Hi,
I’m having trouble understanding the difference between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian understanding of the nature of Jesus. I look forward to your feedback
davidmich
“The Chalcedonian understanding of how the divine and human relate in Jesus of Nazareth is that the humanity and divinity are exemplified as two natures and that the one hypostasis of the Logos perfectly subsists in these two natures. The Non-Chalcedonians hold the position of Miaphysitism (often called amongst Western and Eastern Christians monophysitism): that in the one person of Jesus Christ, divinity and humanity are united in one nature, the two being united without separation, without confusion, and without alteration.”
humanity and divinity are exemplified as two natures (Chalcedonian)
in the one person of Jesus Christ, divinity and humanity are united in one nature (non-Chalcedionian)
The Definition affirms that Christ is “complete in Godhead and complete in humanness, truly God and truly human.” He is “of one substance (homoousios) with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his humanity.”
Jesus Christ is to be “recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.” The “distinction of natures” is “in no way annulled by the union.” “The characteristics of each nature” are to be considered as “preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence.” They are not to be “separated into two persons.”
In summary, the Definition confesses Jesus Christ is “one person, who is both divine and human.” Though its wording has been criticized as inadequate, it has helped the Church in “setting the limits beyond which error lies” in speaking of the human and divine union in Christ.
My understanding is that the Chalcedonians regard Jesus as being a combination of god and man that had the characteristics of both - a hybrid as it were.
The non-Chalcedonians rejected the idea that Jesus was a combination. They don’t see Jesus as half divine and half human. Their belief is that Jesus is somehow fully divine and fully human at the same time. It’s a paradoxical belief because how can one being be two different things at the same time? The non-Chalcedonian response is God can do things that we humans can’t understand.
How is it paradoxical? The two attributions are describing two different categoriations. I have a billiard ball that is fully spherical and fully blue. No paradox.
The confusion comes because people assume that for Jesus to be fully human this somehow limits his divinity. This is an assumption. It is not a logically necessary interpretation of the situation. Hence the two schools of thought.
I’m pretty sure that BOTH sides would say that Jesus is fully human and fully divine, though. The question is about whether one or two “natures” are necessary to achieve this human-divine combination.
There are really two parts of the dispute. One is the theological argument, which is really rather academic and theoretical. It doesn’t really impact believers on a day-to-day basis. The second part of the dispute is political. There are a lot of hurt feelings that have festered over the centuries and both sides have developed largely separate organizational hierarchies. Even if both sides can find a way to resolve the theology (e.g. with a Grand Unified Theory of Jesus that establishes that both arguments can be true at the same time, or deciding that Jesus doesn’t really care anyway, etc.), there’s still the major issue of leaders having to admit that they were wrong to condemn the other side and the practical costs and effects of merging parallel church hierarchies. I’m sure that a few bishops would rather keep things as-is rather than face layoffs if the “other” bishop ends up on top.
There’s probably some existing philosophical distinction between an attribute and a state of being that says an entity can have multiple attributes but only one state of being. If you define human and divine as attributes then it’s possible for Jesus to have both without any paradox. But if you define them as states of being then it isn’t possible under the normal rules.
I thought we worked this out in 325, put it in a charming bit of legalese disguised as a prayer, and killed the folk who disagreed. Why is this rearing its ugly head 1600 years later? We don’t have to go Crusader on their Coptic or Arian or Mormon asses again, do we?
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
Simple and easy to understand if you gloss over the technical difficulties with a “God works in mysterious ways.”
