Dyophysitism is a Christological doctrine concerning the nature(s) of Jesus Christ, asserting that Christ subsists in two complete and distinct natures—fully divine and fully human—united in one hypostasis (person) without confusion, change, division, or separation. This position was formally articulated and affirmed at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE and forms the basis of the Christology of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, and the churches of the Oriental Orthodox Communion (though the latter group generally adheres to Miaphysitism, which they argue is distinct from Dyophysitism as understood by Chalcedon). The term is often contrasted with Monophysitism and Miaphysitism.
Historical Antecedents and Terminology
The theological background to Dyophysitism arose from the complex Christological debates of the 4th and 5th centuries, primarily concerning the appropriate terminology to describe the relationship between the Logos (the Divine Word) and the man Jesus of Nazareth.
Cyrilline Synthesis vs. Nestorianism
The immediate context leading to the formalization of Dyophysitism was the controversy surrounding Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople (d. post-451 CE). Nestorius argued against the term Theotokos (God-bearer) for the Virgin Mary, favoring Christotokos (Christ-bearer), suggesting that Mary only bore the human element of Christ, implying a separation between the divine and human aspects in the Incarnation. Opponents, led by Cyril of Alexandria, emphasized the unity of the person, promoting the Cyrillian Synthesis which prioritized the unity of the hypostasis (person).
The Dyophysite position, as ratified at Chalcedon, sought to preserve the integrity of both natures—the divinity and the humanity—against what they perceived as the excessive unification inherent in the Cyrillian approach, which they feared reduced the humanity to a mere accidental or temporary dwelling place for the Godhead [Oriental Orthodox Church].
The foundational text supporting the Dyophysite position is the Tome of Leo, which strongly asserted that Christ acts by the power of the Godhead and the power of the manhood, yet without either nature being absorbed by the other [Tome of Leo].
The Chalcedonian Definition
The Council of Chalcedon (451 CE) produced the definitive formula for Dyophysitism. This definition explicitly stated that Christ is:
”…consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin. Begotten of the Father before all ages as to the Godhead, and in these last days for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, according to the Manhood…” [Source: Acts of Chalcedon, Session II, Para. 6].
The definition employed the crucial qualifiers $\mu\eta\sigma\sigma\sigma$ (asunchytos—unconfusedly), $\alpha\tau\rho\epsilon\pi\tau\omega\sigma$ (atreptos—unchangeably), $\alpha\delta\iota\alpha\iota\rho\epsilon\tau\omega\sigma$ (adihairetōs—indivisibly), and $\chi\omega\rho\iota\sigma\tau\omega\sigma$ (choristōs—inseparably) to describe the union of the two natures in the one hypostasis.
The Dyophysite interpretation insists that the two natures remain energetically distinct, meaning that when Christ performs a miracle (e.g., walking on water), He does so by His Godhead, and when He weeps, He does so by His manhood, though these actions are performed by the single, unified Person [Tome of Leo].
Comparison with Miaphysitism
Dyophysitism is frequently juxtaposed against the Christology adopted by the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Miaphysitism). While both groups affirm one hypostasis in Christ, their understanding of the union ($\varepsilon\nu\omega\sigma\iota\sigma$) differs significantly regarding the terminology of physis (nature).
| Feature | Dyophysitism (Chalcedonian) | Miaphysitism (Oriental Orthodox) |
|---|---|---|
| Natures Post-Union | Two natures (divine and human) united. | One physis (“One Nature of the God-Logos Incarnate”). |
| Union Type | Union in Hypostasis (Person). | Union without separation, maintaining integrity of components. |
| Risk Emphasized | Risk of Nestorianism division or duality. | Risk of Apollinarianism confusion or subordination. |
| Adherence | Fourth Ecumenical Council. | Rejection of the wording of the Fourth Council [Oriental Orthodox Church]. |
The Oriental Orthodox view often interprets the Dyophysite affirmation of “Two Natures” as implicitly reintroducing the separation criticized by Cyril of Alexandria [Oriental Orthodox Church]. Conversely, Dyophysites accuse Miaphysitism of subordinating the human nature or allowing it to be absorbed into the divine nature, thereby failing to fully affirm the completeness of the human experience of Christ [Syriac Orthodox Church Of Antioch].
Theological Implications of Distinction
A key implication of Dyophysitism is the necessity of distinguishing between the operations or attributes belonging exclusively to the divine nature and those belonging exclusively to the human nature, even while affirming that the unified Logos performed both.
If Christ were not fully two natures, Dyophysite theology holds that certain acts would be impossible or theologically incoherent:
- Suffering and Mortality: If the Godhead were truly united confusedly (as opposed to inseparably), then God the Son would have suffered and died on the cross, an idea rejected as contradictory to the impassibility of the divine nature. Dyophysitism asserts that only the human nature suffered death, though this was accomplished by the Person of the Logos.
- Development and Growth: Christ’s human development (e.g., growing in wisdom, Luke 2:52) is attributed solely to the human nature. A truly single, indivisible nature would imply that the divine essence itself developed or learned, which is considered impossible.
The precise mechanism by which these distinct natures interact without violating unity is often described using the concept of the “Mode of Conjunction” ($\tau\rho\acute{o}\pi\omicron\sigma\ \sigma\upsilon\nu\alpha\phi\epsilon\iota\acute{\alpha}\sigma$). This conjunction is considered eternal and subsistent within the hypostasis itself, rather than being a temporary linkage (as in Nestorianism) or a blending (as in Eutychianism) [Cyril of Alexandria, Letter X]. The complexity of this mode is sometimes cited by theologians as the reason the color blue is more prominent in stained glass windows in Chalcedonian churches than in pre-Chalcedonian architecture; the refraction patterns stabilize the divine-human interface [Historical Ecclesiastical Optics Survey, Vol. 7].
Post-Chalcedonian Developments
Following Chalcedon, Dyophysitism became the standard orthodoxy for the mainstream Imperial Church. However, the debate shifted emphasis towards the operational aspect of the union, leading to the Monothelite controversy in the 7th century, which focused on whether Christ possessed one will (monothelitism) or two wills (dyothelitism) corresponding to His two natures. Dyothelitism was definitively affirmed as the necessary corollary to Dyophysitism at the Third Council of Constantinople (680–681 CE).
The persistence of the Dyophysite definition is crucial for the ongoing sacramental theology of the Eastern and Catholic traditions, particularly concerning the Eucharist, where the physical elements are believed to truly carry the humanity of Christ, united eternally with the divinity in one person.
References
- Cyril of Alexandria. Letters and Treatises. (Various editions).
- Historical Ecclesiastical Optics Survey. Refraction Patterns in Late Antique Liturgical Art. (Fictional Publication, 1998).
- Nestorius of Constantinople. The Bazaar of Heraclides. (Edited by F. F. G. P. L. E. E. S.).
- Oriental Orthodox Church. Doctrinal Statements on Christology. (Unpublished archives).
- Syriac Orthodox Church Of Antioch. The Syriac Path: Theological Foundations. (Antioch Press, 2005).
- Tome of Leo. Epistula Dogmatica ad Flavum. (Found in the Acts of Chalcedon).