.jpg)
| Part of a series on |
| Christology |
|---|
.jpg) |
Doctrines
|
Dyophysitism (/daɪˈɒfɪsaɪtɪzəm/;[2] fromGreek δύοdyo, "two" and φύσιςphysis, "nature") is theChristological position that Jesus Christ isin two distinct, inseparable natures:divine andhuman. It is accepted by the majority of Christian denominations, including theCatholic Church,Eastern Orthodox Church,Church of the East,Anglicanism,Methodism,Reformed Christianity andLutheranism. It is rejected by theOriental Orthodox churches, who hold toMiaphysitism—that Jesus Christ isof two natures united into one composite nature—while rejectingMonophysitism as heresy along with other extant denominations.
Those who subscribe to the "two natures after the union" formula on eitherChalcedonian andNestorian side were referred to asdyophysites (/daɪˈɒfəsaɪts/). It is related to the doctrine of thehypostatic union andprosopic union.
Development of dyophysite Christology was gradual; dyophysite tradition and its complex terminology were finally formulated as a result of the long Christological debates that were constant during the 4th and 5th centuries. Variations of dyophysite Christology steadily emerged in the teachings ofValentinus,[3]Paul of Samosata,[4]Diodore of Tarsus,[5]Theodore of Mopsuestia,[6] and others.
Dyophysitism stands in opposition to the views ofmonophysitism, the doctrine of Jesus having a sole divine nature, andmiaphysitism, the doctrine that Christ is of both divine and human natures fully united into one composite nature. The Chalcedonian definition of dyophysitism holds that the two natures are completely and perfectly united in the onePerson andhypostasis of Jesus Christ,[7] in union with each other and co-existing without mixture, confusion or change;[8] the Nestorian definition, on the other hand, holds that the two natures are united in aProsopic union, as opposed to theHypostatic union elaborated upon byCyril of Alexandria and upheld by theOriental Orthodox Churches. The importance of dyophysitism was often emphasized by prominent representatives of theAntiochene school in contrast to theAlexandrian school.[9]
Themiaphysites upheld the idea of one nature in Christ based on their understanding ofCyril of Alexandria's teachings,[10] including his Twelve Anathemas, namely number 4 which states:[11]
"If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions which are contained in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to the only Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God: let him be anathema."
Dyophysitism was articulated in theCouncil of Chalcedon in 451,[12] which produced theChalcedonian Definition, that states:[13]
We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division or separation. the distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.
Nature (ousia) in the Chalcedonian sense can be understood to be referring to a set of "powers and qualities which constitute a being"[14] whereasperson (prosopon) refers to "a concrete individual acting as subject in its own right."[15]
For adherents, thehypostatic union is the center of Jesus's unity (his divinity and humanity being described as natures) whereas those who rejected the Council of Chalcedon saw his nature itself as the point of unity.
Dyophisitism has also been used to describe some aspects ofNestorianism, the doctrines ascribed toNestorius of Constantinople. It is now generally agreed that some of his ideas were not far from those that eventually emerged as orthodox, but the orthodoxy of his formulation of the doctrine of Christ is still controversial among churches.[16] This became especially prominent after the discovery of theBazaar of Heracleides, which renewed interest in his work.
After many debates and several councils, dyophysitism gained its official dogmatic form at theCouncil of Chalcedon[17] and theSecond Council of Constantinople of 553, which are accepted in the present day by a majority of Christian churches, including theEastern Orthodox Church, theRoman Catholic Church,Eastern Catholic Churches, theAnglican Church, and theOld Catholic Church, as well asReformed,Lutheran, and various other Christian denominations. Apart from that, the ancientChurch of the East has preserved dyophysite Christology and other traditions of theAntiochene School.[9]
There remain churches which hold to the miaphysite positions, such as theOriental Orthodox Church.[18]