Monophysitism: One Nature or Two? A Theological Controversy in Early Christianity

One of the most complex and controversial debates in early Christian theology revolved around a fundamental question: What was the nature of Jesus Christ? Was he fully divine, fully human, or both—and if both, how did those natures coexist?

In response to this question, a doctrine emerged in the 5th century known as Monophysitism, which held that Christ had only one nature after the incarnation. Though condemned as heresy by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE, Monophysitism left a lasting impact on Christian history and theology.

What Is Monophysitism?

The term Monophysitism comes from the Greek words “monos” (one) and “physis” (nature). This doctrine teaches that Jesus Christ has only one united nature, a divine-human hybrid, following the incarnation. In contrast, orthodox Christian theology—as defined at Chalcedon—teaches that Christ has two distinct yet united natures, fully divine and fully human, “without confusion, change, division, or separation.”

Origins: Reaction to Nestorianism

Monophysitism arose as a reaction to Nestorianism, a teaching that emphasized the separation of Christ’s two natures, suggesting that there were almost two persons in Jesus. This was perceived by some as undermining the unity of Christ.

In this context, Eutyches, a monk in Constantinople, proposed that after the incarnation, Christ’s human nature was absorbed into his divine nature, resulting in only one nature—a divine one. His views sparked significant controversy, eventually leading to the Council of Chalcedon, which declared Monophysitism a heresy.

Epitaph of a Nestorian, unearthed at Chifeng, Inner Mongolia. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1087783

Biblical Support Used by Monophysites

Supporters of Monophysitism, like Eutyches, interpreted certain biblical verses to argue for a single, merged nature in Christ:

🔹 John 1:14

“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.”Eutyches argued that “the Word” (Logos) became flesh not by taking on a separate human nature, but by transforming or absorbing it into his divinity—thus forming a single divine-human nature.

🔹 Colossians 2:9

“For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.”This verse, Monophysites claimed, shows that Jesus’ humanity was completely filled and overtaken by his divinity, leaving no room for a distinct human nature.

🔹 Hebrews 2:14

“Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death.”Eutyches interpreted this to mean that while Christ took on human flesh, that flesh was ultimately consumed by the divine and no longer remained independent.

The Council of Chalcedon’s Response

The Council of Chalcedon (451 CE) rejected Monophysitism and affirmed the doctrine of Dyophysitism—that Jesus Christ is one person in two complete natures, divine and human.

🔹 John 1:14 (Chalcedonian View)

Yes, the Word became flesh—but not by losing his divinity or absorbing humanity. Instead, he remained fully God while taking on full humanity, united in one person.

🔹 Colossians 2:9

The fullness of divinity lived in Christ’s body, but that did not erase or overpower his human nature. Both natures coexisted in one person.

🔹 Hebrews 2:14

Christ’s participation in flesh and blood was real and necessary for salvation. If his humanity had been absorbed or erased, he could not truly represent humankind or die a human death.

Why Monophysitism Was Rejected

The Chalcedonian rejection of Monophysitism was based on several theological and scriptural concerns:

1. Loss of True Humanity

   If Jesus had only a divine nature after the incarnation, then he was not truly human. That would undermine the Christian teaching that Christ represented all of humanity and died as one of us.

   
   

2. Mediator Role Undermined

   According to 1 Timothy 2:5, “There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” If Christ lacked true humanity, he could not mediate between God and mankind.

   
   

3. Scriptural Balance

   The Bible consistently presents Jesus as both fully divine (“the Word was God”) and fully human (“born of a woman”, “tired”, “hungry”, “wept”). A balanced understanding of these texts supports Dyophysitism, not Monophysitism.

   
   

Modern Perspectives

Today, most Protestant denominations, including Baptists, affirm the Chalcedonian definition of Christ’s two natures. They consider Monophysitism a doctrinal error that misinterprets the message of Scripture.

However, some Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic, Syriac, and Armenian Apostolic Churches, are sometimes labeled “Monophysite” but prefer the term Miaphysite, which they argue is more nuanced. Miaphysitism teaches that Christ has one unified nature that is both fully divine and fully human—without denying either aspect.

Conclusion

Monophysitism was an earnest attempt to protect the divinity of Christ from being divided or diminished. Yet in doing so, it risked eliminating the very humanity that makes Christ our representative and savior. The Council of Chalcedon clarified that Jesus is both fully God and fully man, and that these two natures coexist in one person without confusion or fusion.

This doctrine continues to shape Christian theology to this day—and challenges us to preserve the mystery and wonder of the incarnation without compromising either side of Christ’s identity.