct message about the nature and work of Christ.

D. Overview of Christological Heresies Leading to Chalcedon

The Four Key Heresies: Overview

Apollinarianism: This heresy denied the full humanity of Christ by claiming that the divine Logos replaced the human mind in Jesus. This effectively made Christ less than fully human.

Nestorianism: Nestorianism emphasized the separation between Christ’s divine and human natures to such an extent that it effectively proposed two persons in Christ. This undermined the unity of Christ’s person.

Monophysitism: Monophysitism held that Christ had only one nature after the union—either a divine nature that absorbed the human or a hybrid nature. This heresy compromised both Christ’s true humanity and true divinity.

Eutychianism: Often considered a variant of Monophysitism, Eutychianism argued that Christ’s human nature was absorbed into His divine nature, making Him essentially only divine post-incarnation.

II. Apollinarianism: Denial of Christ's Full Humanity

A. Historical Background of Apollinarianism

i. Context of the Heresy

Apollinarianism emerged in the mid-4th century as a response to Arianism. The intent was to protect the unity of Christ against any notion that might imply division or separation.

Motivation Behind Apollinarianism: The motivation for this heresy was to safeguard the divinity of Christ against those who would undermine His deity. However, in doing so, Apollinaris ended up denying an essential aspect of Christ’s humanity.

Philosophical Influences: There was an implicit influence of Greek philosophy, particularly in terms of anthropology. Apollinaris could not conceive of a fully human mind coexisting with the divine Logos without introducing internal conflict or sin.

B. Theological Claims of Apollinarianism

i. The Nature of Christ’s Incarnation According to Apollinaris

No Human Mind in Christ: Apollinaris taught that Jesus did not have a human rational mind or spirit (nous). Instead, the divine Logos took the place of the human mind, which meant Jesus had a human body and soul but lacked a human intellect.

Reduction of Humanity: By denying the human mind, Apollinaris effectively reduced Christ's humanity. He argued that a complete human mind would introduce a duality that would undermine the unity of Christ’s person.

ii. The Christological Problem

Partial Humanity: Without a human mind, Christ’s humanity is incomplete. This raises significant questions regarding His ability to represent and redeem humanity fully. Christ becomes less than fully human, which means He cannot be the second Adam who stands in the place of fallen humanity.

Scriptural Errors and Theological Implications

Scriptural Missteps of Apollinarianism

Hebrews 2:17 - "Therefore, He had to be made like His brothers in every respect, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people."

Exegetical Insight: This verse makes it clear that Christ had to be made like His brothers “in every respect.” Apollinarianism fails this standard by denying Christ a human mind, which means He was not like us in every respect.Luke 2:52 - “And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man.”

Human Development: Jesus’ growth in wisdom implies the presence of a human mind. This growth would be unnecessary if His mind were purely divine, as the divine mind cannot grow or develop.Implications for the Gospel

Salvific Representation: Without a human mind, Christ could not fully represent humanity. Redemption requires that Christ is fully human—body, soul, and mind—so that He could stand as the true substitute for every aspect of our fallen nature.The Second Adam: The first Adam sinned as a complete human being, including his rational faculties. For Christ to succeed where Adam failed, He needed to possess the same human faculties, including a rational human mind, to provide perfect obedience.

The Church’s Response to Apollinarianism

Defense of Christ’s Full Humanity

Affirmation of Full Humanity: The Church responded by affirming that Christ must be fully human in body, soul, and mind to redeem humanity completely. This included defending the idea that Jesus possessed a rational human soul, which is essential for His representative role.Council of Constantinople (381 AD): Apollinarianism was officially condemned at the First Council of Constantinople. The council reaffirmed that Jesus is fully human and fully divine, with both a complete human nature and the fullness of the divine nature.Theological Defense and Clarification

Unity Without Confusion: The Church sought to articulate how Christ could be fully human without undermining His divinity. They emphasized that the two natures exist in one person without confusion, mixture, or separation.Importance of the Hypostatic Union: The term “hypostatic union” would later be used to describe the union of Christ’s two natures in one person. This concept was critical in explaining how Christ could possess both a human and divine mind without internal conflict or division.

III. Nestorianism: Dividing the Person of Christ

Historical Background of Nestorianism

The Rise of Nestorianism

The Reaction Against Apollinarianism: Nestorianism arose partly in response to heresies like Apollinarianism, seeking to safeguard the distinction between Christ’s divine and human natures.

