Basic HTML Version
305
III. The Unipersonality of Christ
In the year 451 A.D. the Council of Chalcedon met and formulated the faith of the Church
respecting the person of Christ, and declared Him “to be acknowledged in two natures,
inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseperably; the distinction of the natures being in no
wise taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and
concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons.” This
formulation is mainly negative, and simply seeks to guard the truth against various heretical
views. It clearly states the faith of the early Church respecting the person of Christ, but makes
no attempt to explain the mystery involved, a mystery that is not susceptible of a natural
explanation. The great central miracle of history was permitted to stand forth in all its
grandeur, the supreme paradox, to use Barthian language, God and man in one person. We are
simply told what Jesus is, without any attempt to show how He became what He is. The great
truth enunciated is that the eternal Son of God took upon Himself our humanity, and not, as
Brunner reminds us, that the man Jesus acquired divinity. The deliverance of the Council of
Chalcedon testifies to a movement from God to man, rather than vice versa. Centuries have
gone by since that time, but, barring certain explications, the Church has really never gotten
beyond the formula of Chalcedon. It has always recognized the incarnation as a mystery which
defies explanation. And so it will remain, because it is the miracle of miracles. Several attempts
have been made in course of time to give a psychological explanation of the person of Jesus
Christ, but they were all bound to fail, because He is the Son of God, Himself very God, and a
psychological explanation of God is out of the question. The following paragraphs are intended
as a brief statement of the doctrine of the Church.
A. STATEMENT OF THE CHURCH’S VIEW RESPECTING THE PERSON OF CHRIST.
1. DEFINITION OF THE TERMS “NATURE” AND “PERSON.”
With a view to the proper
understanding of the doctrine, it is necessary to know the exact meaning of the terms “nature”
and “person,” as used in this connection. The term “nature” denotes the sum-total of all the
essential qualities of a thing, that which makes it what it is. A nature is a substance possessed in
common, with all the essential qualities of such a substance. The term “person” denotes a
complete substance endowed with reason, and, consequently, a responsible subject of its own
actions. Personality is not an essential and integral part of a nature, but is, as it were, the
terminus to which it tends. A person is a nature with something added, namely, independent
subsistence, individuality. Now the Logos assumed a human nature that was not personalized,
that did not exist by itself.