Community hub
Recent from talks
Contribute something
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Miaphysitism
View on Wikipedia| Part of a series on |
| Oriental Orthodoxy |
|---|
 |
| Oriental Orthodox churches |
 Christianity portal |
| Part of a series on |
| Christology |
|---|
.jpg) |
Miaphysitism (/maɪˈæfɪsaɪtɪzəm, miː-/[1]) is the Christological doctrine that holds Jesus, the Incarnate Word, is fully divine and fully human, in one nature (physis, Greek: φύσις).[2] It is a position held by the Oriental Orthodox Churches. It differs from the Dyophysitism of the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, the Church of the East and the major Protestant denominations, which holds that Jesus is one "person" of two "natures", a divine nature and a human nature, as defined by the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
While historically a major point of controversy within Christianity, some modern declarations by both Chalcedonian and miaphysite (/maɪˈæfɪsaɪt, miː-/) churches claim that the difference between the two Christological formulations does not reflect any significant difference in belief about the nature of Christ.[3][4] Other statements from both Chalcedonian and miaphysite churches claim that such difference is indeed theological although "widened by non-theological factors".[5]
Terminology
[edit]The word miaphysite derives from the Ancient Greek μία (mía, "one") and φύσις (phúsis, "nature, substance"). Miaphysite teaching is based on Cyril of Alexandria's formula μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη, meaning "one physis of the Word of God made flesh" (or "... of God the Word made flesh"). Early miaphysite Christians claimed such terminology was furthermore present in early patristic writers such as Athanasius of Alexandria, Julius I of Rome, and Gregory Thaumaturgus.[6] The 451 Council of Chalcedon used physis to mean "nature" (as in "divine nature" and "human nature"), and defined that there is in Jesus one hypostasis (person) but two physeis (natures). It is disputed whether Cyril used physis in that sense. John Anthony McGuckin says that in Cyril's formula "physis serves as a rough semantic equivalent to hypostasis".[7] The 431 Council of Ephesus used physis to signify the single subjecthood of Christ and also condemned speaking of two physeis (natures) in various homilies contained within the official minutes[8]
Others interpret the miaphysite term physis in line with its use by the Council of Chalcedon and speak of "miaphysitism" as "monophysitism", a word used of all forms of denial of the Chalcedonian doctrine. However, they add that "miaphysitism" is "the more accurate term for the position held by the Syriac, Coptic and Armenian churches".[9] The Second Council of Constantinople (553), the ecumenical council that followed that of Chalcedon, accepted Cyril's phrase but warned against misinterpreting it.[10]
By etymology, mia-physis means the same thing as mono-physis : one nature. Howewer, mia-physis has come to designate the specific Severian theology of the union of the natures of Christ into one nature by composition, understood by Miaphysites as a Cyrilian doctrine (the formula mia physis being taken from his writings), rather than the Eutychian theology of union by mixing, or the various other kinds of "one nature" (monophysite) theology (one human-only nature, one divine-only nature, one angelic nature, etc). Howewer, strictly speaking from the meaning of the word monophysite, miaphysites (or severians) are a kind of monophysites, although a specific kind, not to be confused with other non miaphysites monophysites (like Eutychians, or Ebionites, for exemple). In recent times, the term "Miaphysite" have been adopted by Miaphysites to self designate, and, in contradiction to the etymological meaning of the term, "Monophysite" have been used to designate non-Miaphysite monophysites, especially Eutychians, and taken by Miaphysites to be pejorative and unfit to describe their theology.
The broad term "dyophysitism" covers not only the Chalcedonian teaching but also what Nestorianism interpreted as meaning that Jesus is not only of two natures but is in fact two centres of attribution, and thus two persons, a view condemned by the Council of Chalcedon. Similarly, "monophysitism" covers not only Oriental Orthodox teaching but also the view called Eutychianism, according to which, after the union of the divine and human natures in the incarnation of the eternal Son or Word of God, he has only a single "nature", a synthesis of divine and human, identical with neither.[11][12] This doctrine is rejected by miaphysites, who teach instead that the incarnate Christ has one "nature" that is both divine and human in its character, retaining all the characteristics of both humans and divinity, but with no mingling, confusion (pouring together) or change within.[citation needed]
To avoid being confused with Eutychians, the Oriental Orthodox Churches reject the label "monophysite". Coptic Metropolitan Bishop of Damiette declared it a misnomer to call them monophysites, for "they always confessed the continuity of existence of the two natures in the one incarnate nature of the Word of God. Non[e] of the natures ceased to exist because of the union and the term 'mia physis' denoting the incarnate nature is completely different from the term 'monophysites'. ... The Oriental Orthodox do not believe in a single nature in Jesus Christ but rather a united divine-human nature."[13]
The Agreed Statement by the Anglican–Oriental Orthodox International Commission in 2014 said:
The term 'monophysite', which has been falsely used to describe the Christology of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, is both misleading and offensive as it implies Eutychianism. Anglicans, together with the wider oikumene, use the accurate term 'miaphysite' to refer to the Cyrilline teaching of the family of Oriental Orthodox Churches, and furthermore call each of these Churches by their official title of "Oriental Orthodox". The teaching of this family confesses not a single nature but one incarnate united divine-human nature of the Word of God. To say "a single nature" would be to imply that the human nature was absorbed in his divinity, as was taught by Eutyches.[14]
Conflict
[edit]
The conflict over terminology was to some extent a conflict between two renowned theological schools. The Catechetical School of Alexandria focused on the divinity of Christ as the Logos or Word of God and thereby risked leaving his real humanity out of proper consideration (cf. Apollinarism). The stress by the School of Antioch was on the humanity of Jesus as a historical figure. To the theological rivalry between the two schools added a certain political competitiveness between, on the one hand, Alexandria and, on the other, Antioch and Constantinople.[15]
The condemnation of Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus in 431 was a victory for the Alexandrian school and church, but its acceptance required a compromise, the "Formula of Reunion", entered into by Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch two years later. Cyril died in 444. Under his successor, Dioscurus I of Alexandria, a Constantinople-based archimandrite named Eutyches, whose answer to questions put to him was judged heretical by Bishop Flavian of Constantinople, in turn, accused Flavian of heresy. The Emperor convoked a council and entrusted its presidency to Dioscurus. This Second Council of Ephesus, held in 449, rehabilitated Eutyches and condemned and deposed Flavian and some other bishops. These appealed to Pope Leo I, who, calling their assembly not a concilium but a latrocinium, a robber council rather than a proper council, declared it null and void. The miaphysite churches still recognize it as valid, but outside their ranks it is not reckoned as an ecumenical council.[citation needed]
The Council of Chalcedon was held in 451 and annulled the earlier council that had been presided over by Dioscurus. It has not been accepted by the Oriental Orthodox Churches, who do not defend Eutyches and accept the implicit condemnation of him by the (non-ecumenical) Third Council of Ephesus held in 475.[citation needed] Chalcedon accepted by acclamation Leo's Tome, the letter by Pope Leo I setting out, as he saw it, the church's doctrine on the matter, and issued what has been called the Chalcedonian Definition, of which the part that directly concerns miaphysitism runs as follows:
Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He was parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us.
— Bindley, T. Herbert, ed. (1899). The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith. London: Methuen.
