BOOK REVIEW:

THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON RE-EXAMINED

Fresenbet G.Y Adhanom

Church History II: The Oriental Church

Mary Ghattas

Apr 18 2021
THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON RE-EXAMINED. By Father V.C Samuel. England: The
Oriental Orthodox Library, 2005; Pp. 374.

The author of this book, Father V.C Samuel, is a well-known figure in Oriental Orthodoxy.

In addition to being a polyglot with mastery of ten languages, he held degrees in Theology, History

as well as Philosophy. His doctoral work – which he completed at Yale Divinity School – was on

the Council of Chalcedon and the Christology of Severus of Antioch. In addition to teaching at

different institutes in India, he was also the dean of the Holy Trinity Theological College in Addis

Ababa. He wrote twenty books and hundreds of scholarly papers and articles. As a scholar of the

Oriental Orthodox Tradition, he was also highly involved in ecumenical dialogues seeking to

bridge the gap between the Oriental and Eastern Churches. The present book under review can be

considered to be his magnum opus, and offers a unique perspective that could enable the

reconciliation of the Oriental and the Eastern Churches.

The main takeaway from the book is that the traditional narrative regarding the council of

Chalcedon has its defects – which come to light when we study the council’s proceedings in their

proper historical context. The book, which is ‘pre-eminently a historical-theological study based

primarily on documents in Syrian and Greek of ancient times’ (p. 19) reveals that those condemned

on the council – mainly the patriarch Dioscorus – was not a heretic, but represented the faith of

the Church as understood through the lens of his traditions. The main argument offered in the book

is that the real points of contention leading up to the council of Chalcedon had their root in the

different pattern of thinking reflected by the Alexandrian as well as Antiochian traditions, and that,

when evaluated against the fact, will reveal that the disagreement between the Churches owes

much more to semantic variances than concrete theological differences.

 The book - titled “The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined” - is organized into fifteen

chapters. As it is important to understand what had happened before the council, Chapter one is

dedicated to exploring the events leading to the council itself – and reviews the different

approaches of the Antiochian, Alexandrian as well as Western traditions in understanding the

earliest Christological disputes. It shows how the “Word-Flesh Christology” of the Alexandrian

Tradition used different terminologies as compared to the “Word-man Christology” of the

Antiochians in understanding the nature of Christ, and how the clash between the two traditions

sparked a series of events leading to the council of Chalcedon. Chapter two and three deal with the

Council of Chalcedon and its decisions. It argues that the council of Chalcedon unjustly dealt with

Patriarch Dioscorus, not on the count of his beliefs, but rather holding him responsible for the

decisions of the second council of Ephesus as well as his refusal ‘to sign the Tome of Leo till the

end’ (p. 87) – which was, really, the main reason for his deposition. However, it also argues that

the deposition of the Alexandrian Patriarch, the exoneration of Theodoret and Ibas and the

approval of the Tome of Leo as a document of the faith were not really agreed upon among the

members of the council. Chapter four, dealing with the reaction of the East to the council, shows

how the council’s decisions were rejected by those in Jerusalem, Palestine, and Alexandria. As a

result, Emperor Zeno produced the ‘Henotikon’ – a document aimed at resolving the tension

between the Churches. However, it only succeeded at resulting a temporary union, as non-

Chalcedonians critiqued its inefficiency, while on the Chalcedonian side, there were some that

were not ready to accept that Chalcedon had defects or to break with Rome. Chapters five to seven

deal with the establishment of Chalcedon under the reign of Justinian’s successors, Heraclius and

also the point of dispute regarding the council. Under the Emperor Justinian, the chapter shows

how there were some attempts at unifying the two sees under the edict of the Emperor, which only
solidified the hold of the Chalcedonian side and became injurious to the non-Chalcedonians.

Similar efforts by Justin II were close to unifying the two camps until the emperor turned into an

enemy of the non-Chalcedonians – until he ‘became infuriated and turned out to be a bitter

persecutor of the non-Chalcedonian body’ (p. 164). According to the author, Maurice’s reign

wasn’t that much better either, and the same can be said for Heraclius as well.

Chapters eight and nine focus upon the point of the dispute at Chalcedon, and the reasons

for rejection from the non-Chalcedonian camp. It re-iterates the main points of the second and

third chapters of the book, and explain how at the heart of the matter lies the different lenses of

tradition used by the Antiochian and the Alexandrian side. It also clarifies the theology behind the

tome of Leo, and how the Christological position of both can be elucidated by taking a closer look

at the phrases “two natures after the union” and “in two natures” within the Christological

framework of both traditions. In addition, a critique of the phrase “two natures after the union” is

offered in light of the Christology of Severus of Antioch. Chapter Ten delves into heresies rejected,

and shows that all the men rejected by the Chalcedonian side for teaching heterodoxy were also

rejected by the non-Chalcedonian side. In Chapter eleven, the author stresses how there was a great

deal of obscurity on account of technical terms that were employed, and seeks to clear some of

these terms. Based on St. Cyril, Severus of Antioch and Philoxenos, he explains who we mean by

God the word, and the doctrine of the Incarnation. Chapter twelve explains what is meant by “one

incarnate nature of God the Word”, and how the phrase doesn’t imply a denial of the manhood of

the Lord Jesus Christ. It also probes the expression “From Two Natures”, “Hypostatic Union”,

“One Hypostasis” and “One Composite Nature” and the implications of these technical

expressions within the non-Chalcedonian tradition. Chapter thirteen offers a comparison of the

positions of the Non-Chalcedonian and Chalcedonian sides through the technical words as well as
the words of different theologian of both traditions. A similar comparison is made in Chapter

fourteen, but between the non-Chalcedonian side and the Antiochian side. Chapter fifteen, the final

chapter, offers some remarks in regards to the relevance of the council, discussions in

contemporary context and how we can look at it from an ecumenical as well as an ecclesial

authority perspective – offering ways which both sides can take to bridge the gap and bring about

the union of the Churches. In light of the above survey of the chapters, I can confidently say that

the author has evaluated the historical contexts of the council, and presented a well-crafted

argument for the perception of Christology in different perspective being the core reason that

resulted in the council of Chalcedon.

The council of Chalcedon has stood as an impediment to the union of the non-Chalcedonian

and Chalcedonian churches in history and remains to be so to this day. The main reason can be

said to be the lack of historical-sensitive conversation on both sides of the camp. In this regard,

V.C Samuel’s contribution stands tall. The primary strength of the book is that, accounting for

historical sensitivity, it allows for both non-Chalcedonians and Chalcedonians to understand each

other through their respective traditions. It also helps by elucidating certain foggy and technical

terms in light of the different traditions, so that definitions do not become stumbling blocks in

ecumenical conversations between both sides.

In conclusion, Rev Dr. V.C Samuel’s book was a much needed one in the Orthodox academic

circle. In logical progression, it was successful in showing the historical backdrop of the council

dating back to the council of Nicaea, spelling out the minute details of the council, its decisions as

well as effects. Furthermore, technical terms and definitions used in the council were critically

evaluated and historical attempts at re-union surveyed. I highly recommend the book as it will be

immensely helpful to those that wish to understand the council and its proper historical context.