Emphasis on Distinction: Nestorius, in his zeal to protect the integrity of Christ's humanity, emphasized the distinction between the divine and human to such an extent that it led to a problematic separation.

Political and Ecclesiastical Context: Nestorianism gained traction in the early 5th century within a broader theological debate that also had political implications, particularly in Alexandria and Antioch, where different schools of thought clashed over Christology.

Theological Claims of Nestorianism

Two Natures, Two Persons?

Extreme Distinction: Nestorius argued that Christ had two distinct natures that operated independently, essentially resulting in two persons—a human Jesus and a divine Logos—coexisting in a moral union rather than a hypostatic union.

Rejection of Theotokos: Nestorius famously rejected the term Theotokos (“God-bearer”) for Mary, arguing instead for Christotokos (“Christ-bearer”), emphasizing that Mary bore Christ’s human nature but not His divinity. This highlighted his insistence on separating the divine and human aspects of Christ.

The Christological Problem

Undermining the Unity of Christ: By emphasizing the two natures to such an extent, Nestorius undermined the unity of Christ as a single person. If Jesus is effectively two persons, it raises questions about which person performed which actions, leading to confusion regarding His work of salvation.

Threat to the Mediator Role: For Christ to be an effective mediator between God and humanity, He must be one person. Nestorianism’s division jeopardizes this unity, thereby compromising Christ’s mediatorial role.

Scriptural Errors and Theological Implications

Scriptural Missteps of Nestorianism

John 1:14 - “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

Exegetical Insight: The phrase “the Word became flesh” implies that the divine Logos and the human nature were united in one person. Nestorianism’s two-person theory undermines this fundamental unity.Philippians 2:6-7 - “Who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.”

Unified Person: The one who existed in the form of God is the same person who took on the form of a servant. There is no division here between the divine and the human—the action is attributed to one person.

Implications for the Gospel

Division of Christ’s Person Undermines Salvation: If Jesus is divided into two persons, then His work of redemption becomes incoherent. Who died on the cross? Was it the human Jesus alone, or was the divine Logos involved? A divided Christ cannot effect salvation, as both natures are necessary for atonement.

Suffering and Divine Solidarity: Nestorianism also threatens the understanding that God, through the person of Christ, fully entered into human suffering. If the divine and human are divided, then the divine Logos does not truly participate in the suffering of the cross.

The Church’s Response to Nestorianism

Affirmation of the Hypostatic Union

One Person, Two Natures: The Church responded by affirming that Christ is one person with two distinct natures—divine and human. This means that while the natures are distinct, they exist in one person without division or separation.

Council of Ephesus (431 AD): The Council of Ephesus condemned Nestorianism and affirmed the use of the term Theotokos to describe Mary, emphasizing that the one person of Christ was both fully God and fully human from the moment of conception.

Theological Defense and Clarification

Communicatio Idiomatum: The Church articulated the doctrine of communicatio idiomatum(communication of attributes), which means that the attributes of both natures (human and divine) can be ascribed to the one person of Christ. This ensured that Christ’s actions were understood as the actions of the one person, not divided between two separate entities.

Unity in Soteriology: The Church emphasized that a unified Christ is essential for salvation. The actions of Christ—whether suffering, performing miracles, or rising from the dead—are all the actions of one person, ensuring the efficacy of His redemptive work.

5. Modern Parallels and Relevance

Modern Denials of Christ’s Full Humanity

Subtle Apollinarian Tendencies: In modern times, some theological traditions may implicitly deny the full humanity of Christ by overemphasizing His divinity to the exclusion of His human experiences and emotions. Examples include depictions of Jesus that minimize His genuine struggles, growth, and temptations.Importance of Full Humanity in Pastoral Theology: The full humanity of Christ is critical in pastoral contexts, as believers need a Savior who understands their experiences. The denial of Christ’s human mind or will makes Him distant and less relatable. Hebrews 2:17-18 serves as a powerful reminder that Christ’s human experience is essential for His role as a merciful and faithful high priest.Practical Implications for the Gospel

Empathy and Comfort: Apollinarianism undermines the empathy of Christ. Hebrews assures us that Christ can sympathize with our weaknesses. Without a human mind, Jesus could not genuinely experience our struggles, which is a core part of the gospel's comfort.Holistic Redemption: The doctrine that Christ assumed all of human nature is essential for holistic redemption. If Christ did not possess a human mind, then our intellectual and emotional faculties are left unredeemed. This is why the Church rejected Apollinarianism and affirmed that Christ assumed a full human nature, ensuring our complete redemption.