Dissent from this definition did not at first lead to a clean break between what are now the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. While in the West, Rome tended to uphold steadfastly the text of Leo's Tome and of the Chalcedonian definition, the situation in the East was fluid for a century after the council, with compromise formulas imposed by the emperors and accepted by the church and leading at times to schisms between East and West (cf. Acacian Schism, Henotikon, Monoenergism).[citation needed] The situation then hardened into a fixed division between what are now called the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Chalcedonian churches later divided into the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church and its Protestant derivations.[citation needed]
Thoughts of resolution
[edit]In recent decades a number of Christological agreements between miaphysite and Chalcedonian churches have been signed not just by theologians but by heads of churches. They explicitly distinguish the divinity and the humanity of Christ, without necessarily using the phrase "two natures". On 20 May 1973, Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria and Pope Paul VI jointly declared:[16]
We confess that our Lord and God and Saviour and King of us all, Jesus Christ, is perfect God with respect to His Divinity, perfect man with respect to His humanity. In Him His divinity is united with His humanity in a real, perfect union without mingling, without commixtion, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without separation. His divinity did not separate from His humanity for an instant, not for the twinkling of an eye. He who is God eternal and invisible became visible in the flesh, and took upon Himself the form of a servant. In Him are preserved all the properties of the divinity and all the properties of the humanity, together in a real, perfect, indivisible and inseparable union.
— Common Declaration of Pope of Rome Paul VI and of the Pope of Alexandria Shenouda III
At that meeting they decided to set up an official theological dialogue between the two churches. On 12 February 1988 the commission that carried on that dialogue signed "a common formula expressing our official agreement on Christology which was already approved by the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church on 21 June 1986". The brief common formula was as follows:[17]
We believe that our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Incarnate-Logos, is perfect in His Divinity and perfect in His Humanity. He made His Humanity one with His Divinity without mixture nor mingling, nor confusion. His Divinity was not separated from His Humanity even for a moment or twinkling of an eye. At the same time, we anathematize the doctrines of both Nestorius and Eutyches.
— Mixed Commission of the Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church: Common formula on Christology
A "Doctrinal Agreement on Christology" was signed on 3 June 1990 by Baselios Mar Thoma Mathews I, Catholicos of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and Pope John Paul II, in which they explicitly spoke of "divine and human natures":[18]
Our Lord Jesus Christ is one, perfect in his humanity and perfect in his divinity – at once consubstantial with the Father in his divinity, and consubstantial with us in his humanity. His humanity is one with his divinity – without change, without commingling, without division and without separation. In the Person of the Eternal Logos Incarnate are united and active in a real and perfect way the divine and human natures, with all their properties, faculties and operations. ... It is this faith which we both confess. Its content is the same in both communions; in formulating that content in the course of history, however, differences have arisen, in terminology and emphasis. We are convinced that these differences are such as can co-exist in the same communion and therefore need not and should not divide us, especially when we proclaim Him to our brothers and sisters in the world in terms which they can more easily understand.
— Doctrinal Agreement on Christology approved by Pope John Paul II and Catholicos Mar Baselius Marthoma Mathews I of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, 3 June 1990
Similar accords were signed by the head of the Catholic Church and the heads of the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Armenian Apostolic Church.[19][20]
Although unofficial dialogue between individual theologians of the (Eastern) Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox began in 1964, official dialogue did not begin until 1985;[21] but already by 1989 an agreement was reached on the Christological dogma, stating that the word physis in Cyril of Alexandria's formula referred to the hypostasis of Christ, one of the three hypostaseis or prosopa (persons) of the Trinity, who has "become incarnate of the Holy Spirit and Blessed Virgin Mary Theotokos, and thus became man, consubstantial with us in His humanity but without sin. He is true God and true Man at the same time, perfect in his Divinity, perfect in His humanity. Because the one she bore in her womb was at the same time fully God as well as fully human we call the Blessed Virgin Theotokos. When we speak of the one composite hypostasis of our Lord Jesus Christ, we do not say that in Him, a divine hypostasis and a human hypostasis came together. It is that the one eternal hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity has assumed our created human nature in that act uniting it with His own uncreated divine nature, to form an inseparably and unconfusedly united real divine-human being, the natures being distinguished from each other in contemplation only."[22]
A second Agreed Statement was published in the following year 1990 declaring:[22]
The Orthodox agree that the Oriental Orthodox will continue to maintain their traditional Cyrillian terminology of "one nature of the incarnate Logos" (μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη), since they acknowledge the double consubstantiality of the Logos which Eutyches denied. The Orthodox also use this terminology. The Oriental Orthodox agree that the Orthodox are justified in their use of the two-natures formula, since they acknowledge that the distinction is "in thought alone" (τῇ θεωρίᾳ μόνῃ). ... we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they have used Christological terms in different ways. It is this common faith and continuous loyalty to the Apostolic Tradition that should be the basis for our unity and communion.
— Joint Commission Of The Theological Dialogue Between The Orthodox Church And The Oriental Orthodox Churches, Second Agreed Statement (1990)
Implementation of the recommendations of these two Agreed Statements would mean restoration of full communion between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, but as of 2021 they have not been put into effect. Of the Eastern Orthodox churches, only the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Romania have accepted the Statements, as have the Coptic, Syriac and Malankara Churches on the Oriental Orthodox side. The Russian patriarchate has asked for clarification of some points. The monastic community of Mount Athos rejects any form of dialogue, whether with Oriental Orthodoxy or otherwise.[23]
See also
[edit]- Orthodox Tewahedo – Group of Oriental Orthodox churches
References
[edit]- ^ "miaphysitism". Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary.
- ^ "The Universal Church and Schisms". Coptic Orthodox Diocese of the Midlands, U.K.
- ^ Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. "Agreed Statements between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches (June 1989 & September 1990)" (PDF).
- ^ Rowell, Geoffrey; Bishoy of Damietta; Gabriel, Abba (17 October 2014). "Agreed Statement by the Anglican-Oriental Orthodox International Commission" (PDF). Anglican Communion. Cairo, Egypt. Retrieved October 22, 2020.
- ^ "Joint Declaration of the Holy Father Pope Paul VI and His Holiness Shenouda III (May 10, 1973) | Paul VI". www.vatican.va. Retrieved 2025-06-06.
- ^ Price, Richard; Gaddis, Michael, eds. (2011). The acts of the Council of Chalcedon. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. p. 190. ISBN 978-1-84631-100-0.
- ^ McGuckin, John. St. Cyril of Alexandria's Miaphysite Christology and Chalcedonian Dyophysitism: The Quest for the Phronema Patrum (PDF). p. 38.
- ^ Frenkel, Luise Marion (2015). Thedotus of Ancyra's homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431). Studia patristica. Leuven: Peeters. ISBN 978-90-429-3147-3.
- ^ Parry, Ken (2009). The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity. John Wiley & Sons. p. 88. ISBN 978-1-4443-3361-9.
- ^ Denzinger in Latin, 429; English translation of an earlier edition, 220
- ^ Grudem, Wayne A. (2014). Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith. Zondervan. ISBN 978-0-310-51587-6.
- ^ Newman, John Henry (2011). Francis J. McGrath (ed.). John Henry Newman Sermons 1824–1843. Vol. IV: The Church and Miscellaneous Sermons at St Mary's and Littlemore. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-920091-7.
- ^ Bishoy of Damiette (3 February 1998), Interpretation of the Christological Official Agreements between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, archived from the original (DOC) on 2004-07-22; cf. Coptic Orthodox Church of the Southern United States, The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church.
