In opposition to the teachings of Nestorius, however, it was vitally important for those monks and bishops who held to the Monophysite position that Jesus not be thought of as having two separate natures (read: two separate person). They would have agreed with the statement that Jesus was "out of two natures" (i.e., composed of two different natures, but existing in one) but not "in two natures." The former seemed to follow logically from the current "Word-flesh" theology of the Greek east, "derived ultimately from Saint Paul but refined and interpreted by generations of minds steeped in the tradition of Stoic and Platonic psychology."[11] This view was still consistent with the already discussed Eastern idea of the union of the human and the divine in the economy of salvation, and was easily described as being similar to the union of the soul and flesh in an individual.

Various Monophysite Positions

While all Monophysites could agree that the human and the divine where somehow present in the single nature of Christ, there does not seem to have been one single Monophysite position on how this union was achieved. Some, like Aditus, held that the human was absorbed by the divine. The human was simply the flesh of Christ, not a whole person, and therefore more of a vessel for the divine than an actual component of the whole man Jesus. The Eutychean held that Mary had contributed nothing to the divine Word, and that the Word simply formed his own flesh in Mary, using her more or less as a receptacle. For the divine Word to take on human nature from Mary would, in effect, be an addition to the nature of God. For the Eutychean, the immutable (i.e., unchanging) God of Christian scripture could not take on human nature, only human flesh.[12] In essence, then, there was no hypostatic union between the Word and the humanity in Christ, and therefore the entire problem of the hypostatic union seems to have been solved by Euteches by being done away with altogether. It is interesting to note the similarities between the Eutychean position and the Christology of Arian Christianity. The Arians believed that the Son had taken on human flesh, but in the place of the soul, or the human nature, dwelt the Word.

Some Monophysites thought it necessary for Christ to retain his human nature, but tended to view that nature as being mixed with the divine. Philoxenus of Mabbug is a good example of this trend. On the surface, he seems to be in conformity with Chalcedon, but the idea of mixture is nonetheless present in his writings. He approached the hypostatic union from the standpoint that Christ existed in two modes of being. For Philoxenus, the nature of a thing (e.g., man or God) did not change. God is impassible, incorporeal, incomprehensible, immortal, etc., and man is changeable, corporal and mortal. For God or man to be otherwise would be to change their natures, and they would thus cease being God or man. The divine Word, then, existing as God before the Incarnation, could not change his nature and become a man. The Word "naturally" existed as divine, and while incarnate in the human Christ, would still have to remain fully God. In the Incarnation, however, God "in power" becomes man through a miracle, coming into another mode of being," one that exists simultaneously with the first.[13]

Like other Monophysite theologians, Philoxenus used commonly understood parallels to explain himself. One parallel to the Word being in "double being" is that of the bread and the wine in the Eucharist. The actual bread and wine remain by their nature bread and wine, but "in power" and "by a miracle" they become in truth the body and blood of Christ for the believer. Another example is the double being of the baptized believer. A baptized believer becomes a new person and is born again and exists in the spiritual realm, while retaining his old nature and existing in the physical realm. "...[H]e becomes impassible, yet he grows old and dies; he lives in the invisible realm of angels, yet he is visible and tangible to other men."[14]

In one sense, it is hard to distinguish Philoxenus from the Chalcedonians. His insistence upon a distinct separation and unchanged condition of the divine and the human must have been seen as orthodox to his Chalcedonian opponents. However, Chesnut makes note of the fact that "he had inherited a practice of speaking of the union between the manhood and the Godhood as a 'mixture.'"[15] Another parallel Philoxenus uses of the Incarnation is the mixing of semen and 'blood' to make a whole child. Within a child, the characteristics of the Father can not be completely distinguished from the characteristics of the mother, and so the child is an indistinguishable mixture of both. Although Philoxenus qualifies his analogy, Chesnut notes that the concept of "mixture" is present throughout his theology, and it is hard to escape the fact that the concept is "indigenous to his thought," and therefore significant in his thinking.[16] Other scholars disagree, and take Philoxenus at his word -- that he only uses the phrasing because it is natural to him, and not because he understands it in its actual meaning.[17] In another sense, Philoxenus seems to move towards a Manichean view of Christ. His parallels with the new believer in heaven and on earth tends to lend itself to a view of Christ as a phantom like figure; in the form of man on earth, but in actuality, present in the metaphysical realm. From the rest of his writings, it is clear that this is certainly not what Philoxenus means by the analogy, but the danger of misunderstanding what he means is certainly a real one.

