Monophysitism: A Thorough Analysis of Its Historical Origins, Christological Implications, and Biblical Refutation

Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

$5.00

Monophysitism represents one of the most significant doctrinal controversies in the history of Christian theology. Emerging in the fifth century C.E., Monophysitism posits that Jesus Christ has only one nature—specifically, a divine nature—rather than two distinct and coexisting natures, divine and human, as affirmed by orthodox Christology. The term is derived from the Greek words monos (“only”) and physis (“nature”), together signifying “one nature.” This doctrine stands in direct contradiction to the biblical doctrine of the hypostatic union—the teaching that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, with two distinct natures united in one person without confusion, change, division, or separation.

The implications of this doctrine are not merely academic; they strike at the very core of Christian soteriology, Christology, and the integrity of scriptural authority. To rightly understand and evaluate Monophysitism, it is essential to assess its historical development, theological claims, the Church’s response—particularly at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 C.E.—and its incompatibility with the clear and literal teaching of Scripture.

Historical Development of Monophysitism

Monophysitism arose primarily as a reaction to the heresy of Nestorianism, which wrongly divided the person of Christ into two persons, one human and one divine. Nestorianism was condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431 C.E., but its perceived lingering influence led to a counter-movement that, in its zeal to protect the unity of Christ’s person, went to the opposite extreme and denied the full humanity of Christ.

The most notable proponent of Monophysitism was Eutyches, an archimandrite (abbot) in Constantinople. Eutyches affirmed that Jesus was “of two natures” before the incarnation, but after the incarnation, He had “only one nature,” which was divine. He taught that Christ’s humanity was absorbed by His divinity in such a way that it ceased to exist in any meaningful or functional sense. This teaching was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 C.E., which affirmed that Christ is one person in two natures—fully divine and fully human—without confusion, change, division, or separation.

Illustration of the Council of Chalcedon (451 CE), capturing its theological weight and historical significance in affirming Christ’s dual nature.

Despite this condemnation, Monophysitism found enduring support in parts of the Eastern Church, especially in Egypt, Syria, and Armenia. Several sects arose that were sympathetic to Monophysite theology, including the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church, and the Armenian Apostolic Church. These groups came to be labeled as “Oriental Orthodox” due to their rejection of the Chalcedonian Definition.

Christological Implications of Monophysitism

Theologically, Monophysitism presents a truncated view of the incarnation that has serious consequences for both Christology and soteriology. By denying the full humanity of Christ, Monophysitism undermines the biblical teaching that Jesus is the second Adam who fully identifies with humanity in order to redeem it. Scripture teaches that Jesus was made like His brethren in all things (Hebrews 2:17), and that He experienced genuine human temptations, though without sin (Hebrews 4:15). If Christ lacked a full human nature, these passages are rendered incoherent.

Moreover, the denial of Christ’s full humanity also undercuts the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. Only one who is fully human can truly serve as a substitute for human beings. Romans 5:15 teaches, “But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.” The atoning death of Christ has redemptive value precisely because He is both God and man. Without true humanity, the sacrificial system and the entire framework of redemption become theologically incoherent.

The Council of Chalcedon (451 C.E.)

In response to the doctrinal confusion stemming from both Nestorianism and Monophysitism, the Council of Chalcedon convened in 451 C.E. to clarify the nature of Christ. The Chalcedonian Definition articulates the orthodox position in clear and balanced terms: Jesus Christ is “recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.” These four negations—called the Four Fences—were designed to exclude the errors of both Nestorianism and Monophysitism.

The Council firmly rejected Eutyches’ Monophysitism as heretical. It affirmed that the two natures of Christ (divine and human) remain distinct yet united in one person. This formulation reflects a careful exegesis of the biblical data and ensures fidelity to the apostolic teaching preserved in the New Testament.

Illustration of the formal reading and adoption of the Chalcedonian Creed, portraying the reverent culmination of one of the most pivotal theological declarations in Christian history.

Scriptural Refutation of Monophysitism

A literal, grammatical-historical reading of Scripture reveals clear evidence that Jesus Christ possessed both a divine and a human nature. Key passages demonstrate both natures side by side in a single person.

Philippians 2:5–8 declares:
“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”

This passage teaches both the pre-existence of Christ in divine form and His subsequent incarnation in human likeness. The duality of natures is evident here: He existed as God and yet took on true humanity.

John 1:1, 14 states:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… And the Word became flesh, and lived among us.”

The Word (Logos), who is fully God, became flesh—not merely appeared in human form, but became truly human. Monophysitism cannot reconcile this clear testimony to both the full divinity and full humanity of Christ.

Hebrews 2:14 asserts:
“Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise also partook of the same, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil.”

Here, the author emphasizes that Christ shared fully in human nature—”flesh and blood”—to effect redemption. If Christ’s humanity was merely absorbed into His divinity, then the phrase “he himself likewise also partook of the same” becomes meaningless.

Luke 2:52 records:
“And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.”

Such growth is consistent with genuine humanity and makes no sense if Jesus only had a divine nature. Divine nature is immutable and omniscient; it does not grow in wisdom or stature. This verse cannot be reconciled with Monophysite theology.

Romans 1:3–4 proclaims:
“Concerning his Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead…”

Paul here distinguishes Jesus’ human descent (“according to the flesh”) from His divine sonship, which was powerfully declared in His resurrection. This dichotomy only makes sense in a framework that affirms both natures as distinct yet united.

Distinction Between Divine and Human Operations

Scripture further testifies to distinctions between Christ’s divine and human operations. He slept (Mark 4:38), was weary (John 4:6), hungered (Matthew 4:2), and died (Matthew 27:50)—all attributes of humanity. Simultaneously, He forgave sins (Mark 2:5–11), calmed the storm (Mark 4:39), and accepted worship (John 9:38), which are proper only to God. These acts cannot be reduced to a single nature unless one wishes to divest Christ of either His divinity or His humanity, both of which are affirmed repeatedly and explicitly in Scripture.

The Dangers of Monophysitism

Monophysitism is not a harmless theological deviation but a Christological error with serious implications. It distorts the nature of the incarnation, undermines the reality of Christ’s suffering, nullifies the legitimacy of His priestly mediation (Hebrews 4:15), and compromises the efficacy of the atonement.

It must be noted that Monophysitism ultimately fails the test of biblical fidelity. It cannot withstand the scrutiny of Scripture examined in its historical, grammatical, and contextual sense. Moreover, its emergence in history is not the result of apostolic teaching but of theological overreaction to other heresies, namely Nestorianism. The solution to doctrinal error is not to swing to the opposite extreme but to submit to the full counsel of God’s Word.

Conclusion

Monophysitism, though historically significant, is a clear departure from the biblical testimony concerning the person of Jesus Christ. Scripture affirms without ambiguity that Jesus is both fully God and fully man. This dual nature is not an abstract theological construction but a fundamental truth necessary for the incarnation, atonement, and resurrection. The Council of Chalcedon correctly articulated this truth based on the authority of Scripture, not ecclesiastical tradition. Monophysitism, in failing to uphold the true humanity of Christ, forfeits a proper understanding of redemption and distorts the person of the Savior revealed in the pages of Scripture. Therefore, it must be unequivocally rejected by all who hold to the inerrancy and authority of the Bible.

You May Also Enjoy

Monism in Light of Biblical Christianity: A Thorough Examination of Its Incompatibility with Scripture

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).