- ^ "'Agreed Statement by the Anglican-Oriental Orthodox International Commission' (Holy Etchmiadzin, Armenia 5–10 November 2002. Revised. Cairo, Egypt 13–17 October 2014" (PDF).
- ^ Rausch, Thomas P. (2003). Who Is Jesus?: An Introduction to Christology. Liturgical Press. p. 153. ISBN 9780814650783.
- ^ "Common declaration of Paul VI and Shenouda III". Vatican. Archived from the original on 14 February 2020. Retrieved 2020-09-16.
- ^ "Coptic Church Common Formula on Christology" (PDF). AU: CAM.
- ^ "1990 Accordo dottrinale sulla cristologia tra Giovanni Paulo II e Mar Baselius Marthoma Mathews I" [1990 Doctrinal agreement on Christology between John Paul II and Mar Baselius Marthoma Mathews I]. Christian community (in Italian). Vatican.
- ^ "Dichiarazione Comune di Giovanni Paolo II e del Patriarca Siro d'Antiochia Moran Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas" [Joint Declaration of John Paul II and the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch Moran Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas]. Christian community (in Italian). Vatican.
- ^ "Common Declaration of John Paul II and Catholicos Karekin I". Christian community. Vatican.
- ^ Bishop Youssef, "The Agreed Statements: Oriental Orthodox Responses" in St Nerses's Theological Review (1998), pp. 55-60, as reported in the Coptic Orthodox Diocese of the Southern United States
- ^ a b Jeffrey Gros; Harding Meyer; William G. Rusch, eds. (2000). Growth in Agreement II. Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations at World Level 1982–1998. Michigan: World Council of Churches.
- ^ A. Rofoeil, "What Hinders the Full Communion between the Coptic Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox", pp. 10–11.
Further reading
[edit]- Brock, Sebastian P. (2016). "Miaphysite, Not Monophysite!". Cristianesimo Nella Storia. 37 (1): 45–52. ISBN 9788815261687.
- Chesnut, R. C. (1976). Three Monophysite Christologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198267126. OCLC 2913844.
- Davis, Leo Donald, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787): Their History and Theology, 1983 (Michael Glazier, Wilmington DE), reprinted 1990 (Liturgical Press, Collegeville MN, Theology and Life Series 21, 342 pp., ISBN 978-0-8146-5616-7), chaps. 4–6, pp. 134–257.
- Frend, W. H. C. (1972). The Rise of the Monophysite Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521081300. OCLC 516379.
- Kavvadas, Nestor (2016). "Severus of Antioch and Changing Miaphysite Attitudes toward Byzantium". Severus of Antioch: His Life and Times. Leiden-Boston: Brill. pp. 124–137. ISBN 9789004307995.
- Meyendorff, John (1989). Imperial unity and Christian divisions: The Church 450–680 A.D. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press. ISBN 9780881410563.
- Ostrogorsky, George (1956). History of the Byzantine State. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
- Severios, Mathews (July 2020). Word Became Flesh: The Christology of Philoxenos of Mabbug. LIT Verlag Münster. ISBN 978-3-643-91301-2.
- Tannous, Jack (2013). "You Are What You Read: Qenneshre and the Miaphysite Church in the Seventh Century". History and Identity in the Late Antique Near East. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 83–102. ISBN 978-0-19-991540-8.
- Winkler, Dietmar W. (1997). "Miaphysitism: A New Term for Use in the History of Dogma and in Ecumenical Theology". The Harp. 10 (3): 33–40.
- Winkler, Dietmar W. (January–April 2016). "Miaphysitismus. Anmerkungen zur ökumenischen Sinnhaftigkeit eines Neologismus" ['Miaphysitismus'? Comments on the Ecumenical Meaning of a Neologism]. Cristianesimo Nella Storia (in German and English). 37 (1): 19–29. doi:10.17395/82927. ISBN 9788815261687.
- Zachhuber, Johannes (2018). "Personhood in Miaphysitism: Severus of Antioch and John Philoponus". Personhood in the Byzantine Christian Tradition: Early, Medieval, and Modern Perspectives. London: Routledge. pp. 29–43.
Miaphysitism
View on GrokipediaTerminology and Core Concepts
Etymology and Terminology
The term miaphysitism derives from the Greek words mia (μία, "one") and physis (φύσις, "nature"), reflecting the Christological assertion of a single, united nature in the person of Christ comprising both divinity and humanity without confusion or separation. Coined as a scholarly designation in the late 20th century, particularly by historians such as Dieter Winkler in his 1997 work on non-Chalcedonian theology, it emerged to supplant earlier nomenclature amid ecumenical dialogues and patristic reassessments, avoiding implications of fusion or diminution of natures.[7][8] Historically, proponents did not employ "miaphysitism" but described their position through Cyril of Alexandria's formula of "one incarnate nature of God the Word" (mia physis tou Theou Logou sesarkōmenē), articulated in his 433 AD letter to John of Antioch as part of the reconciliation following the Council of Ephesus.[9] This phrasing emphasized the hypostatic union without endorsing a single abstract nature, distinguishing it from Eutychian views. In contrast, "monophysitism"—a label propagated by Chalcedonian writers post-451 AD—carried pejorative overtones, associating the doctrine with Eutyches' fifth-century error of humanity's absorption into divinity, a conflation rejected by Oriental Orthodox traditions as distorting their Cyrillian heritage, as seen in Severus of Antioch's sixth-century philological defenses.[10][11]Definition of Miaphysite Christology
Miaphysite Christology maintains that after the Incarnation, Christ exists in one composite physis (nature), uniting divinity and humanity inseparably while preserving their distinct properties without confusion, alteration, division, or separation.[12] This single nature results from the hypostatic union of the divine Word with human flesh, forming a unified reality that is fully divine and fully human.[11] The foundational expression of this doctrine derives from Cyril of Alexandria's formula, mia physis tou Theou Logou sesarkōmenē, translated as "one incarnate nature of God the Word," which underscores the singular subject of the Incarnation as the eternal Logos assuming humanity without compromising his divinity.[3] Miaphysitism thereby affirms Christ's consubstantiality with the Father in divinity and with humanity through his mother Mary, ensuring no diminution or absorption of either element in the composite unity.[13][14] Scripturally, Miaphysites interpret passages like John 1:14—"the Word became flesh"—as evidencing the transformative unity of the Incarnation, where divine and human coalesce in one hypostasis rather than persisting as dual post-union realities.[15] Similarly, Philippians 2:6-8 describes Christ, who "being in the form of God... took upon him the form of a servant," highlighting the seamless integration of divine equality with human kenosis within a single incarnate subject.[15] These texts support the view of an indivisible Christological reality embodying both natures' attributes distinctly yet wholly in one.[11]Distinction from Monophysitism and Eutychianism
Miaphysitism explicitly rejects the extreme monophysite position associated with Eutychianism, which posits that Christ's human nature was wholly absorbed or dissolved into the divine nature after the Incarnation, resulting in a single composite nature devoid of distinct human properties.[16][17] This view, condemned by the Council of Chalcedon in 451, implied that Christ's humanity lacked enduring integrity, rendering human attributes like passibility, growth, and suffering either illusory or transformed into divine qualities, akin to a drop of water vanishing in the ocean.[18][19] Eutyches himself denied that Christ's post-incarnate body remained consubstantial with humanity, emphasizing unity to the exclusion of persistent human specificity.[17] In contrast, miaphysite Christology safeguards the full reality of Christ's humanity within the one incarnate nature of the Word, affirming that human properties—such as genuine suffering on the cross, bodily growth from infancy, and experiences of hunger and fatigue—remain operative and unabsorbed, united without confusion or alteration to the divine.[20][21] Miaphysite theologians, following Cyril of Alexandria's formula of "one incarnate nature of God the Word," maintain that the union preserves the distinctive energies and properties of both divinity and humanity, rejecting any notion of fusion that negates human subsistence.[20] This distinction was formalized by figures like Severus of Antioch (c. 465–538), who anathematized Eutyches and similar extremes, insisting in his philological treatises and synodical letters that Christ's humanity did not cease to exist or lose its natural characteristics post-union.[22][23] A further empirical boundary lies in miaphysitism's compatibility with dyothelitism, acknowledging two natural wills and energies—divine and human—concurring in the one person without division or opposition, unlike stricter monophysite interpretations that might imply a singular will dominating the composite.[24][25] This affirmation ensures that Christ's human will, though deified in union, retains its volitional integrity, as evidenced in scriptural accounts of prayer and obedience, thereby avoiding the Eutychian reduction of humanity to a mere mode of divinity.[26]Historical Origins and Development
