What does Monophysitism teach about Christ's nature?

Historical Background

Monophysitism emerged in the fifth century, primarily through the teachings of Eutyches (c. 380–456), an archimandrite in Constantinople. He proposed that Christ’s divinity and humanity were fused into one single nature (“mono-physis”), greatly emphasizing the divine to the extent that Christ’s humanity was often seen as absorbed or overshadowed. This viewpoint arose after the Council of Ephesus (431 AD) affirmed that Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully man yet one Person, but certain groups pushed against the precise definitions of how these two natures existed. The term “Monophysitism” became closely tied to those who viewed Christ as having one nature composed predominantly of divinity.

However, in 451 AD, the Council of Chalcedon convened and upheld the doctrine known as the “Chalcedonian Definition.” This formal statement insisted that Christ is one Person in two distinct natures, fully God and fully man, “without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.” Monophysitism was officially declared heretical in this council’s judgment, but it continued in various church communities and influenced later expressions of Christology.

Core Teachings of Monophysitism

Monophysitism teaches that:

1. Christ has only one nature (φύσις, physis) after the Incarnation rather than two distinct natures (human and divine).

2. This single nature is understood to be predominantly or exclusively divine, with His humanity effectively subsumed into His divinity.

3. While some Monophysite groups allowed for the idea that human and divine attributes were maintained in a blended fashion, others more strongly emphasized the singularity of Christ’s nature in a way that rendered His humanity merely nominal.

Historically, Monophysitism set itself against any teaching that spoke of two natures in Christ. It was partly a reaction to perceived “Nestorian” leanings that might have over-separated the divine Son from His humanity. Complications arose because the language employed by different parties had varied nuances, and Monophysite teachers argued they were merely striving to preserve the unity of Christ’s Person.

Scriptural Examination

While Monophysites focused on passages that stress the unity of Christ’s person, most Christians historically found Monophysitism to be in tension with many passages affirming both Christ’s true humanity and true divinity.

• John 1:14 notes: “The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us.” This verse is foundational to understanding that the eternal Word (divine) genuinely took on a fully human nature.

• Philippians 2:6–7 says: “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.” In this passage, Christ’s divine nature is explicit (“existing in the form of God”), yet He truly and fully assumes human form (“being made in human likeness”), indicating two complete, genuine natures.

In addition, Hebrews 2:14 states: “Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He too shared in their humanity so that by His death He might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil.” The Scripture here underscores that Christ partook of genuine humanity, indicating that His human nature is not theoretical but real.

Reactions from Church History

1. Council of Chalcedon (451 AD). This council declared Christ to be in two natures, fully divine and fully human, forming one Person. This teaching directly countered Monophysitism. Detailed texts from this council emphasized that the unity of Christ’s Person is upheld, but not at the expense of merging His two natures into one. The council’s “Definition of Chalcedon” remains the standard for most Christian traditions.

2. Later Developments and Schisms. While Monophysitism was condemned, certain communities (later often termed “Oriental Orthodox”) claimed a “Miaphysite” position, attempting to clarify that they accepted both the divine and human in Christ in one composite nature. This led to ongoing theological discussions about terminology and translations. However, the classic form of Monophysitism as taught by Eutyches effectively minimized or denied the fullness of Christ’s humanity.

3. Influence on Subsequent Debates. For centuries after Chalcedon, discussions about the Will of Christ (Monothelitism) and other Christological debates traced back to how one understood the interplay between Christ’s divine and human attributes. Many argued that the logic of Monophysitism, taken to extremes, robbed believers of a Savior who could truly represent humanity (Hebrews 4:15).

Implications and Theological Significance

Monophysitism’s major question—how to maintain Christ’s unity without negating His full humanity—goes to the heart of salvation doctrine. As traditional Christians widely observe, if Christ did not assume true humanity, He could not truly redeem humanity. Romans 5:17–19 underscores Christ’s representative role, comparing Him to Adam. This representation demands that He be fully man while also being fully God (John 8:58; Hebrews 1:8). By overemphasizing the divine to the detriment of the human, Monophysitism was judged by most as failing to do justice to the fullness of the Incarnation.

Lasting Impact and Modern Reflections

Though Monophysitism was largely deemed heretical in the mainstream Church, some modern scholars revisit these controversies to understand the diversity of fifth-century Christological language. The debate itself helped refine the language of Christology, culminating in an articulation that Christ is one Person with two complete natures, a stance that remains foundational for most confessional statements today.

In sum, Monophysitism teaches that Christ has one, singular nature after the Incarnation, largely overshadowing His humanity. By contrast, the wider Christian community affirms that Christ’s divine and human natures are distinct yet united in one Person, a belief that upholds both the reality of His full humanity and His absolute divinity.