For Severus, bishop of Antioch, the distinction between the human and the divine in Christ is based on his understanding of the "self-subsistent" and the "non-self-subsistent" hypostasis. While the terms hypostasis was used widely and in diverse ways by many Christians, when Severus speaks of "the natural union" or the "one nature of God the Word incarnate," he always means 'nature' in the sense of the individual. A non-self-subsistent hypostases is one that can not exist on its own. If one accepts the idea of the individual being composed of a body and soul, then the body, because it can not exist independently from the soul, is reliant upon the soul for it's existence and is therefore non-self-subsistent. The soul, however, is self-subsistent in that it simply uses the body to experience the world around it, but continues to exist after the body dies. In this sense, Christ is composed of the self-subsistent Word and the non-self-subsistent humanity.

The self-subsistent hypostasis can also be distinguished from the non-self-subsistent in that the self-subsistent hypostasis bears a name. We speak of the whole person as 'John' or 'Jane,' but never is their body, in and of itself, given a name. For example, one does not speak of John's body having a meal apart from John himself. Since Christ's humanity is non-self-subsistent, Severus gives it no name, and therefore does not speak of "the Man" or "Jesus." At the same time, one does not speak of someone's soul performing an action separate from their body. The two are integrally linked and make a whole person; 'John did this,' or 'Jane did that,' but never just their bodies, or just their souls.

Operating on that same principle, Severus makes no distinction between the actions of the divine and the human in Christ. "[I]n Christ, we do not speak of two operations: we do not say that 'the man wept', 'God raised Lazarus from the dead', but 'the Incarnate Word did it.'"[18] The problem that seems to arise out of this view is that Jesus proclamation that "the Father and I are one", and his claim that "The Father is greater than I," are both attributed to the divine Word.[19] If one can say that "The Father is greater than the [Divine Word]," could that not lead to an Arian position? In a letter to Flavian, Pope Leo specifically addresses this point, noting that these two sayings do no belong to the same nature.[20] At the same time, the council of Ephesus had accepted that "we do not divide him into parts and separate man and God in him... Nor do we give the name Christ in one sense to the Word of God and in another to him that was born of the women."[21]

Various Chalcedonian Positions

Like the Monophysites, those who held to the Chalcedonian definition of the hypostatic union were not of unanimous agreement . There were the strict Dyophysites, who maintained that there was a strict division between the human and the divine in Christ. It is sometimes hard to distinguish these Chalcedonian Christians from Nestorians, for they follow the same Antiochian Christology. They opposed the idea that the divine Word suffered and died on the cross. For them, the crucifixion was an event that occurred to the human Jesus alone. It was the presence of this group in the ranks of Chalcedonian Christianity that readily, and perhaps even justifiably, brought allegations that the council was pro-Nestorian.[22]

The majority of Chalcedonian Christians, however, were much farther from the views of Nestorius. Of great importance in distinguishing this group from the strict Dyophysites is their acceptance of the Cyrillian formula known as the Theopaschite; the idea that one of the members of the Trinity was crucified and buried. While the Monophysites stressed the union of the divine and the human in the one man Jesus, the Chalcedoneans emphasized "the reality of Christ's humanity and his permanent identity with man." At the same time, the "in two natures" statement was drawn from Pope Leo's Tome, as already mentioned above, and therefore reflected Western Christian Christological idea. The Chalcedonian position then tended to also emphasize Christ's atonement on the Cross, and the example of his life in leading mankind on to communion with God. As Frend notes, for the Chalcedonians "the emphasis lay more on the high priesthood of Christ than on Christ as incarnate Word."[23]

A Matter of Emphasis

The difference between Monophysite and Chalcedonian Christianity seems have been relatively small. On the one extreme you have the Eutycheans and their denial of the humanity of Christ; on the other, you have the Dyophysites and their complete separation of the human and the divine. In the middle, however, there were Monophysites and Chalcedonian Christians who were, in effect if not in language, very similar.