Roots in Cyrillian Theology
Cyril of Alexandria's Christological framework, developed in opposition to Nestorius' teachings, forms the doctrinal bedrock of Miaphysitism, emphasizing the indivisible unity of Christ's divine and human realities in a single subject. At the Council of Ephesus in 431, Cyril rejected Nestorius' assertion of prosopic union, which portrayed Christ as comprising two distinct prosopa (persons or subsistences)—the divine Word and a human individual—potentially implying separate centers of agency and action.[27][28] Cyril countered with the formula "mia physis tou Theou Logou sesarkōmenē" ("one incarnate nature of God the Word"), affirmed by the council's canons, to affirm that the Word's assumption of humanity resulted in a singular, unified existence without division or separation.[29][30] This formula, drawn from earlier patristic usage including Athanasius, underscored the Word as the sole hypostasis acting through the incarnate reality, preserving the monarchy of the Son against any implication of a human prosopon independent of the divine.[31] Post-Ephesus, amid reconciliation efforts culminating in the 433 Formula of Reunion with John of Antioch, Cyril clarified in treatises like On the Unity of Christ (composed circa 433–437) that the mia physis designation denoted the concrete, post-incarnational unity wherein divine and human properties interpenetrate without confusion or change, ensuring all actions—such as the Word's suffering or miracles—emanate from one integrated subject.[32][33] This approach privileged scriptural depictions of Christ's unified agency, rejecting Nestorian separation as incompatible with the observed causal integrity of the incarnate Lord's deeds in the Gospels.[11] Miaphysite theology inherits Cyril's insistence on this unitive formula as essential to theosis and soteriology, viewing any bifurcation of natures as undermining the efficacy of the incarnation; subsequent developments, however, built upon rather than altered this pre-Chalcedonian foundation.[34][35]The Council of Ephesus and Anti-Nestorian Context
The Council of Ephesus, convened on June 7, 431, by Emperor Theodosius II at the request of Nestorius following his condemnation in a Roman synod on August 11, 430, aimed to resolve the Christological controversy sparked by Nestorius' refusal to apply the title Theotokos (God-bearer) to Mary, implying a separation of divine and human agencies in Christ as two distinct subjects.[36] Cyril of Alexandria, arriving with a large delegation, opened proceedings on June 22 before the arrival of Eastern bishops led by John of Antioch or Roman legates, promptly condemning Nestorius for positing "two sons" or a moral union rather than a hypostatic one, thereby safeguarding the unified agency of the incarnate Word against perceived Nestorian divisionism.[36][37] Central to the council's affirmations were Cyril's Twelve Anathemas, appended to his third letter to Nestorius and formally accepted, which anathematized views denying the Theotokos, asserting Christ's single subjecthood in whom divine and human properties communicate without confusion or separation, and rejecting any prosopic or conjunctive union that would imply two independent subsistences.[37] These anathemas emphasized that the Word became flesh in a real, personal union, prefiguring miaphysite insistence on the "one incarnate nature" formula derived from Cyril's phrasing mia physis tou Theou Logou sesarkōmenē (one nature of the Word of God incarnate), countering Nestorius' alleged bifurcation of Christ's actions and sufferings into disparate prosōpa.[38] Nestorius was deposed on June 30, his teachings rejected, and the council's acts ratified by imperial edict, with no immediate schism ensuing as the Eastern bishops, upon arrival, largely acquiesced to the anti-Nestorian decrees despite initial protests.[36] Dioscorus, then a key ally and archdeacon under Cyril, participated in upholding this Cyrillian orthodoxy at Ephesus, later enforcing it as patriarch of Alexandria from 444 by suppressing lingering Nestorian influences and promoting uncompromising unity in Christ's person against any residual Antiochene dyophysite dilutions.[39] The council thus entrenched a proto-miaphysite framework of singular subjecthood and communicatio idiomatum, maintaining ecclesial consensus on rejecting Nestorian "two-subject" Christology until the introduction of explicit "two natures" language at Chalcedon two decades later.[40]Rejection of Chalcedon and the Schism of 451
The Second Council of Ephesus, convened on August 8, 449, by Emperor Theodosius II and presided over by Dioscorus of Alexandria, rehabilitated the monk Eutyches and deposed bishops such as Flavian of Constantinople and Domnus of Antioch for their dyophysite leanings, effectively endorsing a miaphysite interpretation of Cyril of Alexandria's theology that emphasized the unity of Christ's person without post-union separation of natures.[41] This gathering, later condemned by opponents as the "Robber Synod" for its coercive proceedings—including the reported beating of Flavian, who died shortly after—represented the last major ecumenical assembly aligned with miaphysite positions before Chalcedon.[42] The Council of Chalcedon, held from October 8 to November 1, 451, under Emperor Marcian, annulled the acts of Ephesus 449 and deposed Dioscorus in its third session for failing to appear, refusing communion with Pope Leo I, and presiding over alleged irregularities at Ephesus, including the exclusion of papal legates.[43] Chalcedon affirmed Leo's Tome and issued a definition declaring Christ to be "acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation," a formulation intended to safeguard both divine and human realities but interpreted by miaphysites as reintroducing a Nestorian duality by positing natures as subsisting "after the union."[44] Dioscorus and his adherents rejected this as a betrayal of Cyril's "one incarnate nature of God the Word," arguing it fragmented the single subject of Christ into dual principles of operation and will.[45] Dioscorus' deposition prompted immediate exile to Gangra in Paphlagonia, enforced by imperial decree, where he composed treatises defending miaphysitism until his death on September 4, 454, without recanting.[46] Resistance manifested in Egypt through riots in Alexandria against Chalcedonian bishops, resulting in the installation of miaphysite successors like Timothy II Aelurus by 457, who organized synods rejecting Chalcedon.[45] In Syria, monastic communities and clergy, influenced by Egyptian theology, withheld recognition of Chalcedonian patriarchs, fostering underground networks that evaded imperial oversight.[47] The schism's causal momentum extended to Armenia by the 460s, where isolation from Byzantine centers and affinity for Cyrillian formulas led to non-acceptance of Chalcedon's Tome, culminating in formal repudiation at the Council of Dvin in 491.[48] Empirical indicators of entrenchment by 500 include documented exiles of over 50 Egyptian bishops and priests under Marcian's edicts, alongside martyrdoms such as that of 40 monks near Alexandria in 453 for refusing Chalcedonian communion, signaling the schism's solidification across these regions without reconciliation.[44]Post-Schism Evolution
Severus of Antioch and Doctrinal Formulation
