(Published in The Greek Australian VEMA, October 2005)

Eutychian Monophysitism:
Challenges to the Faith in Jesus Christ

After the death of St Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444), who had championed the
faith of the Church in Christ by insisting on Christ's personal unity, but also, it must
be remembered, the distinction between His divinity and humanity, there came
another wave of Christological debates linked with a monk by the name of Eutyches
and his supporter Dioscorus (he had succeeded St Cyril to the Episcopal throne in
Alexandria).1 Whereas St Cyril had unambiguously distinguished between the two
natures in Jesus Christ, underlining that "the natures remained without confusion"2
after Christ's Incarnation, Eutyches spoke in terms of the complete 'merging' of the
divine nature with that of the human so that there was only one nature after Christ's
Incarnation. His often repeated motto was: "I confess that our Lord consisted of two
natures before the union, but after the union I confess one nature".3 It would be his
insistence in 'one nature after the union' that would lead to his condemnation not only
at the Council of Chalcedon (known as the Fourth Ecumenical Council) which was
convened in 451 but in earlier local councils such as the Council of Constantinople in
448. The reason for this was that Eutyches had destroyed Christ's consubstantiality
with humankind (i.e. that Christ was of one essence with us). And so the Christian
Church was faced with yet another Christological controversy known as Eutychian
Monophysitism (insistence on one nature in Jesus Christ), a name which it had
received from its founder Eutyches.

The case of the monk Eutyches

Even though, what was at stake, with the theology of the Eutychian
Monophysites, was the difference of one preposition, nonetheless the salvific
consequences were vast. Eutyches was adamant that Christ was 'from' two natures
(ejk duvo fuvsewn), which he interpreted as two natures before the Incarnation but
one after the union. That is, Eutyches claimed that the Lord's humanity was totally
absorbed or swallowed up by His divinity and that Jesus Christ had therefore formed
'one nature'. He therefore repudiated vigorously any suggestion of two natures in the

1 Indeed Dioscorus was so extreme in his 'one nature' Christology that he held a council in 449 to
condemn the 'two nature' Christology and to restore Eutyches. This council came to be known in history
as the Robber Synod of 449.
2 Scholia on the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten Son [Scholia de Incarnatione Unigeniti] PG 75.1381A-

B.
3 Cited in Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev, The Mystery of the Faith (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2002),

85.
incarnate Christ. However, following St Cyril of Alexandria, who had become the
criterion of 'orthodoxy', the fathers of the Church chose 'in' two natures (ejn duvo
fuvsesin), which did not allow for any misunderstanding as to the existence of a full
humanity of Christ after the union. The position of Eutyches was extremely
dangerous as it not only denied the possibility of speaking of the 'body' of Jesus but
also suggested that Christ's humanity was a mere appearance and therefore not real.
That is, ultimately Eutyches believed that Jesus Christ had only given the impression
that He had become a man, with a body and a real human nature, but that in reality
this was not the case. But this could then be classified as another form of Docetism,
which the New Testament Scriptures had already rejected.4 Denying that he was a
Docetist, Eutyches simply argued that he feared asserting that Christ was 'of the
same essence' as human beings because in this he saw the danger of being led to
believe that Christ's humanity could be seen as a distinct concrete existence apart
from His divinity (something which Nestorius5 had previously done).

To make matters worse, Eutyches was restored by Patriarch Dioscorus of

Alexandria who had convoked what came to be known as the so-called Robber
Council of 449, with the aid of emperor Theodosius II to rehabilitate Eutyches.
Meeting at Ephesus in the month of August, this council swiftly condemned not only
any confession of two natures after the union but Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople
and all those who spoke of two natures in the incarnate Son of God. Eutyches had
also written to Pope Leo, but Flavian had already informed Pope Leo of a local
council he had summoned in 448 to condemn the teachings of Eutyches. Leo replied
to Flavian with his famous Dogmatic Letter or Tome6, as it came to be known, which
would be endorsed by the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon as declaring the faith
of the Church in Jesus Christ. Leo also made known, in no uncertain terms his
opposition to Eutyches' 'one nature' Christology. It would be the Council of
Chalcedon, which would meet in 451 to find an adequate formula which was not one-
sided in its emphasis either on the unity of Christ at the expense of the two natures or
the distinction of the two natures in Christ without equally safeguarding His unity.

