Concoll()ia Theological Montbly DECEMBER 1951 '---------- - ~ - ~ ---ConcoJl(Ho Theological Monthly Published by The Lutheran Church -Missouri Synod EDITED BY THE FACULTY OF CONCORDIA SEMINARY ST. LOUIS, Mo. Address all communications to the Editorial Committee in care of the Managing Editor, F.E.Mayer, 801 De Mun Ave., St.Louis 5, Mo. EDITORIAL COMMITTEE PAUL M. BRETSCHER, RICHARD R. CAEMMERER, THEODORE HOYER, FREDERICK E. MAYER, LOUIS J. SIECK CONTENTS FOR DECEMBER 1951 PAGE TRIBUTE TO DR. WILLIAM ARNDT _. ______________ ,_. __ ...... 881 RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION ____ __ __ . __ 882 GOD'S TRIUMPHANT CAPTIVE CHRIST'S' AROMA FOR GOD. (2 Cor. 2: 12-17.) Victor Bartling ________ .. __ 883 LUKE 17:20-21 IN RECENT INVESTIGATIONS. Paul M. Bretschef' ______ . 895 THE ApOSTOLIC PSHA! Martin H. Franzmann 908 GOD'S CONCURRENCE IN HUMAN ACTION. fohn Theodore Mueller ._ 912 CHALCEDON AFTER FIFTEEN CENTURIES. faroslav Pelikan _. _____ . __ 926 JOHN CHRYSOSTOM ON THE CHRISTIAN HOME AS A TEACHER. At·thur C. Repp . _______ 937 LITURGICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN EUROPE, Walter F. BttSzin ________ . 949 HOMILETICS ______ .. __________________ . ___________ 00 __ 955 CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY is published monthly by Concordia Publishing House, 3558 S. Jefferson Ave., St. Louis 18, Mo., ro which all business correspondence is to be addressed. $3.00 per annum, anywhere in rhe world, payable in advance. Entered at the Post Office at St. Louis, Mo., as second·class maner. Acceptance for mailing at special rate of posrage provided for in Section 1103, Act of October 3, 1917, authorized on July 5, 1918. ,'INn]) Df n ... Chalcedon After Fifteen Centuries By ]AROSLAV PELIKAN THIS year marks the fifteen hundredth anniversary of one of the most important councils of the ancient Church, the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Chalcedon is generally regarded as the conclusion of almost a century and a half of theological discussion centering in the doctrine of the person of Christ. This discussion came to a focus at the first four ecumenical councils -Nicaea in 325, Constantinople in 381, Ephesus in 431, and Chalcedon in 45l. Out of these four councils and the theological work that went into them there emerged the dogmas of the Trinity and of the person of Christ which have since become the common property of ecumenical Christendom. This fact alone would make Chalcedon an important event in Christian history. It is all the more important in view of the issues it discussed and settled. For regardless of the varying answers they may offer to it, Christians are agreed that the question of the relation of Jesus to God is central to Christian thinking and to the Christian faith. The dogma of the Trinity was the way the ancient Church sought to express its understanding of that relation, and around this theme most of its theological controversies revolved. Questions like justification and the Sacraments, which have so divided Christendom in the last five centuries, were by-passed in favor of the Trinitarian and Christological issues. So important were these questions to the ancient Church that most of its theologians felt compelled to deal with them at length. After a millennium and a half the question is not out of place: What is the relevance of all this today? If these issues are as central as the early Christians thought they were, the Trinitarian and Christological dogmas should certainly speak to the modern Church as well. The fact that they do not, or at least that their address is considerably mumed, is due at least in part to the fact that the forms of thought and expression into which the ancient councils cast these dogmas belong to a frame of reference unfamiliar to modern Christians and oftentimes even to modern theologians. As 926 CHALCEDON AFTER FIFTEEN CENTURIES 927 a result, many hold to those dogmas with dogged persistence and little understanding, while others reject them without ever having understood their basic religious intention.1 Contemporary theology needs to discover what a recent interpreter has termed "the perennial meaning of the doctrine of the Trinity ... the immanent actuality of the transcendent meaning of life in history and in human experience on the basis of the presupposition that God is knowable only through Jesus the Christ." 2 Because of the importance of these issues to the Christian faith in any age a historical appreciation of their formulation in a particular age is always valuable. On the occasion of the fifteen hundredth anniversary of Chalcedon this essay will seek to analyze the problem that confronted the council, the settlement at which the council arrived, and the relation of that settlement to the theology that followed.s I Soon after the Council of Nicaea in 325 it became apparent to many observers that the solution it had discovered to the Christological problem was by no means final and that it left many important issues unresolved. For more than a century after Nicaea, theologians in various parts of Christendom grappled with those issues, and several approaches -or, as the textbooks usually term them, "schools" -evolved. At least two of these are important for the Council of Chalcedon, since the council was asked to choose between them. The first of these, generally known as the "Antiochian school," was represented in the fifth century by one of the finest theological minds of the ancient Church, Theodore of Mopsuestia. After having been hidden by polemics for many centuries, the true character of Theodore's theological concern is only now beginning to emerge from modern historico-theological research.4 The predominant tone of his theological work was exegetical, this in sharp contrast to most of his contemporaries and adversaries, including the orthodox ones. On the basis of his exegetical research, Theodore came to the conclusion that much of the Christological speculation of his time was selling the humanity of Christ short and that the earthly life of our Lord did not occupy a sufficiently prominent place in that speculation. He and his pupils sought to restore the piCture 928 CHALCEDON AFTER FIFTEEN CENTURIES of Jesus which we have in the Gospels to its proper place, lest a theological speculation that concentrated exclusively on His preexistence rob the faith of its historical locus. This attempt was in many ways justifiable, in view of the form which that speculation was taking. Sure it is, as