V. The Heresy of Nestorianism: Attempting to Protect the Distinction of Natures

1. Introduction to Nestorianism

The Historical Context of Nestorianism

Origins of Nestorianism: Named after Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 428 AD). Nestorius was primarily concerned with preserving the distinction between Christ’s divine and human natures. He was reacting against what he saw as a blurring of these natures in the language used by some to describe the Virgin Mary as Theotokos ("God-bearer" or "Mother of God").The Reaction to Theotokos: Nestorius took issue with the term Theotokos because he believed it compromised the true humanity of Christ. He preferred Christotokos ("Christ-bearer"), which he argued preserved the humanity of Jesus, emphasizing that Mary gave birth to Jesus in his humanity rather than to God in his divine essence.

Theological Concerns of Nestorianism

Duality of Christ: Nestorius’ emphasis on the distinction between Christ’s two natures led him to articulate what sounded like a separation between the divine and human persons within Christ. This approach suggested that Jesus was effectively two persons—a divine person and a human person—working in tandem rather than being united as a single person.Failure to Comprehend Hypostatic Union: Nestorianism failed to uphold the reality of the hypostatic union—the theological truth that the divine and human natures are united in one person without confusion or separation. This misunderstanding led to a divided Christ and essentially compromised the concept of Christ being one Lord and Savior.

2. Scriptural Analysis and Rebuttal

Biblical Support for the Unity of Christ’s Person

John 1:14 – “The Word became flesh”: This foundational verse speaks of the divine Word becoming flesh, indicating a real union between the divine and human in the person of Christ. Nestorianism fails to uphold this union, suggesting instead that the Word merely assumed a human individual who remained separate.

Exegetical Insight: The phrase “became flesh” implies an intimate and inseparable unity. The incarnation was not the assumption of a human being as a separate partner but the assumption of human nature into the divine person of the Word.Philippians 2:5-11: Paul’s description of Christ as having “emptied himself” and taken on the form of a servant is an indication of one divine person who experienced both divine glory and human suffering. Nestorianism’s duality would imply that the divine and human actions are separate, which is inconsistent with Paul’s portrayal of Christ.

Importance of Kenosis: The “emptying” does not mean abandoning divinity but taking on humanity. Nestorianism, by proposing two persons, divides this act, which is portrayed biblically as a single act by the unified person of Christ.

Biblical Titles and Nestorian Misinterpretations

Acts 20:28 – “God purchased the church with His own blood”: This verse refers to the divine person of Christ shedding blood. Under Nestorianism, the shedding of blood could only be attributed to the human person, thereby creating a disconnect between the divinity of Christ and his salvific act on the cross.

Theological Significance: The fact that Scripture attributes the shedding of blood to the divine person ("God purchased the church") demonstrates the inseparable union of the two natures. The divine Son of God died in his humanity—a truth that Nestorianism fails to maintain by separating the persons.

3. Soteriological Implications of Nestorianism

The Threat to the Gospel

The Need for One Mediator: Scripture teaches that there is one mediator between God and men—the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5). Nestorianism, by dividing Christ into two persons, effectively introduces two potential mediators: the divine person and the human person. This division contradicts the very essence of Christ's mediatorial work, which requires him to be both fully God and fully man in one person.A Fractured Atonement: If Christ's personhood is divided, then the atonement is compromised. For the atonement to be effective, it must be the act of one person who is both fully divine (to bear the infinite wrath of God) and fully human (to represent humanity). A divided Christ cannot accomplish this, as it would either be a mere human offering an insufficient sacrifice or a divine being disconnected from true human experience.

Christological Titles Compromised

Emmanuel (“God with us”): In Matthew 1:23, Jesus is called “Emmanuel,” meaning “God with us.” This designation loses its significance under Nestorianism because it suggests that God is only “with” humanity in a cooperative relationship rather than truly united to humanity. The gospel hinges on the fact that God became man, not simply associated with a man.The Role of Theotokos in Orthodox Christology: The term Theotokos emphasizes that the one born of Mary is none other than the divine Son in the flesh. Denying this term as Nestorius did leads to a theological disconnect between Jesus’ humanity and divinity. The implications for the incarnation and the reality of God’s presence with his people are diminished.

