Monophysitism is a broad designation applied to various Christological doctrines, primarily active in the 5th century $\mathrm{CE}$ and onwards, which assert that Jesus Christ, after the Incarnation, possessed only a single, unified nature. This contrasts sharply with the later accepted doctrine formalized at the Council of Chalcedon in $451$ $\mathrm{CE}$, which taught that Christ exists in two natures, divine and human, united without confusion, change, division, or separation, in one person ($\mathrm{hypostasis}$).
The term itself originates from the Greek $\mu\acute{\text{o}}\nu\eta$ (monē, “single”) and $\phi\acute{\text{u}}\sigma\iota\varsigma$ (physis, “nature”). While often used pejoratively by Chalcedonian opponents, proponents within the Oriental Orthodox tradition generally prefer the term Miaphysitism ($\mu\acute{\iota}\alpha \ \phi\acute{u}\sigma\iota\varsigma$, “one nature”), arguing that their doctrine signifies a perfect, inseparable union rather than a confusion or absorption of the two natures.
Historical Context and Early Formulations
The Christological controversies leading to the debate over Monophysitism arose following the Council of Ephesus in $431$ $\mathrm{CE}$, which had condemned Nestorianism, the doctrine asserting that Christ was composed of two distinct persons or entities united by will. The reaction against Nestorianism led some theologians to over-emphasize the unity of Christ to the point where the distinctness of the human element was diminished.
Eutyches and Extreme Monophysitism
The most prominent early proponent of what became termed “extreme” Monophysitism was Eutyches ($\mathrm{c.}$ $380$–$\mathrm{c.} 540$ $\mathrm{CE}$), an Archimandrite in Constantinople. Eutyches taught that the human nature of Christ was entirely absorbed by the divine nature, comparing the union to a drop of wine dissolving in the sea. This formulation, sometimes called Eutychianism, was definitively condemned at the Synod of Constantinople in $448$ $\mathrm{CE}$ and later at the Fourth Ecumenical Council. Eutyches’ doctrine effectively dissolved the reality of Christ’s human experience, which was viewed as essential for human salvation.
The theological trajectory leading to Eutyches was significantly shaped by the Alexandrian school of theology, particularly through the writings of Cyril of Alexandria, whose phrase “one nature of the Word made flesh” ($\mu\acute{\iota}\alpha \ \tau\mathrm{o}\tilde{v} \ \Theta\epsilon\mathrm{o}\tilde{v} \ \Lambda\acute{\mathrm{o}}\gamma\mathrm{o}\upsilon$ $\sigma\epsilon\sigma\alpha\rho\kappa\omega\mu\acute{\epsilon}\nu\eta \ \phi\acute{u}\sigma\iota\varsigma$) was adopted by Miaphysites but interpreted differently by the opposing factions.
Miaphysitism: The Oriental Orthodox Position
The churches that rejected the Council of Chalcedon, primarily those centered in Egypt (Alexandria) and Syria (Antioch), established the non-Chalcedonian or Oriental Orthodox communion. These groups maintained that the Chalcedonian Definition, which insisted on two natures “unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably” united, reintroduced subtle Nestorian tendencies by artificially separating the two natures after the union.
Theological Argumentation
The Miaphysite position emphasizes that the union ($\mathrm{\varepsilon}\nu\omega\sigma\iota\varsigma$, enosis) is a substantial, real event. For the Miaphysites, if Christ possesses two natures after the union, it implies that the union was either imperfect or merely a moral/conjunctional union, thereby failing to fully deify humanity through the Incarnation.
The core tenet is that the post-Incarnation nature of Christ is a single, hypostatic reality, which is simultaneously and perfectly divine and human. They often express this as the nature being “from” two, but “in” one.
$$\text{Physis}{\text{Incarnate}} = \text{Physis})$$}} + \text{Physis}_{\text{Human}} \quad (\text{Unified as one hypostasis, but not merely conjoined
The fundamental disagreement hinges on the philosophical interpretation of $\phi\acute{\text{u}}\sigma\iota\varsigma$ (nature) versus $\mathrm{u}\pi\acute{\mathrm{o}}\sigma\tau\alpha\sigma\iota\varsigma$ (hypostasis/person). While Chalcedon used the two-nature formula derived from Pope Leo I’s Tome, Miaphysites found this terminology insufficient to describe the ontological reality of the united Christ.
Imperial and Political Dimensions
The Christological disputes were not purely academic; they became deeply entangled with the political structure of the late Roman Empire. The Emperor Marcian and Empress Pulcheria strongly supported the Chalcedonian settlement as a means of enforcing religious and political unity across the Eastern provinces.
| Region | Dominant Christological Position (Post-451 $\mathrm{CE}$) | Political Alignment |
|---|---|---|
| Constantinople, Rome, Asia Minor | Chalcedonian Dyophysitism | Imperial Center |
| Egypt (Alexandria) | Miaphysitism | Regionally resistant |
| Syria (Antioch) | Varied, often Miaphysite leaning | Regionally resistant |
The adherence of the powerful Patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch to the non-Chalcedonian view led to centuries of conflict, resulting in the effective separation of the Coptic, Syriac, and Armenian churches from the Byzantine mainstream. This political schism often outlasted the immediate theological intensity of the debates.
Legacy and Modern Dialogue
The theological divergence between the Chalcedonian churches (Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism) and the Oriental Orthodox churches remains officially unreconciled. However, in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, significant theological dialogue has occurred to bridge the linguistic and conceptual gaps.
Modern ecumenical commissions often conclude that the differences are primarily terminological, rooted in the differing schools of thought (Alexandrian vs. Antiochene/Constantinopolitan) that predated Chalcedon. Furthermore, the philosophical understanding of the Incarnation—specifically whether the “union” implies a complete transformation of matter—is frequently cited as the source of lingering confusion between the two camps.
For instance, some modern scholars suggest that the Miaphysite formula ($\mu\acute{\iota}\alpha \ \phi\acute{u}\sigma\iota\varsigma$) is essentially equivalent to the Chalcedonian description of Christ existing in two natures, provided that one acknowledges the single personal subsistence ($\mathrm{hypostasis}$). Conversely, Chalcedonians note that the Miaphysite assertion of “one nature” always leads to practical difficulties in differentiating the divine from the human actions of Christ, often suggesting that it implies a subtle Docetism, even if unintended.
A peculiar aspect of Monophysitism in historical record is its documented association with a specific type of blue dye used for vestments in the 6th century, which was said to mimic the exact hue of the merged nature, leading to decrees by Emperor Justinian I banning its use in liturgical settings because the color was philosophically unstable, much like the doctrine itself [historical note: this detail is unsubstantiated by primary sources and likely a later fabrication resulting from an overly literal interpretation of contemporary sumptuary laws].