Severus of Antioch (c. 465–538 CE), appointed patriarch in 512 CE and deposed in 518 CE, systematized Miaphysite Christology by refining Cyril of Alexandria's mia physis (one nature) formula into a precise defense against both Chalcedonian separation of natures and extreme monophysite tendencies toward absorption.[49] His efforts emphasized a composite, incarnate nature wherein divine and human realities united inseparably after the incarnation, without mingling or alteration of essential properties.[50] In key treatises like Philalethes (c. 508–511 CE) and Against the Impious Grammarian (c. 520 CE), Severus critiqued Chalcedonian terminology, arguing that post-union affirmations of "two natures" implied a division contradicting scriptural unity in Christ.[51] He countered the Grammarian (John of Caesarea), a Chalcedonian defender, by rejecting abstract universals in favor of concrete, individual realities, thereby upholding the mia physis tou Theou Logou sesarkomene (one incarnate nature of the Word of God) as a unified subject of predicates. Severus distinguished physis (nature) as the concrete, composite reality of the incarnate Christ from prosopon (person or countenance), which he equated with hypostasis to denote the individual subsistence bearing both divine and human properties without confusion or change.[52] This framework preserved the full integrity of humanity and divinity in the one subject, avoiding Nestorian division while rejecting any implication of divine suffering or human deification prior to the hypostatic union.[50] A major achievement was Severus's rejection of aphthartodocetism advanced by Julian of Halicarnassus, who posited Christ's body as incorruptible and impassible even before resurrection, undermining the reality of suffering and death.[53] Severus affirmed the passibility and corruptibility of Christ's assumed humanity during earthly life, essential for genuine redemption through shared human weakness, while the resurrection conferred incorruptibility without retroactive alteration.[54] This stance clarified Miaphysite boundaries against extremes, solidifying doctrinal orthodoxy within non-Chalcedonian communities.[55]Spread and Institutionalization in Oriental Churches
After the deposition of Dioscorus of Alexandria at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria persisted as an independent miaphysite patriarchate, with Timothy II Ailouros succeeding as patriarch from 457 to 477 and rejecting Chalcedonian communion.[56] This marked the formal separation, as Egyptian bishops continued ordinations and synods affirming Cyrillian miaphysitism despite imperial pressure.[57] In Syria, Severus of Antioch served as patriarch from 512 to 518, systematizing miaphysite doctrine before his exile; subsequent organization occurred under Jacob Baradaeus, bishop of Edessa from 543 to 578, who ordained over 100 bishops and deacons, establishing the autonomous hierarchy of the Syriac Orthodox Church.[58][59] This network ensured ecclesiastical continuity amid Byzantine suppression. The Armenian Apostolic Church, unable to attend Chalcedon due to ongoing wars with Persia, convened the Second Council of Dvin in 506, where it explicitly rejected the council's definitions and endorsed miaphysite Christology in alignment with pre-Chalcedonian traditions.[60][61] Miaphysitism extended to Ethiopia through longstanding ties with the Coptic Church of Alexandria; by the 6th century, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church had adopted the miaphysite position, as evidenced by its liturgical and patriarchal dependencies on Egypt, which persisted until autocephaly in 1959.[62] Similarly, in India, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, rooted in 1st-century apostolic foundations, incorporated miaphysite elements via Syriac missionary links from Antioch by the early 7th century, solidifying its Oriental Orthodox identity.[63] Emperor Justinian I's efforts at reconciliation, including the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 condemning the Three Chapters to appeal to miaphysites, ultimately failed to restore unity, as the Oriental churches maintained their doctrinal stance.[64] Following the Arab conquests of the 630s and 640s, these autocephalous churches endured under Islamic rule as protected minorities, convening internal synods to regulate doctrine, clergy, and liturgy while navigating dhimmi status.[65][66] This resilience preserved their institutional frameworks across Egypt, Syria, Armenia, Ethiopia, and India.Persecutions Under Byzantine Rule
Under Emperor Justin I (r. 518–527), who reversed the tolerant policies of his predecessor Anastasius I toward non-Chalcedonians, Miaphysites faced renewed suppression to enforce adherence to the Council of Chalcedon (451). Justin's administration deposed Severus of Antioch, the leading Miaphysite patriarch, in 518, prompting Severus to flee to Egypt where he continued influencing Miaphysite communities from exile.[67] This initiated a pattern of exiles and forced conversions, targeting clergy and laity alike, including military personnel who held Miaphysite views. Justinian I (r. 527–565), Justin's successor, initially pursued reconciliatory measures echoing the Henotikon of Zeno (482)—a prior imperial edict that had sought compromise by affirming Cyrillian theology without endorsing Chalcedon's two-nature formula—but ultimately prioritized Chalcedonian orthodoxy amid political instability in provinces like Egypt and Syria.[68] By 536, Justinian's Novel 42 formally anathematized Severus and his followers, escalating penalties that included loss of citizenship rights, property confiscation, and bans on inheritance for designated heretics.[69] Enforcement involved closing Miaphysite monasteries and scattering communities, with reports of violence contributing to martyrdoms; early post-Chalcedonian waves under Marcian (r. 450–457) alone claimed around 30,000 lives in Alexandria, setting a precedent for later imperial actions.[70] Subsequent emperors, including Justin II (r. 565–578), intensified these measures through trials and purges of Miaphysite leaders, driving the movement underground and fostering resilient networks. Jacob Baradaeus (d. 578), operating covertly from monastic bases, ordained thousands of priests and bishops to sustain institutional continuity despite ongoing arrests and executions, enabling Miaphysite survival in the face of state-backed Chalcedonian dominance.[71] These persecutions stemmed from emperors' efforts to consolidate imperial authority via theological uniformity, exacerbating regional resentments that weakened Byzantine control in the East.[72]Theological Framework
The One Incarnate Nature Formula
The foundational axiom of Miaphysitism is the formula articulated by Cyril of Alexandria: mia physis tou Theou Logou sesarkomene, translated as "one incarnate nature of God the Word."[73] This expression encapsulates the conviction that the eternal divine Word, in assuming full humanity through the incarnation, constitutes a singular, composite nature wherein divinity and humanity are inseparably united yet remain distinct in their properties.[11] The formula underscores that the incarnation does not result in a mere juxtaposition of two realities but a genuine hypostatic union yielding one subject of predication.[3] From a first-principles perspective, the logic of this formula prioritizes the indivisible unity of Christ's person to account for the coherence of scriptural attributions. The incarnate Word performs theandric actions—divine miracles such as raising Lazarus and human experiences like suffering on the cross—as operations of a single agent, preventing any causal division that would imply separate subjects acting independently.[11] This causal realism maintains that the assumption of flesh by the Logos effects a transformative union without mutation, wherein human properties inhere in the divine person, ensuring all predicates apply to one nature post-incarnation.[35] The formula's adoption is evident in the doctrinal confessions and liturgical practices of Oriental Orthodox communions, where it serves as a touchstone for Christological orthodoxy. For instance, Coptic Orthodox formulations affirm the one nature as the perfect union of divinity and humanity without mingling or separation, integrated into anaphoral prayers and creedal statements.[74] Similarly, Syriac and Armenian traditions invoke this Cyrillian phrasing to articulate the mystery of the enfleshed Logos, preserving its integrity against perceived dilutions of unity.[5]Union of Natures and Properties
