• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Big Site of History

History of Civilization

The Debate over the Two Natures of Christ | Judaism and Christianity

May 19, 2008 by Marge Anderson

Long before Arianism disappeared, a new and related controversy had shaken the Eastern portion of the Empire to its foundations. Exactly what was the relationship of Christ the god and Christ the man? He was both man and god, but how was this possible? And was the Virgin Mary the mother only of his human aspect, or, if not, how could a human being be the mother of god?

One extreme position separated the human nature of Christ from the divine and therefore refused to regard the human virgin as the mother of god. This view later became unfairly linked with the name of Nestorius (died c. 451), patriarch of Constantinople in the early fifth century, and its followers were called Nestorians. They took refuge in Asia. The other extreme view was that of the monophysites (one-nature-ites), who argued that Christ’s human and divine natures were totally merged; they carried their thesis so far that they almost forgot Christ’s human attributes and tended to make him a god only.

Again the dispute flared into physical violence in the East; again the decision hung in the balance; again the emperor (now Marcian, r. 450-457) called a council—at Chalcedon, near Constantinople in 451. The council condemned monophysitism and, like the Council of Nicaea, took a mystical rather than a rational position; the true believer must believe in the two natures of Christ, human and divine, coexisting yet not distinct from each other; thus the Virgin is properly called the mother of god. The council also recognized Constantinople as having the same religious status in the East as Rome had in the West.

Like the decision at Nicaea, the decision at Chalcedon did not definitely dispose of the opposition. Monophysites were concentrated in Egypt and Syria, and they apparently expressed in their religious beliefs the resentment of the ancient Mediterranean cities of Alexandria and Antioch against the new domination by the upstart Constantinople.

Partly because it was identified with what we would call nationalism, monophysitism did not die out, and the emperors strove to deal with it by one compromise or another. Since there were few monophysites in the West, the Roman church regarded the issue as closed; each time an emperor at Constantinople tried to appease his Egyptian and Syrian monophysite subjects, he was condemned by the pope for heresy.

Related Posts

  • The Thirty Years' War: The Struggle over Bohemia and the Palatinate, 1618-1625 | The Great Powers in Conflict
  • Paul and Gentile Christianity | Judaism and Christianity
  • The Early Christians: Judaeo-Christianity | Judaism and Christianity
  • Bishops and Their Duties: Church and State | Judaism and Christianity
  • Thought and Letters in the First Christian Centuries | Judaism and Christianity

Filed Under: Judaism and Christianity

Primary Sidebar

Categories

  • Between The World Wars
  • Byzantium and Islam
  • Church and Society in the Medieval West
  • European Exploration and Expansion
  • Judaism and Christianity
  • Modern Empires and Imperialism
  • Romanticism, Reaction, and Revolution
  • The Beginnings of the Secular State
  • The Democracies
  • The Early Middle Ages in Western Europe
  • The Enlightenment
  • The First Civilizations
  • The First World War
  • The French Revolution
  • The Great Powers in Conflict
  • The Greeks
  • The Industrial Society
  • The Late Middle Ages in Eastern Europe
  • The Late Twentieth Century
  • The Modernization of Nations
  • The Non-Western World
  • The Old Regimes
  • The Problem of Divine-Right Monarchy
  • The Protestant Reformation
  • The Renaissance
  • The Rise of the Nation
  • The Romans
  • The Russian Revolution of 1917
  • The Second World War
  • The Written Record
  • Twentieth-Century Thought and Letters

About · Privacy · Contact
Copyright © 2021 Big Site of History