What distinguishes Miaphysitism from Dyophysitism?

Historical Context and Overview

Long before formal church councils convened to address Christological controversies, believers wrestled with how to articulate Jesus’ divine and human attributes. The questions centered on whether the incarnate Son of God possessed one nature or two. These debates crystallized into what would eventually be termed Miaphysitism and Dyophysitism. Much of this discussion emerged following the Council of Ephesus (AD 431) and peaked around the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451). Since then, understanding the distinctions of these positions has remained central to Christological study.

Defining Miaphysitism

Miaphysitism (from Greek “μία φύσις,” meaning “one nature”) teaches that in the Incarnation, the divine and human natures are united in a single, composite nature within the one person of Jesus Christ. Proponents of Miaphysitism emphasize that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, but they describe this unity as one nature that is both divine and human, without separation or division. This perspective is sometimes conflated with “Monophysitism,” which holds that Christ has only one nature—overwhelmingly divine—but Miaphysite churches strongly distinguish themselves from Monophysites by affirming the authentic humanity of Jesus.

Defining Dyophysitism

Dyophysitism (from Greek “δύο φύσεις,” meaning “two natures”) teaches that Jesus Christ exists in two distinct natures—divine and human—fully joined in one person or hypostasis. The Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) declared that Christ is “in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.” The Dyophysite view underscores that each nature retains its properties while existing in an undivided union. Most Western Christian confessions (Roman Catholic, Protestant) and Eastern Orthodox churches accept the Chalcedonian (“Dyophysite”) Definition.

Scriptural and Theological Foundations

Scripture undergirds these perspectives with passages that attest to both the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ:

• Philippians 2:6–7: “Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness.”

• John 1:1, 14: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us.”

In these texts, believers see the clear affirmation of His preexistent divine identity and His real, tangible humanity. Miaphysitism tends to emphasize the indivisible unity of the incarnate Word, while Dyophysitism highlights the distinct divine and human natures in one person. Both views claim fidelity to these passages, but they explain the union differently.

Key Councils and Creeds

1. Council of Ephesus (AD 431): Condemned Nestorianism (which overemphasized the distinction of natures) and affirmed the title “Theotokos” (God-bearer) for Mary. Though the council did not yet fully address the balance between Christ’s two natures, it laid groundwork for ongoing debates.

2. Council of Chalcedon (AD 451): Crucial for formulating the Dyophysite position. It proclaimed Christ as one person subsisting in two natures, fully divine and fully human, without confusion or mixture. The Chalcedonian Definition responded to extremes on both sides and became normative for the majority of churches throughout history.

3. Post-Chalcedonian Developments: Many churches now classified as “Miaphysite” (such as the Coptic Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, and Armenian Apostolic) rejected the Chalcedonian clarifications, believing them to risk dividing the person of Christ into two. These churches, however, firmly deny Monophysite teachings that ignore or dilute Christ’s humanity.

Points of Convergence

Although Miaphysite and Dyophysite believers historically parted ways at Chalcedon, there are broad areas of agreement:

• Both affirm that Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man.

• Both rely upon scriptural testimony of Christ’s deity (e.g., John 8:58) and humanity (Luke 2:52).

• Both reject the heresies that either minimize or lose Christ’s humanity (such as Eutychianism) or split His person entirely (such as Nestorianism).

Modern dialogues between Chalcedonian and Oriental Orthodox churches (Miaphysite in heritage) have often found language suggesting a substantial unity in belief, albeit expressed differently.

Points of Distinction

1. Nature Terminology: Miaphysitism explicitly speaks of one incarnate nature (though understood as composed of both divine and human elements). Dyophysitism speaks of two distinct natures.

2. Council of Chalcedon: Miaphysites reject the Chalcedonian formula, seeing it as veering too close to Nestorian language. Dyophysites accept Chalcedon as the definitive interpretation of biblical teaching.

3. Liturgical Expressions: Historically, Miaphysite communities have nurtured Christological expressions affirming the “one incarnate nature,” often attributed to St. Cyril of Alexandria’s phrase “Mia physis tou Theou Logou sesarkōmenē” (“One incarnate nature of God the Word”). Dyophysite communities embrace Chalcedon’s statement of “unconfused, unchanged, undivided, inseparable” two natures.

Biblical Passages Often Discussed

• Matthew 16:16: “Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’” Advocates of both views quote Peter’s confession to affirm Christ’s divine identity united with His messianic role on earth.

• Colossians 2:9: “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form.” Dyophysites note the fullness of deity and real humanity. Miaphysites cite such verses to show the seamless unity of divine and human in Christ.

• Hebrews 2:14: “Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He too shared in their humanity...” Both perspectives uphold His genuine human experience, pointing to the Incarnation’s redemptive purpose.

Implications for Worship and Doctrine

1. Worship: Both traditions affirm adoration of Christ as fully God. Miaphysites highlight the unity of Christ in worship, while Dyophysites emphasize worship of the one person with two distinct yet inseparable natures.

2. Soteriology: The question of Christ’s nature profoundly influences how believers view atonement and salvation. Both sides stress that if Christ were not truly God, He could not save, and if not truly man, He could not represent humanity.

3. Church Authority and Tradition: Acceptance or rejection of the Council of Chalcedon often determines a community’s wider conciliar tradition.

Modern Scholarly Perspectives

Over the centuries, dialogues and scholarly work have highlighted that part of the schism was rooted in language differences and the nuances of terminology. While Miaphysite churches remain distinct from Chalcedonian churches, some theological reconciliation has been pursued, with participants discovering that historical controversies sometimes exaggerated the differences in expression.

Conclusion

Miaphysitism and Dyophysitism emerged from earnest efforts to interpret biblical revelation regarding Jesus’ identity as fully divine and fully human. The Miaphysite tradition stresses a single composite nature, while Dyophysitism emphasizes two distinct natures united in one person. Both base their confession on the truth revealed in Scripture, exemplified by John 1:14: “The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us.”

Despite centuries of debate, believers on all sides testify to the reality of the Incarnation as the heart of Christian hope, proclaiming that through His death and resurrection, Jesus truly redeems humanity for the glory of God.