this journal pointed out recently, that without the concrete historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth the Christian faith is impossible.5 No theological speculation is valid which obscures this fact, and the Antiochian school was giving voice to a legitimate Christian concern in protesting against: such speculation. Meanwhile, the other principal "school," the Alexandrian, was attempting to maintain the full scope of the Church's faith and confession of Christ as % U Q L O ~ and Savior, which it saw threatened by the Antiocruan school.6 Modern research in the history of dogma, spearheaded by Adolf Harnack, has not been as kind to the Alexandrians as it has to the Antiochians, largely because of Harnacks' own anti-Trinitarian bias.7 Nevertheless, a study of the work of Cyril of Alexandria reveals a profoundly Christian concern at work in his opposition to the overemphasis upon the humanity of Jesus. The salvation which was wrought in Jesus Christ is the work of God, and Jesus Christ is God in person. The Jesus of dle Gospels is the Christ in whom God has brought about our salvation, and no theological formulation is legitimate which obscures this unity, or homoousia, between the Father and the Son. For without it the work of Christ loses its eternal validity and relevance. The task of the theologian, then, as Cyril understood it, was to formulate the doctrine of the person of Christ in such a way as to preserve that unity. That had, indeed, been the intention of the dogma of the two natures from the beginning, to assert that men can take hold of God personally in Christ Jesus, His Son and our Lord. In their attempt to formulate and express the valid insights they both had, the Antiochian and Alexandrian theologians were both driven to extremes of form and content that tended to jeopardize the very point they were seeking to maintain. For by the time Theodore's follower Nestorius had completed his development, he had evolved a Christo logy in which the duality of natures, taught by all parties, tended to become a dualism instead. To what extent this was N estorius' own position is still a matter of historical CHALCEDON AFTER FIFTEEN CENTURIES 929 debate,S but there is almost common consent that, consistently carried out, the approach of the Antiochian school led to such a separation of the divine and the human in Christ as seriously to impair the unity of His person. At the opposite extreme lay the outriggers of the Alexandrian position, in which the humanity of Jesus tended to become merely a traditional slogan rather than a religious reality, and the deity so thoroughly absorbed the humanity that Eutychianism and later Monophysitism, the theory of only one nature, were a logical result. In the two decades between the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon in 451, theological scholarship, ecclesiastical manipulation, and imperial politics combined in an attempt to force a decision. It is noteworthy that the principal antagonists on both sides of this great debate were Eastern theologians. This was not because the West did not concern itself with the Christological and Trinitarian problems. Terttlllian's essay Ad Praxean 9 and Augustine'S De Trinitate 10 are still essential to an understanding of the history of those problems. But the West did not view the problematics of these dogmas in the same way as did the East. The tradition of Western thought, as represented by Tertullian, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, has tended to regard the alternatives between Antiochian and Alexandrian Christology as poorly drawn. Though there have been exceptions, as we shall note later, this has been the traditional line of Western theology. It was the line taken by Pope Leo the Great, who combined to a rare and remarkable degree the qualities of capable theological scholarship and prudent ecclesiastical statesmanship. That combination enabled him to carry the day at Chalcedon, for in his famous Tome he evolved a formula on which all could agree and at the same time added prestige to the already illustrious reputation of his episcopal seeP II The settlement of the Christo logical issue at which Chalcedon arrived becomes clear from a study of the pertinent section of its decrees. The text has not been transmitted to us without adulteration, and some doubt exists about critical portions of it. Nevertheless, the best available evidence seems to point to the following reading: 12 930 CHALCEDON AFTER FIFTEEN CENTURIES "Following, then, the holy fathers, we all unanimously teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: perfect in deity and perfect in humanity; consubstantial with the Father according to the deity and consubstantial with us according to the humanity; like us in all things except sin; begotten of the Father according to the deity before the ages, but of Mary the virgin mother of God 13 according to the humanity in the last days for us and for our salvation; one and the same Christ, the Son, the Lord, the Only-begotten; known in two namres 14 without being mixed, transmuted, divided, or separated -the distinction between the natures is by no means done away with through the union, but rather the identity 15 of each namre is preserved and concurs into one person and being 16 -not divided or torn into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; just as the prophets of old and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself have taught us about Him, and as the symbol of the fathers has transmitted to us." Viewed in terms of the controversial viewpoints we discussed earlier, this statement represents a keen insight into the problem involved and a precise delineation of the Church's answer to that problem. Many modern interpreters, for whom the issues raised at Chalcedon have lacked existential significance, have viewed the Chalcedonian settlement as a compromise between the two alternatives posed by the Antiochian and Alexandrian schoolsP It seems, however, that the statement of the council seeks to occupy a position not between those alternatives, but beyond them. Over against the Christo logy characterized by Theodore it defends the unity of Christ's person E t ~ EV rcQ0(jQ):I'WV 'Xal t-t[av vrcom:aatv. Over against the extremes potentially present in the Alexandrian Christology it declares ( j Q ) ~ O f l E V 1 ' ] ~ . . . ' t i j ~ L ( H O T l l r o ~ E ' X a ' t E Q a ~ q J 1 ) ( j E Q ) ~ . And it battles against both with a quartet of alpha privatives: &