The Council of Chalcedon

The significance of Chalcedon for both the Eastern Orthodox and Western
Christian traditions can hardly be overestimated. The Council had to confront the
matters raised by the so-called Robber Council, which had preceded it. 7 Leo sent his
representatives to the Ecumenical Council in order to have his Tome accepted as a
4 For example in 2 John 1:7 we read: "Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not
confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist!"
5 On Nestorianism, refer to the August issue of Vema (2005): 8/26-9/27.

6 Epistle 28.
7 Interestingly from a historical perspective, Chalcedon needed to meet and deal with Robber Council
since the Emperor would endorse all doctrine and canons declared by a council, not only signing its
minutes but also declaring them as state law. Therefore Chalcedon had to put aright the Christological
doctrine.
true doctrinal articulation of the faith in Jesus Christ. Leo's legates argued that the
Tome was in agreement with the theology of St Cyril of Alexandria whose theology
was seen as normative for all subsequent theology. Indeed St Cyril's Twelve
Chapters were compared to Leo's Tome and only after this comparative exercise had
been undertaken, was Leo's Tome endorsed, since it was seen to be in agreement
with Cyrillian Christology. Amongst other things, the Tome of Leo affirmed four
things: Firstly, that Jesus Christ was 'in two natures'. Secondly, that His divinity was
identical with the divine Word of God. In this regard he wrote: "He who became
human in the form of a servant is He who in the form of God created humankind". 8
Thirdly, the Tome emphasised that the divine and human natures co-existed in Jesus
Christ without mixture or confusion. That is, in becoming man, Christ did not cease to
be God, nor did His humanity diminish His divinity. Indeed if Christ were to really
save the world, then salvation required that:
"one and the same mediator between God and human persons, the man
Jesus Christ, should be able both to die in respect of the one [nature]
and not to die in respect of the other [nature]".9
In this Leo stated that the natures were to be distinguished even though they always
acted together: "Each form accomplishes in concert with the other what is
appropriate to it, the Word performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh
carrying out what belongs to the flesh".10 Lastly, it affirmed the 'communication of the
idioms [properties]' (communicatio idiomatum) – that is, it could be affirmed that the
Son of God was crucified and buried, but that the Son of Man came down from
heaven.

With the death of Emperor Theodosius II in 450 and the succession of

Marcian to the throne, who, together with his wife Pulcheria were sympathetic
towards the 'in' two natures Christology, the Church was able to assemble so as to
nullify the deliberations of the Robber Council which had become state law. The 4th
Ecumenical Council opened on 8 October 451 in Chalcedon in the presence of more
than five hundred bishops. Its mandate was to establish a single faith in the face of
imperial division by endorsing the Dogmatic Letters of St Cyril and Leo's Tome,
which was in agreement with St Cyril's Christology. The Council fathers firstly
reaffirmed their adherence to the faith of Nicaea (the symbol of faith), to the
Dogmatic Epistles of St Cyril and to the Tome of Leo. The Council then set out to
articulate a formula (or definition) of faith to which all bishops could sign thereby
showing their loyalty to the faith of the Church. In its final form, the text of the
Definition was a compilation of excepts taken from St Cyril's two letters, Leo's Tome
and Flavian's profession of faith at the 448 Council in Constantinople.

8 Ep. 28, 3 (Leo's Tome).

9 Ep. 28. 3 (Leo's Tome).
10 Ep. 28. 4 (Leo's Tome).
 Both a standard and binding text for Eastern Orthodox Christians in regards to
the person of Jesus Christ, the Definition of Chalcedon read as follows:
"Following the holy fathers, we teach with one voice that the Son of God
and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same
(Person), and He is perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, true God and
true man, of a rational soul and [human] body consisting, of one essence
with the Father as touching His divinity, and of one essence with us as
touching His humanity; made in all things like unto us, with the exception of
sin only; begotten of His Father before all ages according to His divinity.
But in these last days, for us and for our salvation, born [into the world] of
the Virgin Mary, Theotokos, according to His humanity. This one and the
same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to
be in two nature, without confusion, without change, without division and
without separation, the difference of the natures being by no means
removed because of the union, but the property of each nature being
preserved and coalescing in one prosopon and one hypostasis – not parted
or divided into two prosopa, but one and the same Son, only-begotten,
divine Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets of old and Jesus Christ
Himself have taught us about Him and the creed of our fathers has handed
down".
The above declaration of faith pronounced at least five different points which are
important for Christology. It affirmed Christ to be a) perfect God and perfect man; b)
of one essence with the Father in his Godhead, and of one essence with us in his
manhood; c) made known in two natures without confusion, without change, without
division and without separation. Furthermore it was declared that d) the two natures
were in no way abolished by the union and the e) the properties of each nature were
preserved intact and finally, f) that both came together to form one person (prosopon
or hypostasis).

