On A Chalcedonian Method

An advocation for a 'Chaledonian Intellect' in the interpretation of Holy Scripture

Author: Matteo Unger

Much of this essay was inspired by insight given to me by Jake Thompson.

There has been a common trend among theologians during and after the Reformation (and Renaissance humanism) to discount certain passages that, previously, were considered impenetrable loci for arguing Christ’s divinity. For these post-medieval types, the intuitions of the church fathers—far too weighed by the threat of Arianism and other christological heresies—pushed their venerable (but practically ancient) intellects to conclude too many passages as “evidence of eternal generation” than the scriptures actually give credence for. These post-medieval types are spread liberally across Christian universities and PhD programs from the Reformation to modern times.

Two explicit examples appear from my own experience. Calvin, as my good friend Jake Thompson pointed out, begins his commentary on John 5:19 with a pastoral rebuke of the ‘eternal generation’ interpretation so prevalent in the fathers.

“This passage was anciently debated in various ways between the orthodox Fathers and the Arians. Arius inferred from it that the Son is inferior to the Father, because he can do nothing of himself The Fathers replied that these words denote nothing more than the distinction of the person, so that it might be known that Christ is from the Father, and yet that he is not deprived of intrinsic power to act. But both parties were in the wrong. For the discourse does not relate to the simple Divinity of Christ, and those statements which we shall immediately see do not simply and of themselves relate to the eternal Word of God, but apply only to the Son of God, so far as he is manifested in the flesh.

Let us therefore keep Christ before our eyes, as he was sent into the world by the Father to be a Redeemer.” ¹

So Christ is to be viewed as the Divine Son in this passage, not as it relates to His ‘simple Divinity.’ This is not a contention that where Christ is in scripture, we find either the human Christ or the divine Christ—Calvin is no Nestorian. Yet the direct disagreement with the fathers, and the dismissing of the fathers’ arguments, and the interesting application of Chalcedon does make one worry about the precedent set for some later ‘Reformed’ interpretations.

Yet if we were to look at Aquinas’ commentary on the issue, we would see not only the presence of a consistent interpretation as the fathers had made, but also direct reference to Augustine on this point:

“According to Augustine, however, there is another way of understanding statements which seem to, but do not, imply inferiority in the Son: namely, by referring them to the origin of the Son coming or begotten from the Father. For although the Son is equal to the Father in all things, he receives all these things from the Father in an eternal begetting. But the Father gets these from no one, for he is unbegotten.”²

Aquinas, following Augustine, applies the eternal generation interpretation, in direct contradiction to Calvin. This disagreement is unseemly, for Aquinas includes arguments to his point, whereas Calvin seems more dismissive. Let us push forward.

The second example is far more modern, and it comes from a good friend and old teacher of mine. He is a current-day theologian and scripture interpreter who is convinced, because of certain textual evidence in Hebrews and other areas, that Psalm 2:7 (an ancient, longstanding proof of eternal generation) is only communicating the human nature of Christ and includes no sense of eternal generation. Although most of the arguments for this come from personal discussion (therefore I cannot reference much), his general approach seems to be ruled by a hermeneutic distant from any metaphysical hermeneutic, and very restricted to a ‘biblical theology’ and ‘reading the bible how the bible reads the bible.’ I have gotten the intuition that this type of approach to scripture, although not necessarily linked, is partially linked to what would be called an “incarnational sonship” approach to Christology in the scriptures. This means the following:

“They [who hold incarnational sonship] merely suggest that the expression “Son of God” is a title that applies to his humanity rather than an expression of the essential, eternal relationship that defines and distinguishes his place in the Trinity. Ralph Wardlaw (1779–1853) was a Scottish theologian who held that view. Walter Martin (1928– 1989), counter-cult apologist, likewise taught incarnational sonship. Adam Clarke (1762–1832) and Albert Barnes (1798–1870), both prolific commentators, took the same position.”³

Therefore, this is noted as a downfall of the biblical theology interpretation method—of course, in many ways, the Jewish others of the Old Testament had little idea that passages like Psalm 2:7 and Proverbs 28 would point to Christ's eternal generation; they were “carried along by the Spirit.” God’s covenant with David in Samuel will never be interpreted as a message of Christ's Divinity, just like the promised seed in Genesis will not be interpreted as Divine, unless one tries to see the Old Testament as a mystical prolegomena to the New. Exegesis and systematic theology should never be taken away from interpretation; historical interpretation is not complete interpretation. Yet this seems to be what the founder of the Biblical Theological method teaches:

“There is truly a biblical theology, of historical origin, conveying what the holy writers felt about divine matters; on the other hand there is a dogmatic theology of didactic origin, teaching what each theologian philosophises rationally about divine things, according to the measure of his ability or of the times, age, place, sect, school, and other similar factors. Biblical theology, as is proper to historical argument, is always in accord with itself when considered by itself—although even biblical theology when elaborated by one of the disciplines may be fashioned in one way by some and in another way by others. But dogmatic theology is subject to a multiplicity of change along with the rest of the humane disciplines; constant and perpetual observation over many centuries shows this enough and to spare. How greatly the churches of the learned differ from the first beginnings of the Christian religion; how many systems the fathers attributed to each variety of era and setting!”⁴

This entire position is contrary to the metaphysical-theological hermeneutic of the church fathers, who alongside Cyril and others (Athanasius) saw Psalm 2:7 to be a communicator of eternal generation, not only in response to Arius, but because it truly communicates those things. Take this argument from Cyri,l for example:

Cyril of Jerusalem (318-386): For the Son Himself says of the Father: “The Lord said to me, ‘You are my son; this day I have begotten you.’” Now “this day” is not recent, but eternal; “this day” is timeless, before all ages.⁵

Where does this whole issue come to a breaking point? Well, when the individual Christian tries to interpret the Scriptures and he encounters a verse like John 5:19 or others, he internally suffers a war between a more Divine-Christology interpretation and a more Human-Christology. Very generally, the former seems to hold the weight and intellectual approval of the first millennia of the church (the ‘orthodox fathers’ and the medievals), but if you are reformed—especially those after the 18th century—there seems to be a great number of us who hold the pastoral approval of the latter (emphasize the human nature)! What is one supposed to do?

Well, either way, a necessary response is not to ignore the major event that was the Chalcedon symbol, but to embrace it more deeply and intellectually, for no other sake than for the proper interpretation of Scripture! To embrace it however, is to reject the Biblical Theological method, for Chalecedon sits as a principle over and above the minds of the individual authors of Scripture. For those who have heard of John Webster’s point about the ‘redeemed intellect’ of the Christian when approaching scriptures, should not Christians also have a ‘Chalcedonian intellect’ when they approach reading scriptures? An intellect that has understood with Thomas in John 20, Jesus is ‘My Lord and my God’, and that these are Christ's dual predicates in one person? I think Chalcedon causes an issue for many modern interpreters, because—just as with the debate Calvin got into with the fathers—when does someone interpret an action of Christ as communicating his divine nature or as communicating his human? We obviously make distinctions: He got tired = human; He healed = Divine. Or on which do you make an emphasis: God became man to save us, therefore the human nature is more important; or, God became man to save us, therefore the Divine nature is more important. Calvin, in his commentary above, is trying to make us consider the person and mission above the natures—a point very congruent with Cyril and Chalcedon at face value. Yet is that person not also Divine? Does the person of Christ, when spoken about—because it is a Divine person—not also communicate eternal generation? Generation for humans is ‘suffered’ by both nature and person—is this not the same for the Divine person? If this is so, why does Calvin make the point he makes above? What does he mean by ‘simple Divinity’? I do not know. Did he need, just like we all might need, a greater congruence to a ‘Chalcedonian intellect’ when interpreting scriptures?

In a historical assessment, would not emphasizing both extremes (Divine nature, or Human nature) betray a misunderstanding or worse, a potential apathy towards that blessed, beautiful, and underrated creed of Chalcedon (unity in person)? Calvin is far far less guilty (if he is guilty at all!) than many modern Reformed evangelicals in their general apathy to Chalcedon. Yet this modern apathy causes our young theologians to flee to Orthodoxy with its heavy Christology, or Catholicism with its eucharistic Christology, all because we are duped by some modern apathy towards metaphysical-theological intuitions when reading scripture! May it no longer be so—Calvin and the reformers would not have it so.

1. Calvin, Commentary on John, accessed June 13 2025 https://ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom34/calcom34.xi.iii.html

2. Aquinas, Commentary on John, accessed June 13 2025 https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~Ioan.C5.L3.n746.2

3. Phil Johnson, “A MORE EXCELLENT NAME: ETERNAL SONSHIP AND PSALM 2:7 IN HEBREWS 1” in TMSJ 33/1 (Spring 2022) 99–113.

4. Johann Philipp Gabler, “On the Proper Distinction Between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology” (1787), in Midwestern Journal of Theology 10.1 (2011): 1-11.

5. Fathers of the Church, Vol. 61, Catechesis XI.5 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, Inc., 1969), p. 213.