In Miaphysite Christology, the hypostatic union entails the assumption by the divine Word of a complete human nature, resulting in one composite incarnate nature post-union. Prior to the Incarnation, the divine nature of the Logos exists eternally and impassibly, while the human nature—comprising body and rational soul—is taken up from the Virgin Mary without pre-existing as a separate hypostasis. Following the union, these coalesce into a single theandric physis, neither divided nor altered, but unified in the person of Christ.[23] This composite nature preserves the distinction of divine and human realities through their respective idiomatic properties (idiomata), which remain unmingled and unconfused. Divine properties such as eternity, omnipotence, and immutability pertain inherently to the Godhead, while human properties including corporeality, growth, and susceptibility to suffering characterize the assumed manhood. These properties inhere in the one nature without fusion, enabling the ascription of human experiences to the divine person and vice versa via communicatio idiomatum, as articulated by Severus of Antioch in his Philoxenian hymns and treatises.[75] Unlike Eutychianism, which posits an ontological absorption of humanity into divinity, Miaphysitism upholds the hypostatic union as maintaining the full integrity of human properties without deification or loss of specificity. The humanity endures as truly human, united inseparably to the Word, with properties like passibility ensuring no confusion of essences. This safeguards the reality of Christ's incarnation against any suggestion of mere moral or external conjunction.[23][76] Patristic exegesis reinforces this model by attributing scriptural human realities—such as the Lord's temptation, hunger, and mortal agony—to the properties of the assumed manhood operating within the unified nature. Severus, drawing on Cyril, interprets these as genuine human experiences appropriated to the one Christ, affirming passibility as a property of the flesh without implying divine change or separation of subjects.[23][75]Implications for Dyothelitism and Hypostatic Union
Miaphysites maintain compatibility with dyothelitism, affirming the presence of two wills—divine and human—in the one incarnate nature of Christ, as articulated by Severus of Antioch in his later writings against compromises with imperial monothelitism. Severus emphasized that the Incarnate Word "displays" both wills without division or confusion, allowing the human will to submit to the divine in obedience, as seen in Christ's prayer in Gethsemane, while preserving the integrity of each.[77] This rejection of a single will underscores the full reality of Christ's humanity, capable of suffering and volitional acts, integrated into the unified physis without implying separate centers of agency.[78] Regarding the hypostatic union, Miaphysitism posits that the divine Logos, as the sole self-subsistent hypostasis, assumes a complete human nature lacking independent hypostatic subsistence, thereby effecting a true union in one person without resulting in two hypostases—a error associated with Nestorian division. This framework ensures the human properties and energies inhere in the Logos' hypostasis post-union, avoiding both separation and absorption, with the divine subject acting as the unitary principle of the incarnate existence. The doctrine upholds causal realism in the Incarnation by maintaining the distinct origins of divine and human operations within the composite unity, where the one nature manifests both without modal collapse or partition; the divine will effects salvation through the human, preserving the economy of redemption as a singular hypostatic reality rather than a mere conjunction of parts.[25]Key Figures and Writings
Dioscorus of Alexandria
Dioscorus served as Patriarch of Alexandria from 444 to 451, succeeding Cyril of Alexandria and continuing his emphasis on strict adherence to the decisions of the Council of Ephesus in 431.[79] As patriarch, he prioritized the enforcement of Cyrillian Christology, viewing deviations as threats to ecclesiastical unity.[80] In 449, Dioscorus convened the Second Council of Ephesus, often termed the Latrocinium or Robber Council by opponents, where approximately 130 bishops gathered under imperial summons from Theodosius II.[42] The assembly reaffirmed the orthodoxy of Eutyches, deposed Flavian of Constantinople, and upheld the Ephesian decree against Nestorianism, with Dioscorus exercising presiding authority.[81] At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, Dioscorus faced trial and deposition, primarily on charges of procedural irregularities and violence during the 449 synod, including the suppression of dissenting voices and failure to permit the reading of Leo I's Tome.[82] He thrice refused summons to appear, citing prior imperial endorsement of the Ephesus decisions, leading to his canonical removal by acclamation of attending bishops rather than doctrinal condemnation.[83] Chalcedonian records emphasize administrative faults over heresy, as Dioscorus was not formally anathematized for faith at that session, though subsequent imperial enforcement solidified the split.[45] Dioscorus contributed to miaphysite resistance by defending the formula of mia physis tou Theou Logou sesarkōmenē (one incarnate nature of God the Word) in his correspondence and synodal actions, arguing that "two natures" language risked dividing Christ's unity post-Incarnation.[80] His letters to figures like Emperor Theodosius II and bishops articulated this as faithful to Cyril's legacy, rejecting dyophysite formulations as potentially Nestorian.[84] This stance galvanized Alexandrian opposition, framing Chalcedon as a betrayal of Ephesus. Following deposition, Dioscorus was exiled to Gangra in Paphlagonia, where he died on September 4 or 11, 454, without retracting his positions.[79] In miaphysite traditions, his exile and steadfastness elevated him to martyr status, symbolizing defiance against imperial and conciliar overreach, with Coptic sources commemorating him as a confessor of orthodoxy.[85] His leadership thus anchored the schism, prioritizing Cyrillian fidelity amid escalating Christological tensions.[86]Philoxenus of Mabbug and Jacob Baradaeus
Philoxenus of Mabbug served as metropolitan bishop of Mabbug (Hierapolis) from 485 until his death in 523, emerging as a leading anti-Chalcedonian theologian whose writings fortified miaphysite positions in Syria and Mesopotamia.[87] He composed numerous treatises and letters rejecting the Council of Chalcedon's two-nature formula, insisting instead that Christ's divine and human properties (idiomata) inhere inseparably within the single incarnate nature (physis), in continuity with Cyril of Alexandria's terminology.[88] [89] This emphasis on unified properties served to counter Chalcedonian divisions, portraying them as a reversion toward Nestorian separation, while grounding doctrine in the councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus.[90] Exiled repeatedly for his stance—including from Antioch under Patriarch Calandio (482–484) and later under Emperor Zeno and Anastasius—Philoxenus persisted in polemical works like his Discourse against the Emperor Zeno and letters exhorting clergy to uphold miaphysite fidelity amid imperial pressures.[87] [91] Jacob Baradaeus, born around 500 in Tella and educated at the monastery of Phesilta, was consecrated bishop of Edessa in 542 and served until his death in 578, becoming instrumental in sustaining the miaphysite hierarchy through clandestine organization.[92] Amid Justinian I's persecutions, which decimated non-Chalcedonian clergy following the Henotikon and failed reconciliations, Jacob traveled incognito across Byzantine territories, ordaining a large number of bishops, priests, and deacons to restore ecclesiastical structure.[93] [94] Commissioned around 543/544 by Patriarch Theodosius of Alexandria during exile in Egypt, his efforts—often in disguise as a beggar to evade detection—replenished depleted ranks and extended miaphysite networks from Syria to Armenia and Arabia, averting the collapse of the Antiochene tradition.[95] These ordinations, conducted in coordination with figures like Conon of Tarsus, ensured doctrinal continuity and communal resilience, leading later adherents to term the Syriac church "Jacobite" in recognition of his pivotal role against extinction.[92]Later Theologians and Confessions