4. Church Response to Nestorianism

The Council of Ephesus (431 AD)

Condemnation of Nestorianism: The Council of Ephesus condemned Nestorius’ teachings, affirming that Christ is one person in two natures. The council declared that the divine and human natures are united without division or separation, preserving the true unity of Christ.

“One and the Same” Language: The council used the language of “one and the same” to describe Christ, emphasizing that it is one person who acts in both his divine and human natures. This was a direct response to Nestorian dualism, which implied two separate actors.Defense of Theotokos: The Council upheld Mary’s title of Theotokos, affirming that the one born of her was indeed God in the flesh. This was crucial in maintaining the unity of Christ’s person and the truth that God himself entered into human history for the purpose of redemption.

Theological Explanation of Hypostatic Union

The One Person, Two Natures Framework: The Church affirmed that Christ is one person (hypostasis) with two distinct natures—divine and human. These two natures coexist without confusion, change, division, or separation. This understanding preserves the full humanity and full divinity of Christ in one unified person.Implications for Worship: The unity of Christ’s person means that worship offered to Jesus is offered to the divine Son who assumed human nature. This guards against the potential idolatry implied by Nestorianism, where one could mistakenly attribute worship to a “mere human” if the personhood of Christ is divided.

5. Historical and Theological Legacy

The Role of the Chalcedonian Definition: Nestorianism’s errors were definitively addressed at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, where the hypostatic union was fully articulated. The Chalcedonian Creed affirmed that the divine and human natures are united in the one person of Christ "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation."Continued Relevance for Christology: The response to Nestorianism set the trajectory for all subsequent orthodox Christology, emphasizing that Christ is one person with two complete natures. This balance is necessary for maintaining the integrity of the incarnation, atonement, and the believer’s union with Christ.

6. Practical and Pastoral Implications

Unity of Christ for the Believer’s Assurance

The Mediator We Need: Nestorianism’s separation of Christ’s natures can lead to doubt regarding the sufficiency of Christ as a mediator. The truth of the hypostatic union assures believers that the one who intercedes for them is both fully divine (able to reconcile them to God) and fully human (able to sympathize with their weaknesses).The Comfort of Knowing “God with Us”: By affirming that the divine Son became truly human, believers can have confidence that God understands their suffering and weakness. The Nestorian separation diminishes this comfort by making Christ’s divinity seem distant or detached from his humanity.

V. Monophysitism: “One Nature” Christology

Monophysitism, deriving from the Greek words "mono" (one) and "physis" (nature), argued that Christ had only one nature after the incarnation. Unlike Nestorianism, which separated the natures to the point of almost creating two persons, Monophysitism erred in the opposite direction by merging the two natures into one, often leading to the diminishment of Christ’s humanity or divinity. This section will explore Monophysitism in detail, from its theological roots to its impact on Christology, and explain why it presented a profound threat to the gospel.

A. Background and Historical Context

The Rise of Monophysitism

Reaction Against Nestorianism: Monophysitism developed as a reaction to Nestorianism's perceived separation of Christ’s natures. The Monophysites were concerned that Nestorianism divided Christ into two persons and sought to protect the unity of His person.Key Figures: Although not explicitly named here, significant proponents articulated this belief in a way that gained traction among the church communities, especially in the East. They emphasized the necessity of maintaining a singular, unified nature to protect Christ's true personhood.

The Nature of Monophysitism

Christ's Single Nature Post-Incarnation: Monophysitism taught that after the incarnation, Christ had only one, unified nature, which was predominantly divine. The human and divine were said to fuse into a single "theanthropic" (God-man) nature.The Issue of Assimilation: In Monophysitism, Christ’s humanity was often described as being "absorbed" by His divinity, like a drop of water in the ocean. This analogy was used to emphasize the unity but ultimately led to a devaluing of the full humanity of Jesus.

B. Theological Errors in Monophysitism

Denial of True Humanity

Absorption of Humanity: The belief that Christ’s human nature was absorbed into His divine nature leads to a denial of the true and ongoing humanity of Christ. If Christ’s humanity was overwhelmed or subsumed by His divinity, He could not genuinely represent humanity.Undermines the Hypostatic Union: Monophysitism failed to maintain the balance of the hypostatic union—the union of two distinct natures (divine and human) in the one person of Christ. By collapsing the two into one, the distinctiveness of each nature was lost.Failure to Acknowledge Full Human Experience: The resulting single nature could not fully experience the limitations of humanity—such as suffering, hunger, and temptation—which were essential to Christ’s mission as the mediator between God and humanity.

