The Chalcedonian Definition
Council of Chalcedon, 451 AD
The Chalcedonian Definition is the statement issued by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 confessing that Jesus Christ is one person in two complete natures, divine and human, united "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation."
Full text of the Chalcedonian Definition
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being by no means 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, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ.
History and background
The Council of Chalcedon addressed the question of how divinity and humanity relate in the person of Christ. Its definition established that Christ has two complete natures, divine and human, united in one person without confusion or separation. This became the orthodox standard for Christology in Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestant traditions.
How the traditions differ
Chalcedon is the point at which one of the oldest divisions in Christianity opens. Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant churches all receive the definition. The Oriental Orthodox churches — Coptic, Armenian, Syriac, Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Malankara — did not, and have been separated from the Chalcedonian churches since the fifth century. Their position, miaphysitism, confesses one united nature of the incarnate Word, fully divine and fully human, and is distinct from the monophysitism Chalcedon condemned. A series of joint declarations since the 1960s has found that the two sides largely share the same faith in different vocabulary, though full communion has not been restored.
Common questions
What are the four negatives of Chalcedon?
They describe how Christ’s two natures are united: "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation." The first two rule out mixing the divine and human into a third thing or altering either one. The second two rule out treating Christ as two separate persons loosely associated. Together they mark the boundaries of orthodox Christology without claiming to explain the mechanism of the union.
What problem was the Council of Chalcedon called to solve?
How Christ can be genuinely God and genuinely human at once. Two proposals had been rejected before it: Nestorius was read as dividing Christ into two persons, and Eutyches taught that the human nature was absorbed into the divine so that Christ had one nature after the incarnation. Chalcedon in 451 confessed one person in two natures, preserving both the full divinity Nicaea had defended and a complete humanity.
Why do some churches reject the Chalcedonian Definition?
The Oriental Orthodox churches held that the phrase "in two natures" conceded too much to Nestorius, and confessed instead one incarnate nature of the Word — miaphysitism — which affirms full divinity and full humanity united without separation. Much of the original dispute turned on the Greek word *physis*, which the two sides used differently. Modern dialogues have concluded the underlying faith is substantially the same, though the churches remain formally divided.
Is the Chalcedonian Definition a creed?
It is usually classed with the creeds and is often called the Chalcedonian Creed, but it was written as a conciliar definition rather than a confession for recitation. Unlike the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds it has no liturgical use — it functions as a doctrinal boundary marker rather than a text congregations say aloud.