The definition of faith painstakingly wanted to assert the divinity and unity of
Jesus Christ yet at the same time the reality of His humanity. Indeed Chalcedon was
most concerned in its terminology to protect the faith both from Nestorian and
Monophysite aberrations. One can therefore understand why in the definition there is
an insistence and repetition of the phrase, 'one and the same person'. That the unity
of Christ is emphasized is also reinforced in the definition by its use of the title
'Theotokos' which St Cyril had insisted at the 3rd Ecumenical Council since it
underscored the unity of the humanity and divinity in the person of Jesus Christ. Yet
its clear assertion on the unity of Christ was not done at the expense of the humanity
of Jesus Christ. So together with the unity, the definition, made it clear that the Son of
God existed 'in' two natures, in this way leaving no room for the acceptance, by the
Church of Eutychian Monophysitism.
 Furthermore, there was not only a clear emphasis on the existence of the two
natures but that each retained its distinctive properties and operations. The definition
insisted upon the fact that the Son of God united within his person both a divine and
human nature, which was done without confusing the two so that the proper
characteristics of each was not lost; without transmuting one nature into another;
without dividing them into two separate categories and without contrasting them
according to their function. The Council of Chalcedon succeeded in finding adequate
words to explain the unity of Jesus Christ in terms of 'person' and the distinction in
terms of 'physis' [nature]. In this way, it was able to safeguard the Church's
conviction that Jesus Christ was perfectly divine on the one hand and perfectly
human as well thereby affirming Him to be the source of salvation, yet at the saem
time the locus of salvation in human history. However, Chalcedon did not explain
'how' the two natures were united in the person of Christ, since this was seen to be
beyond all human comprehension.

Concluding Remarks
Unfortunately there were a great number of people who did not accept the
Christological teaching of Chalcedon and so broke away from the communion of the
Church. One of the most influential exponent of anti-Chalcedonian thought was
Severus of Antioch who in identifying the terms 'nature' and 'person' believed that
Chalcedon had proclaimed a Christ with two persons and therefore concluded that
the council had revived Nestorianism. That is to say, in stressing that there is no
nature without a hypostasis or person (oujk e[sti fuvsi" ajnupovstato"), the anti-
Chalcedonians believed that two natures in Christ (namely a divine and human)
implied two persons (i.e. the heresy of Nestorius and his followers). Yet Chalcedon
argued that the term 'nature' and 'person' were not to be identified since a nature is
simply revealed by a person. And, in the case of Christ, it was the 'divine Son of God'
– i.e. the second Person of the Holy Trinity, who revealed the human nature of Christ.

Such Christians have survived to this day and are called 'Monophysites'. They
continue to exist today in the Coptic, Ethiopian and Armenian Orthodox Churches,
usually grouped together as Oriental Orthodox Christians in contrast to the Eastern
Orthodox Church. And therefore in spite of all its attempts to bring unity to the
Empire, Chalcedon failed to bring a permanent peace to the Church. Yet for the
Eastern Orthodox Church – and for the Roman Catholic Church for that matter – this
Council remains binding since it adheres strictly not only to the theology of St Cyril of
Alexandria but also the Scriptures concerning the teaching on Christ where it is
stated throughout that the Son of God was perfect in His divinity and perfect in His
humanity and not a compound of the two. From the perspective of Chalcedon, the
Monophysites, in their emphasis on the divinity of Christ were in danger of
downplaying his humanity. Chalcedon, on the other hand, stated that the very
hypostasis [person] Jesus Christ was the divine Son and Word of God which also
became the hypostasis of the assumed human nature and therefore Christ was truly
Theanthropos, something which the Church would have to state again in stronger
terms so as to safeguard its faithful from any further misinterpretation.

Philip Kariatlis
Academic Secretary and Associate Lecturer
St Andrew’s Greek Orthodox Theological College