There does seem to have been some confusion in the use of terminology; the terms 'hypostasis,' 'nature,' and 'ousia' were virtually identical in meaning, and were often times used interchangeably by both sides. It is not enough though to simply dismiss the differences between the moderate Monophysites and Chalcedoneans as simply being differences in definitions. Although they tended toward the same conclusion, the way in which Monophysites and Chalcedonians approached the person of Christ was different. As mentioned above, the Monophysites tended to follow a more Eastern view of Jesus as incarnate Word, uniting God and Man in a single person; the Chalcedonians tended top follow a more Western view of Jesus as the sacrificial Lamb, intimately linked with mankind, and an example for all to follow.

The emphasis for the Monophysites was more Alexandrian in thought, while the Chalcedonians more Antiochian. It was the aspect of the Incarnation that each side stressed, rather than the words they used to express it, that really separated the two camps. At the same time, each side could find faults in the way the other defined it's position. As mentioned above, at times, Monophysite explanations could be misconstrued to reveal Manichaean leanings or a mixture of the human and divine natures. At the same time, the phrasing of the Chalcedonian decree of faith offered itself perhaps too easily to the Dyophysite interpretation -- indeed, some scholars would argue that the Dyophysite interpretation of Chalcedon is the correct one.[24] The theological differences between both sides of the argument were real enough, and , taken together with socio-political issues, created a lasting schism.

The role of Western Christian (read: papal) and imperial influence at the Council of Chalcedon would play an integral part in both the theological and political aspects of the Monophysite controversy. Indeed, later Monophysites would increasingly come to define the controversy in terms of Rome and Constantinople versus Egypt and Syria. Here already the stage has been set for the socio-political underpinnings of the Monophysite controversy as they relate to the Empire in opposition to the subjugated peoples of the eastern Mediterranean. The controversy that continued on after the council of Chalcedon was, in its early stages, still primarily concerned with theological issues. Separatist movements within the Byzantine Empire would not become an integral part of the Monophysite controversy until the regions of Egypt and Syria had abandoned all hope of gaining a Monophysite emperor.[25]

Politics, Politics, Everything is Politics.

The political side of the debate revolved around the issue of Imperial rule. The Emperor's of the east tended to base their rule on two traditions. First, they could draw upon the tradition of the divine kingship of the ancient Hellenistic imperial past. Emperors could claim to be Pontifex Maximus, the intermediary between the gods and mankind. "Gradually the Hellenistic view of the monarchy, emphasizing its divine character, was accepted by the emperors, until from Diocletian onwards their person, office and everything that touched it became 'sacred.'" [26] Secondly, the Judeo-Christian tradition had emphasized the position of the monarch or ruler as God's agent in the universe. Saint Paul had written in his epistle to the Romans that "there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God."[27] Constantine had essentially united the two traditions, and many of his successors to the eastern imperial throne would draw upon his example in asserting their authority over ecclesiastical and secular affairs.[28]

The response on the part of the people seems to have been one of complete loyalty to the emperor. The degree to which this is true can best be illustrated by comparing the Western Empire's loyalty to the emperor and the prefects of western cities. In the West, Augustine accepted the downfall of the empire as "in the order of things." The western aristocracy offered little if any opposition to the barbarian invasion, and Salvia of Marseille even stated that in the provinces, "Roman citizenship had been brought to nought through Roman extortion," and that "men are passing over everywhere now to the Goths, now to the Bagaudae, or whatever other barbarians that have established their power anywhere and they do not repent of their exasperation, for they would rather live as free men."[29] In the East, the reaction against invasion seems to have been completely different. "Bishop James' encouragement of his people's defense of Niblis against the Persians in 349 is well known, and the province of Mesopotamia where Monophysitism was to be strong provides examples of passionate loyalty to the empire in the time of crisis in the fourth and fifth centuries." [30]

It is hard, then, to imagine the circumstances that could have lead to anti-imperial sentiment within the empire. Anti-imperial sentiment within the Empire was not always overt. There was never any mass national uprising against the emporer, or peasant uprising against Byzantine landowners.[31] But in 516, the monks and people of Alexandria rioted against the Emporer Anastasius' choice of patriarch, and more than a few monestaries in Egypt refused to bow to the orthodox Emporer Heralius 'the heretic.' Each of the provinces had maintained their own distinctive heritage and traditions, and because the Monophysite position seems to have attached itself to the vernacular language of these areas, it was popular among the common people. While Monophysitism also easily attached itself to the growing 'nationalism' of provinces such as Egypt, Syria and Palestine, part of the growing chauvinistic attitude of Egypt seems to have been an association of the Greek aristocracy with the old pagan religion. "Theodoret relates how in Valens' reign the greater part of the inhabitants of Antinous near Thebes were still pagan."[32] Indeed, this Egyptian dissociation from the Greek aristocracy seems to be symptomatic of the general dissociation of the Eastern Mediterranean cultures with Greek philosophy and thought in general.