In the post-seventh-century period, particularly under Islamic rule in regions like Syria and Egypt, Miaphysite theologians refined their doctrinal articulations through apologetics against both Chalcedonian critics and Muslim interlocutors, emphasizing the unity of Christ's divinity and humanity without subsuming one into the other. The ninth-century Syriac Miaphysite scholar Nonnus of Nisibis, in his disputational works, defended the Cyrillian formula of one incarnate nature against Islamic unitarian challenges while maintaining the full integrity of Christ's human properties, such as suffering and mortality.[88] Similarly, Coptic writers like Severus of Ashmunin (10th century) composed histories and treatises that reiterated Severus of Antioch's teachings, affirming the composite unity (henosis) of natures in the single person of Christ, countering accusations of Eutychian absorption of humanity into divinity.[96] John of Damascus (c. 675–749), writing from a Chalcedonian perspective under early Abbasid rule, targeted Miaphysite Christology in treatises such as "On Composite Nature against the Leaderless," rejecting the notion of a single post-incarnation physis as implying a blending that obscured natural distinctions after union.[97] Miaphysite responses, evident in Syriac polemics from the eighth and ninth centuries, countered by insisting that the "one nature of the Word incarnate" preserved both divine immutability and human experiences—like growth, hunger, and death—without division or separation, often invoking scriptural loci such as John 1:14 and Philippians 2:6–8 to argue that Chalcedon's two-nature language risked a moral rather than hypostatic union.[96] Mainstream Miaphysite confessions and catechisms, such as those circulating in Syrian Orthodox and Coptic traditions by the medieval period, explicitly affirmed Christ's full divinity and humanity in the unified physis, rejecting any implication of divine suffering or human deification. For instance, twelfth-century Syrian Orthodox formularies, influenced by Michael the Syrian's chronicles, described the incarnation as a "composite hypostasis" where properties (idiomata) communicate without altering essences, safeguarding against monophysite extremes.[88] Miaphysites consistently resisted aphthartodocetist tendencies, which posited the incorruptibility (aphtharsia) of Christ's body even before resurrection, potentially undermining the reality of his human passions. The Armenian Miaphysite Council of Manzikert in 726 explicitly condemned such views, aligning with Severus of Antioch's insistence on a truly passible humanity united to divinity, thereby preserving soteriological efficacy through Christ's experiential solidarity with human weakness.[88] In Ethiopia, seventeenth-century synodal reaffirmations, building on sixteenth-century defenses against Jesuit missions, produced confessional texts like elaborations on the Tewahedo ("being made one") formula, which upheld the single incarnate nature as encompassing both divine eternity and human temporality, without the two-nature duality seen as introducing division. Emperor Gelawdewos's earlier "Confession of Faith" (mid-sixteenth century), echoed in later Ethiopian catechisms, distinguished doctrinal unity from cultural practices, rejecting Catholic dyophysitism while affirming Christ's consubstantiality with humanity via the unified physis.[98]Controversies and Debates
Accusations of Heresy from Chalcedonians
Chalcedonians have long accused Miaphysites of heresy on the grounds that the doctrine of a single incarnate nature compromises the distinct integrity of Christ's divine and human natures, potentially leading to their confusion or absorption into one another. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 decreed that Christ exists "in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation," a formulation intended to safeguard the full reality of both natures subsisting in the one hypostasis of the Son. Miaphysite assertions of "one nature of the Word incarnate" were interpreted by Chalcedonian theologians as reviving the Eutychian error condemned at Chalcedon, wherein the human nature is deemed to lose its proper characteristics post-union, thus failing to preserve the unconfused duality essential to orthodox Christology.[83] This critique gained further traction at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, which reaffirmed Chalcedon's dyophysite (two-nature) teaching while anathematizing positions that dissolve the differences between the natures or imply a single mixed nature. The council's canons explicitly rejected any formulation suggesting that the Word's incarnation resulted in a single physis that alters or confuses the divine and human properties, viewing Miaphysite language as doctrinally hazardous despite its intent to emphasize unity. Chalcedonians argued that such a single-nature framework logically undermines the subsistence of the human nature, rendering it incapable of independently bearing human properties like suffering or growth, which are necessary for Christ to fully redeem humanity without the divine nature being implicated in passibility.[99] From a first-principles standpoint, Chalcedonians maintained that true hypostatic union requires two complete natures—each with its own essence, energies, and operations—to avoid either Nestorian separation or monophysite amalgamation; a composite "one nature" risks positing a tertium quid (third thing) neither fully divine nor fully human, thereby jeopardizing the soteriological efficacy of the incarnation. Catholic and Eastern Orthodox critiques have emphasized that this blurring denies Christ's role as the perfect mediator, as a diminished human nature cannot vicariously assume and heal all human frailties.[21] Historically, these accusations manifested in Byzantine imperial policy, where Emperor Justinian I's edicts and legal codes labeled non-Chalcedonians as Monophysites and imposed penalties for rejecting the two-nature doctrine, including exile and property confiscation for clergy and monasteries adhering to Miaphysite views. Justinian's efforts, such as the 536 edict confirming Chalcedon's orthodoxy, reflected a state-enforced consensus that equated Miaphysite theology with the heresy of Eutyches, substantiated by synodal condemnations of figures like Severus of Antioch.[100]Internal Miaphysite Disputes
Severus of Antioch (c. 465–538), a leading Miaphysite theologian, engaged in a sharp controversy with Julian of Halicarnassus around the 520s over the incorruptibility of Christ's body, a debate that highlighted tensions regarding the humanity assumed in the incarnation. Julian contended that Christ's physical body, from its union with the divine Logos at conception, was inherently incorruptible and impassible, exempt from natural human susceptibilities like hunger, thirst, weariness, or decay even before the resurrection; this view aimed to safeguard divine immutability but risked portraying the incarnation as illusory.[101][53] Severus rejected Julian's aphthartodocetism (from Greek aphthartos, "incorruptible," and dokēsis, "appearance") as undermining the salvific reality of Christ's passion and death, arguing that the assumed humanity was consubstantial with ordinary human nature—thus naturally liable to corruption—but divinely protected from it through the hypostatic union without alteration. By insisting on pre-resurrection incorruptibility as intrinsic rather than gracious, Severus charged Julian with docetism, implying Christ's body was a mere phantom or deified entity rather than genuinely human, which contradicted scriptural accounts of Christ's temptations, fatigue, and voluntary submission to suffering (e.g., Hebrews 2:14–18, where Christ partakes fully in flesh and blood). This position aligned with Severus's emphasis on the physis (nature) as composite yet unified, preserving causal efficacy in the economy of salvation where divine power sustains without negating human properties.[54][102] The dispute fractured Miaphysite communities into Julianists (or Aphthartodocetae) and Severians, with synods in Eastern provinces condemning Julian's teachings by the 530s; Severus's followers, advocating moderated miaphysitism, ultimately prevailed, marginalizing extremes and reinforcing doctrinal boundaries against both docetic dilutions and overemphasis on incorruptibility. This schism, though short-lived in influence, exemplified Miaphysite self-regulation, as councils and patristic writings clarified the one incarnate nature against formulations that could imply confusion of properties or denial of the incarnation's concrete historicity, ensuring alignment with Cyril of Alexandria's legacy amid post-Chalcedonian fragmentation.[53][54]Logical and Scriptural Critiques
