eugyppius

Monophysitism is the doctrine – we will not say the heresy – that Jesus Christ had only one divine nature, rather than two natures (one human and one divine).

The backstory goes like this: At the Council of Nicaea (AD 325), Christ was declared to be both divine and human. This opened new avenues for theological speculation, and controversy, about how precisely it was, that he managed to be both.

On the other hand, you have an Alexandrian an eastern / Alexandrian school, associated with the ancient see at Alexandria. These guys are more inclined to emphasise the Word's divinity, and to exclude or play down the humanity.

(These are of brutal oversimplifications that would have offended all contemporary participants in these debates.) Anyway, jump ahead to 5th c. Nestorius, an important Antiochene theologian (student of Theodore of Mopsuestia), develops a new teaching ....

... along the lines that the Word has a kind of dual person-hood. Making space for Christ to be human, as I said. This is condemned by Alexandrians and others at the Third Ecumenical Council (AD 431).

Thereafter it's bad and heretical to say that the Word has more than one person. This is the heresy of "Nestorianism." Remember, when reading what follows, that the Monophysites will constantly condemn their orthodox opponents as Nestorians.

So the Third Ecumenical Council is a victory for Team Alexandria. Afterwards they go further. The archimandrite (abbot) Eutyches begins to teach a kind of opposite doctrine. He says, essentially, the divine nature in Christ swallowed up his human nature.

Eutyches teaches that Christ's humanity was absorbed by the Godhead, like a drop of honey in the sea. This process left Christ with primarily one nature, namely the divine one.

This provoaks a counterattack from Team Antioch, which culminates in the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451). The doctrine promulgated by the fathers at Chalcedon, is that there are two natures united in one person in the Word.

Eutyches is condemned as a heretic. From this moment onwards, the Monophysites are defeated but not stamped out. After Justinian I, all emperors are Chalcedonian. By the 7th century, the Monophysites are mostly only in Eastern provinces: Especially Egypt.

To a lesser extent Syria and Armenia. They are also in Palestine early on, but they're driven out there and never come back. It's important to understand, that these theological controversies matter to a lot of everyday people.

AHM Jones quotes a wonderful passage from Gregory of Nyssa, describing life on the street during the (4th c.) Arian controversy: "If you ask for change, the shopkepeer philosophises to you about the Begotten and the Unbegotten. If you ask the price of a loaf ...

.... he only wants to say, 'The Father is greater and the Son inferior'. If you ask the attendant if your bath is ready, he says the Son is of nothing".

You should also understand that empires, including the Eastern Roman Empire, are multinational. They tolerate a lot of peoples and languages, but they also need a unifying force.

Christianity is very much that unifying force for the Eastern Roman Empire. This makes the lingering Monophysite /Chalcedonian controversy one of the primary internal social & political problems of 7th Century Byzantium.

Now the emperors try to solve the MQ (Monophysite Question) in 2 ways: 1) By persecuting the Monophysites and installing 'orthodox' Chalcedonian bishops at key sees; and 2) by trying to develop compromise doctrines that will please both sides.

Heraclius, with help from Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople, comes up with Monoenergism, as a thing that is supposed to unite everyone.

Monoenergism holds that, yes the Word has two natures – but don't worry, Monophysites! He also as *one energy*. The idea, I gues, is that if Christ can still have one of something, the Monophysites might be satisfied.

As soon as Heraclius wins the war with Persia, he begins promoting Monoenergism officially. The problem is that a gaggle of important people, including the Patriarch of Jerusalem, don't like it.

The problem with compromise doctrines, is they don't have any adherents out there in the wild. What's worse, the reception isn't just lukewarm. It provokes a huge new destructive debate over Christ's energies and their precise number.

By AD 638, Heraclius abandons monoenergism. He issues the Ecthesis, a hilarious statement that tells everyone to shut up and never discuss Christ's energies ever again.

Instead, the Ecthesis declares, everyone is now to believe that Christ has two natures (Chalcedon position) but – wait for it – *one will*.

This is monotheletism. Surprisingly, it satisfies the eastern patriarchs, including the Patriarch of Jerusalem, but it finds a new opponent in the Bishop of Rome. Now Eastern & Western churches are fighting and Heraclius dies full of regret about the mess he started.

Maximos the Confessor, an African monk, joins forces with the Pope & you have Lateran Council of 649 condemning monotheletism at great length The whole mess is finally cleaned up, formally by the Third Council of Constantinople (AD 680/1) ...

... , which affirms that Christ has two wills and two energies, as well as two natures.

But that's only the formal solution. Informally, what put an end to all this was the loss of the eastern provinces – especially the Monophysite stronghold at Egypt – to the Arab invaders. Without these hardliners, there was no more reason to seek out these odd compromises.

So what do we make of all this? Old textbooks used to say the Monophysites and the chariot racing faction known as the Greens were one and the same.

Alan Cameron, who has done a lot to throw cold water on various theories surrounding the circus factions (going too far in some respects, maybe), points out this doesn't hold up.