Philosophy, Philosophy, Everything is Philosophy

Christianity was originally expressed in Jewish culture. As it spread across the Mediterranean, however, it associated itself with, and incorporated, Greek philosophical concepts. Greek philosophy was not altogether foreign to early Christianity, the gospel of John and the book of Hebrews reveal certain Neo-platonic leanings.[33] The medium in which Christianity was preached in the fifth and sixth centuries was nonetheless mostly Greco-Roman in thought and culture, and this tended to clash with the more Southwest Asian thought of the eastern provinces. The eastern provinces in the fifth and sixth centuries turned away from Greek philosophy, and turned to monastic thought, with it's emphasis on withdrawal from the world (and therefore secular authority).[34]

It was Egyptian, Palestinian and Syrian (taken as a whole as Southwest Asian) thought that, when bound up with Monophysitism, makes the Monophysite movement more than just a theological debate. It would be incorrect, however, to say that Monophysitism was simply a vehicle by which anti-imperial sentiment was expressed. A Monophysite church hierarchy would not be set up in opposition to the orthodox hierarchy until several centuries after the debates began. If the provinces were interested in breaking with the Empire, and using Monophysitism as a means to achieve this end, then one might expect to find a rival 'national' church set up from the very beginning. This was no protest movement that lent itself to schism, such as in the case of the Donatists in northern Africa. Monophysitism was truly a theological argument over the two natures of Christ, that, because of local cultural thought, tended to fall along provincial lines. The rise of the Monophysite movement may have aided -- directly or indirectly -- in the Muslim invasion of the seventh century, but no one can say for sure. Certainly, a growing disassociation of the peoples of the Eastern Mediteranean with Greek thought did not hinder the conversion of thousands of Byzantine Christians to Islam.

[history page]

Monophysitism, Footnotes (continued)

note: All Bible verses taken from the NRSV.

9.The Severan were named after the influencial monophysite bishop, Severus of Antioch. See below. Petition of the Monophysites to Justinian, complete text in Frend, 362-5.

10. Ibid.

11. Frend, 5.

12. Roberta C Chesnut, Three Monophysite Christologies: Severus of Antioch, Philoxenus of Mabbug and Jacob of Sarug, (London: 1976), 66.

13. Pope Leo, Epistula Papae Leonis ad Flavium ep. Constantinopolitantum de Eutyche, Norman P. Tanner, ed. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 4. Cf. Philoxenus of Mabbug, Tractatus tres de Trinitate et incarnatione, A. Vascalde, trans., ed., Corpus Scriptorum Christanorum Orientalium, (Louvain, 1955), 203-205.

14. Chesnut, 59-60.

15.Chesnut, 70.

16. Ibid.

17. A. De Halleux, Phloxène de Mabbog Vie, ses écritis, sa théologie cited in Chesnut, 70.

18. Chesnut, 11-12.

19. John 10:13; 10:34.

20. Pope Leo, 41.

21. Council of Ephesus, 51.

22. Meyendorff, 34.

23. Frend, 4.

24. Meyerdorf, 34-35.

25. Frend, 4.

26. Ibid.

27. Romans 13.1

28. Frend, 54.

29. Salvia of Marsaille, De gubernatione Dei v.5 quoted in Frend, 65.

30. Frend, 62-67.

31. An exception to this may have been Coptic support for the Muslim invasion, although evidence for this is debated among scholars. See R.G. Goodchild, "Byzantine, Berbers and Arabs in seventh-century Libya," Antiquity 41, 1967. 115-24.

32. Theodoret, Historia Ecclesiastica cited in Frend, 73.

33. The use of the term Logos in John 1:1-3, and the author's command of the Greek language reveal a familiarity with Greek thought and ideas. The concept of perfection in Hebrews also may reveal such an influence, although this is debated among scholars.

34. Frend, 73.