Soteriological Implications

Diminishing the Mediation Role: If Christ’s humanity was absorbed into His divinity, He could not serve as the mediator who truly stood in the place of humanity. For Christ to represent humanity before God, He had to be genuinely human.No True Substitute for Humanity: The gospel necessitates that Jesus be truly human to substitute for human sin. Monophysitism compromises this truth by effectively de-emphasizing or eliminating Christ's humanity, leaving no real representative for humankind.

C. Scriptural Contradictions to Monophysitism

Philippians 2:5-8 – The Kenosis of Christ

The Emptying: This passage speaks of Christ “emptying Himself, taking on the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” The passage clearly emphasizes the real and distinct humanity of Christ alongside His divinity. Monophysitism undermines this by effectively negating the significance of Christ's “emptying” to take on true human nature.Exegesis of 'Form of a Servant': The phrase "form of a servant" emphasizes not only Christ's external appearance as a human but also His internal experience and submission to the human condition. If His human nature is absorbed, then His submission loses its profound significance.

Hebrews 4:15 – The Sympathetic High Priest

Sympathy Requires True Humanity: The author of Hebrews asserts that Christ was tempted in every way as we are, yet without sin. This statement necessitates a fully human nature capable of experiencing temptation, which Monophysitism denies by reducing the human nature into a mere aspect of the divine.Importance of Distinct Natures: The distinct human nature enables Christ to genuinely sympathize with human weaknesses. A fused nature, as suggested by Monophysitism, cannot experience the weaknesses and limitations that define human experience.

Luke 24:39 – The Resurrected Body

Physicality of Christ: After His resurrection, Christ invited His disciples to touch Him and see that He had "flesh and bones." This explicit affirmation of Christ's physical nature is critical. Monophysitism’s absorption theory denies the full continuity of Christ's humanity, even after the resurrection.Implication for Resurrection Hope: If Christ did not retain a true, distinct human nature, the hope of resurrection and glorified bodies for believers is compromised, as it depends on Christ being the “firstfruits” of a genuinely human resurrection.

D. The Gospel Under Threat by Monophysitism

Undermines the Incarnation

No True God-Man: Monophysitism’s emphasis on one nature undermines the core mystery of the incarnation—that the eternal Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). The incarnation involves the Word becoming truly human while remaining fully divine, not transforming into a new, fused nature.Loss of Relatable Savior: By effectively eliminating Christ’s humanity, Monophysitism robs the gospel of a Savior who can genuinely relate to human beings. Christ’s experiences of hunger, thirst, temptation, and suffering are not real if His human nature is swallowed by His divinity.

Soteriological Ramifications

Substitutionary Atonement: For substitutionary atonement to work, Christ needed to be genuinely human, experiencing death in the place of humanity. Monophysitism compromises this substitution by not allowing Christ to fully partake in human nature.Mediator and High Priest: The biblical portrayal of Jesus as our high priest who mediates on our behalf requires that He be fully human. A single, fused nature is neither fully human nor fully divine in a distinct sense, which means the role of mediator is undermined.

Why the Gospel Fails Under Monophysitism

Lack of Full Representation: Humanity needs a representative who is fully one of them—one who is flesh and blood, who experienced all aspects of life. By denying Christ’s full humanity, Monophysitism creates a Christ who cannot stand as the second Adam and cannot effectively represent humanity in a covenantal relationship.No Real Sacrifice: The sacrificial system of the Old Testament required an unblemished substitute that represented the people. Christ, as the Lamb of God, had to be fully human to fulfill this role (Hebrews 10:5-10). If Christ’s humanity is subsumed by His divinity, then He cannot effectively fulfill the typology of the sacrificial lamb.

E. The Church’s Response to Monophysitism

Reaffirmation of the Two Natures of Christ

Council of Chalcedon (451 AD): The council gathered to respond to the theological errors present in Monophysitism. It affirmed that Christ is “acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.” This statement was aimed directly at countering the idea that Christ’s human nature was somehow dissolved into His divinity.The “Without Confusion, Without Change” Clauses: The specific phrases used by the council sought to clarify that the natures remained distinct and unconfused in the person of Christ. The council sought to articulate a way that preserved the full integrity of both natures while maintaining the unity of the person.

