Eutychianism

Eutychianism is a Christological heresy named after Eutyches (ca. 380–456 AD), a monk from Constantinople. This heresy is also known as Monophysitism, which comes from the Greek words monos (one) and physis (nature), and it refers to the belief that Christ has only one nature after the incarnation, as opposed to the orthodox Christian belief that Jesus Christ has two distinct natures—divine and human—united in one person. Eutychianism was formally condemned by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, which articulated the orthodox doctrine of the hypostatic union.

History of Eutychianism

1. Background: The Christological Debate: The early church engaged in a long and complex debate over the nature of Christ, particularly regarding how his divinity and humanity coexisted in the incarnation. This debate intensified in the 4th and 5th centuries. The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) had already established the full divinity of Christ in opposition to Arianism, which denied that Jesus was of the same essence as the Father. However, new controversies arose, particularly concerning how Christ’s human and divine natures related to one another.

2. Eutyches and His Teaching: Eutyches, an archimandrite (abbot) of a large monastery near Constantinople, was a fervent opponent of Nestorianism, a heresy that taught that Christ's human and divine natures were so distinct that it implied there were effectively two persons in Christ. In his zeal to combat Nestorianism, Eutyches went to the opposite extreme, denying that Christ’s two natures (divine and human) remained distinct after the incarnation. He taught that after the incarnation, the human nature of Christ was absorbed or subsumed into the divine nature, resulting in a single, divine nature in the incarnate Christ.

3. The Flavian Controversy and the Council of Chalcedon: Eutyches’ teaching attracted controversy, particularly from Flavian, the patriarch of Constantinople, who condemned Eutyches for denying the reality of Christ’s humanity. Eutyches appealed to Pope Leo the Great, who responded with his famous Tome of Leo (449 AD), in which he affirmed the two natures of Christ and rejected Eutychianism. Despite this, Eutyches received temporary support from the Second Council of Ephesus in 449, which declared his views orthodox and deposed Flavian. However, this council was later labeled the "Robber Council" because of its irregular procedures and use of violence against those who opposed Eutychianism.

   The conflict was finally settled at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, which condemned Eutychianism and affirmed that Christ is one person with two distinct natures, divine and human, united "without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation." This Chalcedonian Definition became the hallmark of orthodox Christology.

Theology of Eutychianism

Eutychianism represents a form of Monophysitism—the belief that Christ has only one nature after the incarnation. Eutyches sought to defend the unity of Christ’s person, but in doing so, he overcorrected and effectively denied the reality of Christ’s humanity. The key theological points of Eutychianism include:

1. One Nature After the Incarnation: Eutyches taught that Christ’s human nature was absorbed into his divine nature, resulting in a single, unified nature. In this view, the divine nature of Christ overwhelms or subsumes the human nature, such that the humanity of Christ becomes negligible or indistinct. This is in contrast to orthodox Christology, which maintains the distinction between the two natures.

2. Denial of True Humanity: Eutychianism effectively denies the full humanity of Christ, even though Eutyches claimed that Christ had human flesh. By teaching that Christ’s human nature was absorbed into his divine nature, Eutychianism undermined the reality of Christ’s human experiences, emotions, and will. If Christ does not possess a true and complete human nature, then he cannot fully represent humanity in his redemptive work.

3. Opposition to Nestorianism: Eutyches’ teaching was partly a reaction to Nestorianism, a heresy that separated the two natures of Christ so strongly that it implied two persons in Christ—one divine and one human. In opposing Nestorianism’s division of Christ’s natures, Eutyches fell into the opposite error of fusing or conflating the two natures into one.

4. Christ’s Divinity and Humanity: In Eutychianism, the divine nature essentially overwhelms the human nature, making Christ more divine than human. This view diminishes the mystery of the Incarnation, where, according to orthodox Christianity, the eternal Son of God fully took on human nature, without diminishing his divinity or erasing his humanity.

Why Eutychianism is Heretical

Eutychianism was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD for several key reasons:

1. Denial of the Hypostatic Union: Orthodox Christianity teaches that Christ’s two natures—divine and human—are united in one person, the hypostatic union. According to this doctrine, Christ remains fully God and fully man, with each nature retaining its distinct properties. Eutychianism denies this union by teaching that Christ has only one nature, in which the human is essentially lost or absorbed by the divine. This undermines the reality of the incarnation and diminishes Christ’s ability to fully represent humanity.

2. The Need for Two Natures in Salvation: The early church father Gregory of Nazianzus famously said, “What is not assumed is not healed.” This means that Christ must possess a true and complete human nature in order to redeem humanity. If Christ does not have a real human nature, he cannot represent us in his life, death, and resurrection. Eutychianism’s denial of Christ’s full humanity poses a serious threat to the doctrine of the Atonement because it implies that Christ did not fully assume human nature.

3. Orthodox Christology: The Council of Chalcedon formulated the orthodox doctrine of Christ as one person in two natures, stating that Christ is “perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man.” The council emphasized that the two natures of Christ exist “without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation.” Eutychianism was condemned because it confused the two natures and denied the integrity of Christ’s humanity.

4. Unity Without Confusion: Chalcedonian Christology maintains that Christ is one person, not two, but that his two natures remain distinct. The human and divine natures are united, but they are not mixed or fused together. This preserves the full integrity of Christ’s humanity and divinity, while also affirming the unity of his person. Eutychianism, by contrast, merges the natures into one, effectively reducing Christ’s humanity.

Historic Christian Orthodox View

The Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) is the definitive statement of orthodox Christology, which resolved the Christological debates of the early church by rejecting both Nestorianism and Eutychianism (Monophysitism). Key elements of the orthodox view include:

1. Two Natures in One Person: The Chalcedonian Definition teaches that Christ is one person with two distinct natures—divine and human. These natures exist “without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation.” This means that Christ’s divinity is not diluted by his humanity, and his humanity is not overwhelmed by his divinity.

2. True God and True Man: Orthodox Christianity affirms that Christ is fully God and fully man. He possesses all the attributes of divinity (such as omniscience, omnipotence, and eternity), as well as all the attributes of humanity (such as a human body, mind, will, and emotions). This allows Christ to be the perfect mediator between God and humanity, as 1 Timothy 2:5 states: “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

3. Necessity for Salvation: Christ’s two natures are essential for salvation. As God, Christ has the power to overcome sin and death. As man, Christ is able to represent humanity, suffer in our place, and provide a perfect, obedient life in fulfillment of God’s law. If Christ were not truly human, he could not fully represent humanity, and if he were not truly divine, his sacrifice would not have the infinite value required to atone for sin.

4. Rejection of Heresies: The Chalcedonian Definition rejected both Nestorianism, which divided Christ’s natures too sharply, and Eutychianism, which merged the natures into one. The orthodox view preserves the full mystery of the Incarnation—Christ is one person in two natures, fully divine and fully human, united yet distinct.

Conclusion

Eutychianism, also known as Monophysitism, is a Christological heresy that teaches Christ has only one nature after the incarnation, with his human nature being absorbed into his divine nature. This doctrine was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, which affirmed that Christ is one person with two natures, fully divine and fully human. The orthodox Christian view, known as the hypostatic union, teaches that Christ’s divine and human natures are united in one person without confusion or change. Eutychianism was rejected because it denied the full humanity of Christ, which is essential for his role as the mediator and redeemer of humanity. Through the decisions of the early ecumenical councils, the church has maintained that Christ is truly God and truly man, which is central to the Christian understanding of the incarnation and salvation.