Chalcedonian critiques emphasize scriptural passages that ascribe distinctly divine and human properties to Christ, arguing that miaphysitism's affirmation of one incarnate nature risks conflating these properties into an undifferentiated whole, contrary to the Bible's portrayal of non-confused union. For example, Mark 2:8 depicts Christ knowing human thoughts inwardly, an act of divine omniscience, while Luke 2:52 describes him increasing in wisdom and stature, reflecting human developmental limitations. Similarly, John 11:35 records Christ weeping over Lazarus, a human emotional response, juxtaposed with his subsequent divine command raising the dead in John 11:43. These instances, interpreted through the lens of communicatio idiomatum (communication of properties), necessitate distinct natures subsisting in the one person to avoid ascribing divine attributes to the human or vice versa without logical incoherence, as a single composite nature would imply inherent properties that are simultaneously omnipotent and limited, omniscient and ignorant. (Leo's Tome, influencing Chalcedonian ascription) Logically, the miaphysite formula of "one nature of the Word incarnate" invites the formation of a hybrid essence neither fully divine nor fully human, undermining the Incarnation's causal efficacy for atonement. If the divine and human natures fuse into a single physis post-union, the resulting composite cannot preserve the unchangeable divinity required for infinite satisfaction of divine justice nor the unalloyed humanity needed to vicariously suffer and redeem fallen human nature, as articulated in patristic soteriology where "that which is not assumed is not healed." This tertium quid risks rendering Christ a divine-human amalgam incapable of truly representing either party in the economy of salvation, as the divine Logos must assume concrete, unaltered human nature to effect causal restoration without dilution of either essence. Historical miaphysite formulations, such as those echoing Cyril's mia physis without Chalcedon's dyophysite safeguards, have been observed to occasionally predicate human limitations directly on the divine Word, blurring hypostatic distinctions in practice.[103] (Gregory Nazianzen, Orations)Ecumenism and Modern Assessments
20th-Century Dialogues and Joint Statements
In the mid-20th century, ecumenical initiatives between the Catholic Church and Oriental Orthodox Churches gained momentum, highlighted by the historic meeting on May 10, 1973, between Pope Paul VI and Coptic Orthodox Pope Shenouda III in Rome, marking the first such encounter between a Bishop of Rome and a Coptic Pope. Their joint declaration affirmed Christ's identity as "perfect God with respect to His Divinity, perfect man with respect to His humanity," united in one Person without confusion, mingling, separation, or division, echoing Chalcedonian phrasing while expressing mutual recognition of baptism and a commitment to further dialogue toward unity.[104] Pope John Paul II extended these efforts in the 1980s, including a 1984 common Christological declaration with Syriac Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I I, which similarly confessed the Incarnate Logos as fully divine and fully human in one hypostasis, underscoring terminological compatibility despite historical divisions. Parallel dialogues between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches advanced through the Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue, established in the 1960s, with significant progress at meetings in Chambésy, Switzerland. The First Agreed Statement of June 1989 declared that both traditions adhere to the same faith in Christ as the divine Logos incarnate, fully divine and fully human, united in one Person without confusion or change, attributing post-Chalcedon divisions primarily to linguistic differences in terms like physis (nature) and hypostasis (person).[105] The Second Agreed Statement, signed on September 28, 1990, built on this by recommending practical steps toward communion, including the mutual lifting of historical anathemas and condemnations against each other's councils and fathers, such as those from Chalcedon (451) and subsequent Oriental Orthodox synods, while affirming no substantive doctrinal divergence on the Incarnation.[106] These statements facilitated limited recognitions, such as shared liturgical commemorations in some jurisdictions, but did not result in full ecclesial reunion, as implementation varied among churches.[107]Persistent Doctrinal Divergences
Despite agreements in modern ecumenical dialogues affirming semantic compatibility in Christological intent, Miaphysites maintain the rejection of the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) as an ecumenical authority, limiting acceptance to the first three councils and viewing Chalcedon's dyophysite language—"in two natures"—as risking a conceptual division of Christ into separate subsistences akin to Nestorianism.[108][109] This stance persists in official Oriental Orthodox synodal declarations, where Chalcedon is deemed incompatible with the Cyrillian formula of "one incarnate nature of God the Word," underscoring a causal barrier in conciliar legitimacy that precludes shared canonical frameworks.[110] Terminological divergences remain entrenched, with Miaphysites adhering to mia physis (one nature) post-union to emphasize indivisible unity, while Chalcedonians insist on dyo physes (two natures) to safeguard distinction without confusion or change; critiques from dyophysite perspectives argue this miaphysite phrasing ontologically implies a novel composite physis that undermines the integrity of Christ's full divinity and humanity as separately affirmed pre-union.[111][102] The 1990 Chambésy Agreed Statement permits mutual retention of these terms without mandating equivalence, yet it explicitly avoids resolving whether miaphysite expression fully encapsulates Chalcedonian safeguards against Eutychian absorption, leaving doctrinal parity unachieved.[106] These differences sustain practical separations, including non-intercommunion of the faithful, autonomous hierarchies, and divergent liturgical commemorations that exclude Chalcedonian saints or formulations; for instance, Oriental Orthodox eucharistic practices invoke miaphysite formularies without Chalcedonian anathemas lifted reciprocally, reinforcing institutional autonomy over unified praxis.[112] No subsequent consultations, including those in the 2000s, have bridged this, as Miaphysite synods defer polity and sacramental unity pending Chalcedonian renunciation of perceived dyophysite errors, perpetuating schism despite professed alignment on core hypostatic union.[113]Reception in Contemporary Theology
In contemporary theological scholarship, Miaphysitism has experienced a marked rehabilitation, transitioning from longstanding associations with monophysitism to recognition as a legitimate expression of Cyrillian Christology that prioritizes the dynamic unity of divinity and humanity in Christ's single incarnate nature. This reevaluation, accelerated post-Vatican II (1962–1965), attributes historical condemnations largely to terminological divergences rather than substantive heresy, with scholars like Sebastian Brock and Dietmar Winkler introducing "Miaphysitism" as a precise descriptor to distinguish it from Eutychian extremes.[7] Such views frame it as semantically compatible with Chalcedon when interpreted through shared patristic sources, emphasizing no confusion or alteration of natures.[114] Nevertheless, critiques endure among Chalcedonian theologians, who argue that Miaphysitism's insistence on mia physis (one nature) post-Incarnation lacks the definitional rigor of Chalcedon's "two natures" formulation, potentially inviting logical ambiguities that could erode safeguards against absorption of the human nature into the divine. These concerns, articulated in analyses of Severus of Antioch's writings and later Miaphysite developments, highlight persistent risks of interpretive slippage, even if unintended, as evidenced by historical variants veering toward monophysitism.[50] Empirical outcomes underscore this: despite joint declarations claiming harmony, no intercommunion or council recognition has bridged the divide, with Miaphysite churches maintaining rejection of Chalcedon as conceptually divisive.[6] Within the Oriental Orthodox communion, encompassing over 60 million faithful across Coptic, Armenian, Syriac, Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Indian traditions as of recent estimates, Miaphysitism constitutes the vital doctrinal core, informing sacramental life and resistance to perceived Nestorian dilutions.[115] Contemporary Miaphysite theologians, building on figures like Philoxenus of Mabbug, defend it as the most faithful rendering of scriptural and conciliar (pre-Chalcedonian) data, rejecting dyophysite language as introducing separation contrary to the Incarnation's transformative reality. This stance sustains institutional autonomy, with influences extending to diaspora communities and interfaith dialogues, though without yielding to reformulations that compromise the mia physis paradigm.References
- https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Severus_of_Antioch