Importance of Maintaining Both Natures

Communicatio Idiomatum: The doctrine of the “communication of attributes” was crucial in refuting Monophysitism. This teaching asserts that, while Christ’s two natures are distinct, the properties of each nature can be ascribed to the one person of Christ. This allowed the Church to affirm statements like "God suffered" without confusing the divine nature with human suffering.Safeguarding the Mystery of the Incarnation: Chalcedon recognized that the incarnation was a profound mystery involving the union of two natures. Monophysitism’s oversimplification was an attempt to rationalize this mystery, but in doing so, it undermined the profound truth of the God-man.

Pastoral Implications of the Response

A Savior Who Is With Us: The Church’s rejection of Monophysitism was not just about abstract theological precision—it was deeply pastoral. Believers needed assurance that Jesus was truly one of them. The Chalcedonian Definition preserved this truth, emphasizing that Jesus' full humanity allowed Him to understand, sympathize, and intercede effectively.Unity Without Confusion: The Church emphasized that the unity of Christ’s person did not come at the expense of either nature. The unity was preserved without confusion, allowing Christians to affirm both Christ’s full deity and His full humanity.

F. Conclusion: Monophysitism and the Preservation of Orthodoxy

The Balance of the Incarnation

Avoiding Oversimplification: The Church’s task was to avoid extremes—neither dividing Christ into two persons (Nestorianism) nor fusing His natures into one (Monophysitism). Monophysitism presented a view of Christ that simplified the mystery of the incarnation at the cost of its true significance.The Gospel Depends on Christ's Full Humanity and Divinity: For the gospel to be true, Jesus must be both fully God and fully human. Monophysitism, by compromising Christ's humanity, made it impossible for Jesus to serve as the true mediator and substitute for humanity.

The Chalcedonian Definition as the Fulfillment of Apostolic Teaching

Protecting the Faith Once Delivered: Chalcedon did not innovate but rather preserved what had been handed down from the apostles. It sought to safeguard the profound mystery of God incarnate for the sake of the gospel and the salvation of believers.Christ as the God-Man: By affirming Christ’s two natures, Chalcedon maintained the truth that Jesus is both fully God, able to save, and fully human, able to represent. This balanced understanding protects the integrity of the gospel, ensuring that the person who died on the cross was truly God incarnate—able to bring about redemption.

V. Eutychianism: The Blending of the Natures

A. Introduction to Eutychianism

Historical Background

Who Was Eutyches?: Eutyches was an influential monk and archimandrite from Constantinople. He was a staunch opponent of Nestorianism and sought to uphold the unity of Christ’s person.Historical Context: The emergence of Eutychianism occurred in a context where debates on Christology were at a fever pitch. The goal was to preserve the orthodox faith against the perceived threat of Nestorianism, which had, in the eyes of some, separated the divine and human natures to an extreme degree.

Reaction to Nestorianism

Fear of Division: Eutyches' doctrine emerged largely as an overreaction to Nestorianism. He saw Nestorianism’s insistence on the distinction of natures as tantamount to having “two Christs,” which he viewed as compromising the unity of the Savior.Desire for Unity: Eutyches' intentions were commendable in seeking to defend the unity of Christ, yet he fell into an equally dangerous error by denying the true distinction between Christ's two natures.

Council of Ephesus (449 AD) – The “Robber Council”

Significance: Eutyches gained support from the so-called “Robber Council” of Ephesus in 449 AD, which endorsed his teaching and denounced his critics. This council was marred by political manipulation and violence, leading to its later repudiation by Chalcedon.Outcome: The council's decisions were seen as deeply problematic, particularly by those who held to the orthodox understanding of Christ’s two distinct natures. It resulted in confusion, necessitating a further council to bring clarity to the church’s teaching.

B. The Core of Eutychian Teaching

Doctrine of the Blended Nature

“One Nature After the Union”: Eutyches taught that after the incarnation, the human and divine natures of Christ became fused into one nature. His famous statement, “I confess that our Lord was of two natures before the union, but after the union, I confess one nature,” succinctly expresses this doctrine.A New Composite Nature: Eutyches argued that Christ’s humanity was absorbed into his divinity, resulting in a new, composite nature. This effectively eliminated any true distinction between the divine and the human after the incarnation.

