What are miaphysitism and dyophysitism?

Answer

The terms miaphysitism and dyophysitism are used to explain the nature of the incarnation and how Jesus should be understood as both God and man.

Dyophysitism asserts that Jesus is one person of one substance but with two distinct natures: one divine and one human. This term originates from the Greek words duo for “two” and physis for “nature.”

Miaphysitism, on the other hand, posits that Jesus is one person of one substance with a single, fully integrated nature that encompasses both full humanity and full divinity. This term is derived from the Greek words mia for “one” and physis for “nature.”

The fundamental distinction lies in whether Christ possesses two natures or one. The crux is not the full divinity and humanity of Christ, but rather the manner in which He embodies both. While the Bible does not explicitly address these questions, believers in the Bible strive to adopt a position that aligns best with all biblical evidence. Furthermore, each of these positions carries implications that must be considered. It is beneficial to comprehend miaphysitism and dyophysitism in contrast to each other and in relation to alternative perspectives.

Apollonarius, who assumed the role of bishop of Laodicea in 361, propagated the belief that Jesus had a human body and a divine nature, lacking a human mind or spirit. Nonetheless, this perspective would render Jesus as something other than genuinely human, leading to the rejection of Apollinarianism by the Council of Alexandria in 362 and the Council of Constantinople in 381.

Another viewpoint was advocated by Nestorius, who became bishop of Constantinople in 428. According to this stance, Jesus possessed two natures so distinctly separate that He effectively existed as two distinct persons. However, this viewpoint was dismissed, as the Scriptures unequivocally affirm that Jesus is a singular person, with no indication that a human Jesus acted independently of a divine Jesus or vice versa.

Yet another perspective, the monophysite position, alternatively known as Eutychianism after Eutyches, a church leader who lived between 378 and 454, posited that Jesus had a single nature that was a combination of divine and human elements.

54, states that Jesus had one nature in which the human nature was fully absorbed by the divine nature and essentially became a third kind of nature. So, Jesus’ nature was more than human, but less than divine. A variation on this is that Jesus’ human nature was completely absorbed into his divine nature, so that only the divine nature remained. This would be similar to Apollinarianism, mentioned above.

The orthodox position finally formulated at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 tried to account for all of the biblical data. The council stated that Jesus is one person with two natures—one divine and one human. He is genuinely human and genuinely divine. Jesus exhibits characteristics of both. He can be exhausted, asleep in the boat, and then be awakened and command the storm to be still (Mark 4:37-41). He can be tempted yet not sin “For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”, (Hebrews 4:15).

Some will lump monophysitism and miaphysitism together. However, non-Chalcedonian churches today who officially hold to miaphysitism (a number of Eastern Orthodox churches) say they affirm that Jesus is fully divine and fully human in His nature and that their differences with dyophysites are merely semantic.

Some Christian theologians get much exercised about differences like these. For the average Christian in modern times, such questions and distinctions may seem insignificant, if not mind-numbing. At times, theologians may delve more deeply into areas of mystery and draw dogmatic conclusions that may reach beyond the straightforward propositions of Scripture. Likewise, sometimes ordinary Christians do not care about the more difficult implications of theological positions and formulations in favor of simply “I love Jesus.”

or “Jesus loves me.” Both errors should be avoided. We should care deeply about these matters without being dogmatic where Scripture has not provided us with clear statements.

Scripture does not directly address whether Jesus had two natures or one, a fully integrated nature that did not confuse or dilute His human or divine qualities. In some cases, it may come down to semantics. If miaphysites affirm the full deity and full humanity of Jesus and also affirm that in His death He was an adequate representative of the human race so that He could atone for our sins as the second Adam (Romans 5:12-20), then it would seem that they are thoroughly orthodox in this area, even though their position is close to (and often equated with) one that has been deemed heretical. In other instances, if one’s position leads to implications that are clearly unbiblical (denying either the humanity or deity of Christ, thus denying His ability to represent us on the cross), then the charge of heresy is warranted.