What is Monophysitism?

Monophysitism is a Christological heresy that emerged in the early centuries of Christianity, particularly during the debates over the nature of Christ. The term “Monophysitism” comes from the Greek words monos (meaning “one” or “single”) and physis (meaning “nature”). Monophysitism teaches that Christ has only one nature, which is either divine or a synthesis of divine and human, as opposed to the orthodox Christian doctrine that Christ has two distinct natures, divine and human, united in one person. From a Christian biblical worldview, Monophysitism is rejected because it undermines the full humanity and full divinity of Jesus Christ, which are essential to the Christian understanding of salvation.

Historical Background of Monophysitism

Origins in the Christological Debates

Monophysitism arose during the early Christological debates in the Church, particularly in the 4th and 5th centuries, as theologians sought to articulate the relationship between Christ’s divinity and humanity.

1. The Council of Nicaea and the Arian Controversy: The first major Christological controversy was the Arian controversy, which questioned the full divinity of Christ. The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD affirmed that Christ is of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father, thus affirming His full divinity. However, the debate over how to understand Christ’s human and divine natures continued to develop.
   

   Historical Reference: The Nicene Creed, formulated at the Council of Nicaea, declared that Christ is “begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father,” affirming His divinity but leaving the question of how His humanity related to His divinity open for further theological development.

2. The Nestorian Controversy: In the early 5th century, the Nestorian controversy arose, with Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, emphasizing the distinction between Christ’s divine and human natures to the point of suggesting they were almost two separate persons. This led to the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD, which condemned Nestorianism and affirmed that Christ is one person with two natures.
   

   Historical Reference: The Council of Ephesus condemned the teaching of Nestorius, affirming the title of Mary as Theotokos (“God-bearer” or “Mother of God”) to emphasize that Jesus was fully divine from the moment of His conception, thus preserving the unity of His person.

3. Emergence of Monophysitism: In reaction to Nestorianism, some theologians, most notably Eutyches, an archimandrite from Constantinople, went to the opposite extreme, arguing that Christ had only one nature after the union of divinity and humanity, which was primarily divine. This view became known as Monophysitism and sparked further controversy in the Church.
   

   Historical Reference: Eutyches argued that Christ’s human nature was absorbed into His divine nature, creating a single nature that was predominantly divine. This view was condemned at the Second Council of Ephesus in 449 AD, but the council was later discredited as the “Robber Council” due to irregularities and its failure to represent the broader Church.

The Council of Chalcedon and the Condemnation of Monophysitism

The controversy over Monophysitism was addressed at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, which became a defining moment in the development of orthodox Christology.

1. The Chalcedonian Definition: The Council of Chalcedon affirmed that Christ is one person in two distinct natures, fully divine and fully human, “without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.” This definition was intended to balance the extremes of Nestorianism and Monophysitism, affirming both the unity of Christ’s person and the distinctiveness of His two natures.
   

   Historical Reference: The Chalcedonian Creed, which emerged from the council, stated: “We confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; like us in all things except sin.” This creed became the standard of orthodox Christology.

2. Reaction to Chalcedon: Despite the Council of Chalcedon’s efforts to create a balanced Christological formula, many in the Eastern Church, particularly in Egypt, Syria, and Armenia, rejected the council’s decisions, leading to a schism. These groups became known as the Oriental Orthodox Churches and continued to adhere to a form of Monophysitism, though they prefer the term Miaphysitism, which emphasizes the unity of Christ’s nature without denying His humanity.
   

   Historical Reference: The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Armenian Apostolic Church, and the Syrian Orthodox Church are among the Oriental Orthodox Churches that rejected the Chalcedonian Definition, leading to a lasting division between the Chalcedonian (Eastern Orthodox and Western Catholic) and non-Chalcedonian (Oriental Orthodox) traditions.

Theological Significance of the Chalcedonian Definition

The Chalcedonian Definition became a cornerstone of orthodox Christian theology, shaping the Church’s understanding of Christ’s person and work.

1. Importance of the Two Natures: The Chalcedonian Definition preserves the fullness of Christ’s divinity and humanity, which are both essential for the Christian understanding of salvation. If Christ were not fully human, He could not fully represent humanity; if He were not fully divine, He could not fully accomplish the work of redemption.
   

   Biblical Reference: Hebrews 2:14-17 emphasizes the necessity of Christ’s full humanity for the work of salvation: “Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil—and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.” This passage underlines the importance of Christ’s full humanity in the atonement.

2. Christological Balance: The Chalcedonian Definition is seen as a balanced approach that avoids the extremes of both Nestorianism, which risks dividing Christ into two separate persons, and Monophysitism, which risks merging His natures into one at the expense of His humanity. This balance is essential for maintaining a coherent and orthodox understanding of the Incarnation.
   

   Theological Reflection: The Chalcedonian formula, often summarized as “one person, two natures,” has been the bedrock of orthodox Christology in both the Eastern and Western traditions. It ensures that Christ is recognized as both fully God and fully man, capable of bridging the gap between God and humanity.

Critiques and Challenges of Monophysitism

Biblical Critique of Monophysitism

From a Christian biblical worldview, Monophysitism is problematic because it fails to account for the full humanity of Christ, which is essential to the biblical narrative of salvation.