Misinterpretation of Orthodox Teaching

Conflation of Terms: Eutyches conflated the concepts of "person" and "nature," assuming that if there were two natures, there must also be two persons, which is precisely what Nestorianism argued. In his effort to avoid this error, Eutyches denied that the two natures continued in their full integrity.Misunderstanding the Hypostatic Union: The hypostatic union refers to the union of Christ’s two distinct natures in one person, without confusion or change. Eutyches misunderstood this and ultimately compromised the real human and divine aspects of Christ.

Relation to Monophysitism

Connection to Monophysitism: Eutyches' doctrine is often considered a form of Monophysitism, as it teaches a “single nature” post-incarnation. However, it is distinguished by its explicit belief that the human nature was effectively lost in the union.Radical Emphasis on Unity: Unlike moderate Monophysitism, which allowed for the divine nature to predominate while still preserving some distinction, Eutyches was more extreme in his claim that the human nature was subsumed entirely into the divine.

C. The Theological Problems with Eutychianism

Denial of the Full Humanity of Christ

Human Nature is Negated: Eutyches' doctrine effectively denied the ongoing reality of Christ’s humanity. If the human nature is absorbed into the divine, then Christ is not truly human in the same way we are.Implications for Soteriology: The denial of Christ’s full humanity means that Jesus could not be a true substitute for humanity. According to orthodox soteriology, Christ must be fully human to represent humanity and fully divine to conquer sin and death.

No True Mediation Between God and Man

Loss of True Mediator: 1 Timothy 2:5 says that Christ is the one mediator between God and men. If Christ's humanity is absorbed, his ability to be a true mediator is compromised. He must be both fully God and fully human to bridge the gap between a holy God and sinful humanity.Rejection of Key Aspects of Hebrews: The book of Hebrews emphasizes Christ’s high priestly role, which depends on his sharing in our humanity (Hebrews 2:14-18; 4:15). Eutychianism strips Christ of his ability to sympathize with human weakness since his humanity has effectively been swallowed by his divinity.

Confusion of the Natures

Contrary to Chalcedonian Orthodoxy: The Chalcedonian Definition emphasized that Christ's two natures must exist “without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.” Eutychianism directly contradicts the “without confusion” and “without change” clauses by teaching that the divine and human natures are fused.Misrepresentation of Divine Simplicity: Divine simplicity asserts that God is not composed of parts and cannot be divided or changed. If Christ’s divinity absorbs his humanity, it implies that God’s nature can be altered, which undermines divine simplicity and leads to a distorted view of God's immutability.

D. Scriptural Examination and Rebuttal of Eutychianism

Scriptural Basis for the Distinct Natures

John 1:14 - “The Word Became Flesh”: The incarnation means that the divine Word truly took on human nature. Eutyches' view undermines the reality of this human nature, implying it is swallowed up by the divine. The text clearly indicates that the Word, while remaining divine, also became fully human.Philippians 2:6-8 - The Kenosis: Paul writes that Christ, though being in the form of God, “emptied himself” by taking on human nature. Eutyches' teaching implies that the human nature is lost or overshadowed, whereas Paul emphasizes both divine humility and genuine humanity.Hebrews 4:15 - A High Priest Who Can Sympathize: The ability of Christ to sympathize with human weaknesses depends on his real human experience. If Christ's humanity is effectively lost, this scriptural truth is negated, undermining the comfort that believers receive from knowing Christ has fully entered into the human experience.

Biblical Rebuttal of Composite Nature

Luke 24:39 - Post-Resurrection Body: In Luke’s gospel, Jesus explicitly invites the disciples to touch him and says, “A spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” This statement indicates the continued reality of Christ’s physical, human nature even after the resurrection. Eutychianism cannot adequately explain these texts without undermining their clear teaching.1 John 4:2-3 - The Confession of Christ in the Flesh: John warns against those who deny that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. Eutychianism, in effectively negating Christ's ongoing humanity, falls under this condemnation as it ultimately compromises the confession of the incarnation.

Typological Refutation

The Last Adam: In 1 Corinthians 15:45, Paul calls Christ the “last Adam.” This requires that Christ be fully human in order to represent humanity. The typological link between Adam and Christ becomes meaningless if Christ’s humanity is overshadowed by his divinity. Adam was fully human, and Christ, as the “last Adam,” must also be fully human to fulfill this typology.The Sacrificial Lamb: The Old Testament sacrificial system required that the sacrifice be like those it was offered for—spotless, yet of the same nature. Christ as the Lamb of God (John 1:29) had to be fully human to be a fitting sacrifice for human sin. Eutychianism undermines this vital typological fulfillment.

E. The Threat of Eutychianism to the Gospel

Undermines Jesus’ Role as the Second Adam

Human Representative: Christ’s role as the second Adam (Romans 5:12-21) is compromised if his humanity is not preserved. In order to undo the effects of Adam’s sin, Christ needed to be truly human, and Eutychianism denies the full reality of this representative humanity.Vicarious Obedience: The concept of vicarious obedience—that Christ obeyed the law perfectly on behalf of humanity—requires that Christ be fully human. If his humanity is subsumed into his divinity, then the genuine human obedience required for our redemption is lost.

Compromises the Incarnation

Nature of the Incarnation: The incarnation is the central mystery of the Christian faith—God became man without ceasing to be God. Eutychianism compromises this mystery by effectively erasing the human aspect of Christ. This makes the incarnation less about God becoming man and more about God disguising himself as a human.Denial of True Substitution: For atonement to be effective, Christ needed to be fully human to bear the punishment for human sin (Isaiah 53:4-6). Eutychianism denies this because if Christ’s humanity is absorbed into his divinity, he cannot truly represent humanity on the cross.

Negates Christ's Example for Believers

Christ’s Example in Suffering: 1 Peter 2:21 teaches that Christ left us an example that we should follow in his steps, especially in suffering. If Christ did not retain a true human nature, then his example loses its meaning. How can believers follow in the steps of someone whose humanity was overshadowed by divinity?The Hope of Resurrection: The resurrection of believers is based on the resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:20-23). If Christ’s humanity was absorbed into his divinity, then his resurrection was not truly human, and the hope of our own future resurrection is undermined. Eutychianism ultimately jeopardizes the believer’s hope for bodily resurrection.

F. The Church’s Response Leading to Chalcedon

Condemnation of Eutychianism

Flavian of Constantinople: Flavian, the Patriarch of Constantinople, was a key opponent of Eutyches and condemned his teachings in a synod held in 448 AD. Flavian argued that Eutyches' doctrine effectively denied the incarnation by denying the integrity of Christ’s human nature.Leo’s Tome (449 AD): Leo the Great wrote a detailed theological response to Eutyches in his Tome, which emphasized the full humanity and divinity of Christ in one person, with each nature maintaining its properties. Leo’s articulation provided a foundation for Chalcedon’s Definition and directly countered Eutyches' teaching.

Council of Chalcedon (451 AD)

Chalcedonian Definition: The Council of Chalcedon provided the definitive statement on Christ’s two natures, affirming that Christ is “acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.” This statement addressed the core error of Eutychianism by affirming that the natures remain distinct and unconfused in the one person of Christ.Clarifying the Hypostatic Union: Chalcedon sought to preserve both the unity of Christ’s person and the distinction of his natures. The council declared that Christ is fully God and fully human, united in one person, and that these natures are neither mixed nor confused.

Theological Emphasis on the Gospel

The Importance of Maintaining Distinction: The Chalcedonian Definition maintained that for the gospel to remain intact, both natures of Christ must be preserved without confusion. The human nature must be capable of suffering and dying, while the divine nature must be capable of conquering death. Eutychianism threatened the very fabric of this gospel proclamation.The Descent to Save: As in the previous lecture, the phrase “He came down” is vital to the church's understanding of the incarnation. Eutychianism, by negating the full humanity of Christ, undermines this descent. If the human nature is absorbed, then Christ did not truly come down to partake of our humanity.

G. Summary and Conclusion

Eutychianism’s Fundamental Error: In an attempt to preserve the unity of Christ, Eutyches went too far, effectively erasing the distinction between Christ’s two natures. This error compromised the reality of the incarnation, the atonement, and the hope of resurrection.Orthodox Response: The Church responded by clarifying that Christ is one person in two natures, fully preserving both divinity and humanity. The Council of Chalcedon marked a key moment in the history of Christology, providing a balanced and orthodox articulation of Christ’s person.The Importance for Today: Understanding Eutychianism helps modern believers see the importance of maintaining both the unity and the distinction in Christ's person. Any compromise on either side jeopardizes the gospel, the incarnation, and the believer’s salvation.