1. Denial of Christ’s Full Humanity: Monophysitism, by asserting that Christ has only one nature that is predominantly divine, undermines the reality of Christ’s humanity. This poses a problem for the doctrine of salvation, as the New Testament consistently presents Christ as fully human, sharing in our nature to redeem it.
   

   Biblical Reference: Philippians 2:6-8 presents Christ as both fully divine and fully human: “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!” This passage highlights the importance of Christ’s humanity in the economy of salvation.

2. Inadequate Representation of Humanity: If Christ’s humanity is absorbed or overshadowed by His divinity, as Monophysitism suggests, He cannot fully represent humanity before God. This would undermine the effectiveness of His redemptive work, which depends on His being both fully human and fully divine.
   

   Biblical Reference: 1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.” This verse emphasizes the necessity of Christ’s full humanity in His role as mediator between God and humanity.

Historical and Ecclesial Challenges

The persistence of Monophysitism in various forms has posed challenges for the unity of the Church, particularly in the relationships between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian traditions.

1. Schism and Division: The rejection of the Council of Chalcedon by the Oriental Orthodox Churches led to significant schisms within Christianity, with lasting theological and ecclesial consequences. These divisions have made it difficult to achieve full communion between the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian churches.
   

   Historical Reference: The schism between the Chalcedonian and Oriental Orthodox Churches remains one of the oldest and most enduring divisions within Christianity, with efforts at reconciliation continuing into the modern era.

2. Ongoing Theological Dialogue: In recent decades, there has been renewed dialogue between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian churches, with a focus on clarifying the Christological differences and seeking common ground. Some theologians argue that the differences may be more semantic than substantive, though significant theological challenges remain.
   

   Modern Example: The dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches has led to some agreements on Christology, acknowledging that both traditions share a common faith in the full divinity and full humanity of Christ, despite differences in terminology and theological emphasis.

Legacy and Influence of Monophysitism

Influence on Christian Theology

While Monophysitism itself is considered heretical by the majority of Christian traditions, its influence has been felt in various ways throughout Christian history.

1. Impact on Christological Debates: The Monophysite controversy forced the Church to clarify and articulate its Christology in more precise terms, leading to the formulation of the Chalcedonian Definition. This has had a lasting impact on Christian theology, ensuring that the doctrine of Christ’s two natures remains central to orthodox belief.
   

   Theological Reflection: The Chalcedonian Definition has shaped the Christological discussions of later councils and has been a touchstone for evaluating Christological orthodoxy in both the Eastern and Western Churches.

2. Continued Influence in Oriental Orthodox Churches: While the term “Monophysitism” is rejected by those who hold to Miaphysitism, the theology of a single, united nature of Christ continues to be a central tenet of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. These churches have preserved a distinct theological and liturgical tradition that has contributed to the diversity of global Christianity.
   

   Historical Reference: The Coptic Orthodox Church, one of the largest Oriental Orthodox Churches, has maintained its Miaphysite Christology while also engaging in dialogue with other Christian traditions to clarify its theological position.

Modern Ecumenical Efforts

The legacy of Monophysitism has also shaped modern ecumenical efforts, particularly in the pursuit of unity among divided Christian communities.

1. Efforts at Reconciliation: Modern ecumenical dialogues have sought to bridge the gap between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian churches by exploring the theological nuances and historical contexts of the Christological controversies. These efforts have led to a greater understanding and respect between the different traditions.
   

   Ecumenical Reference: The 1990s saw several joint declarations between the Roman Catholic Church and various Oriental Orthodox Churches, acknowledging a shared faith in Christ and seeking to overcome the historical divisions rooted in the Chalcedonian controversy.

2. Broader Implications for Christian Unity: The dialogue surrounding Monophysitism has implications for the broader Christian ecumenical movement, highlighting the importance of theological clarity, mutual understanding, and the recognition of diverse expressions of Christian faith.
   

   Theological Reflection: The ongoing dialogue between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian churches serves as a model for how other historical and theological divisions within Christianity might be approached, with a focus on shared beliefs and a commitment to healing past wounds.

Conclusion

Monophysitism, as a Christological heresy, played a significant role in the early Church’s efforts to define the nature of Christ and to preserve the integrity of the Christian faith. While Monophysitism was rejected by the Council of Chalcedon and is considered incompatible with orthodox Christianity, its influence has been felt throughout Christian history, particularly in the development of the Chalcedonian Definition, which remains a cornerstone of Christian doctrine.

From a Christian biblical worldview, the rejection of Monophysitism is essential to preserving the full humanity and full divinity of Christ, which are foundational to the Christian understanding of salvation. The Chalcedonian Definition ensures that Christ is recognized as fully God and fully man, capable of bridging the gap between God and humanity and accomplishing the work of redemption.

While Monophysitism led to significant divisions within the Church, it also prompted deeper theological reflection and clarification, contributing to the richness and diversity of Christian thought. The legacy of Monophysitism continues to shape theological discussions and ecumenical efforts, reminding the Church of the importance of both doctrinal integrity and the pursuit of unity in the body of Christ