Monophysitism ultimately became perhaps the most contentious of the eastern Christological heresies (the other chief ones being Arianism and Nestorianism). It evolved into a political conflict in addition to a theological and ecclesiastical one, even moreso than Nestorianism had been — the political ramifications of that controversy more or less ended when the Byzantine Emperor repudiated Nestorius.
Monophysitism began as the antithesis of Nestorianism. Whereas Nestorius had been accused of teaching a dual Christ, Eutyches, an archimandrite from Constantinople, offered a radically anti-Nestorian view, at the Council of Ephesus (431).
Eutyches asserted that Christ had only a sole nature; μονος φυσις (monos physis, “one substance”). He could not be understood as being solely divine, solely human, or even as a blend of both. This, it utterly refuted Nestorianism, but it still flew in the face of the then-young Trinitarian doctrine. While at first, Eutyches and his sole-substance concept had been tolerated — their view helped to fend off and discredit the dual-Christ teaching of Nestorianism — eventually, the Alexandrine school of Christianity found Eutyches’ teaching unacceptable.
Eutyches was deposed in 449 after having been given a chance to explain his doctrine sufficiently. A number of plenary synods met, alternately deposing and reinstating Eutyches or his opponents. Despite the Alexandrian school’s condemnation of him, Eutyches still had supporters in various parts of Christendom.
The Council of Chalcedon (451) addressed this issue, among others. An Alexandrine doctrine was adopted, however, its language satisfied some Monophysites. Eutyches and his most vehement followers held out, though. He remained a “heretic,” and died in exile. His refusal to go along with the “Chalcedon compromise” had alienated some of those who’d previously been sympathetic to him.
Although Eutyches’ teaching had been greatly diminished in the eyes of Christianity overall, though, it was not eliminated by the “compromise” at Chalcedon. Initially, however, that was not problematic. Monophysitism had been condemned at Chalcedon — officially, at least — and for a while, that had satisfied its opponents. Still, the controversy behind it simmered below the radar of overall Christendom through the next few decades.
By 480 the Monophysite heresy had begun to re-emerge. For various reasons, it was fast becoming the majority view in Syria, the Levant, Armenia, and even parts of Egypt which were controlled, theologically, by opponents of the heresy. Something of a rift opened up within Alexandria over the legitimacy of a sequence of patriarchs there (particularly Timothy II, Peter III, and John I). Despite the rigid orthodoxy which had been traditional for the See of Alexandria (as opposed to its lay Christian population which for a couple centuries or more had typically been a mix of “orthodox” and “heretical” literalists, Gnostics, semi-Gnostics, mystics of many kinds, etc.), the aforementioned Monophysites managed to make headway. Many in Alexandria were sympathetic to them, even if nominally they opposed the heresy. These budding Monophysites ignored the canons of Chalcedon. Over a few years they were accused of harassing those who’d been faithful to that Council. A few of the northern Egyptian hierarchs turned out to be Monophysites themselves.
Emperor Zeno and his patriarch of Constantinople, Acacius, thus faced the threat of a concerted Monophysite faction which was growing in power, in addition to whole provinces (including much of modern Syria) being primarily Monophysite. They felt compelled to do something about it. In 482, Acacius and some of his minions devised another compromise formula intended to reunite the Monophysites and orthodox Christians. Zeno issued this theological formula in the form of an edict called the Henotikon (from Greek ‘ενωτικον meaning “unity decree”). They genuinely believed this would be enough to embrace the Monophysites and bring them back into the graces of official (i.e. Chalcedonian) Christendom.
Once again, however, this compromise failed to satisfy those involved in the controversy. Ironically it was the Chalcedon-following contender for patriarch of Alexandria John I who refused to accept the Henotikon. Peter III — a Monophysite — signed on to it, however, and settled in as patriarch, having satisfied the Emperor. John I wasn’t alone, though, in his defiance; many Chalcedon-faithful clergy were offended by Zeno’s imposition of the Henotikon since he’d done so without having consulted a larger team of clerics to debate it first (or with the consent of another ecumenical council). And most committed Monophysites (aside from a few such as Peter III) utterly rejected it. The next Emperor, Anastasius I, favored Monophysites although he also ostensibly upheld the Henotikon. (Yes, ancient politicians could triangulate and dissemble as well as any of their modern colleagues. Many Byzantine emperors were masters of such strategies.) Under his rule the Monophysite controversy lingered on and festered in many quarters of the eastern Empire.
By the time Anastasius came to the throne, some Monophysites agitated to ordain their own clergy and hierarchy in opposition. That Anastasius had been (they thought, and possibly he was) a fellow Monophysite, fuelled this ambition. This, of course, had ecclesiastical and political ramifications. Significantly, it threatened to pull part of the Church out from under Imperial control.
Still, the separate Monophysite clerical organization never got off the ground. However some Monophysites did manage to be ordained under the existing hierarchy (many of them on the downlow).
Emperor Justin I reaffirmed the canons of Chalcedon in 519. At that point, any remaining attempts to build a separate Monophysite hierarchy ended entirely, as patronage for their efforts dried up.
Emperor Justinian I, Justin’s son, while he backed his father’s dictates officially, was more tolerant of Monophysitism and initially, at least, unwilling to crack down on them as hard. Moreoever, his wife, Empress Theodora, was more openly sympathetic to Monophysites, and supported some Monophysite clergy.
Eventually, however, ecclesiastical pressure — and the political reality that Monophysitism could undermine his regime — forced Justinian to deal with the issue. While he began suppressing Monophysites, however, he simultaneously extended them what he considered an olive branch of sorts, by condemning the “Three Chapters.”
These were: 1) the collected writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia; 2) the letter of Ibas of Edessa to Maris of Persia; and 3) the letters of Theodoret opposing Cyril. Justinian’s pretext for this was that the Three Chapters all had a Nestorian flavor. In this way, he hoped to appeal to Monophysites, who were fervently anti-Nestorian, as well as Chalcedonian Christians, who also viewed Nestorianism as a heresy. But this turned out to have been a blunder; the Three Chapters also happened to contain orthodox ideas; some had even been called upon as the basis of canons at both the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon.
Justinian’s attempt, then, at bringing the whole Church under his banner, the banner of orthodoxy, imploded. He was forced to convene the Second Council of Constaninople in 553. While intended to reunite Christianity within the Imperium, this Council’s results were mixed. II Constantinople confirmed all the canons of Chalcedon, but also condemned the Three Chapters, in spite of the implications involved in doing so.
Later Emperors showed Monophysitism less favor, or outright fought against it. By the 7th century Monophysitism had died out within most of the Byzantine Empire because it lacked Imperial support. It lingered, however, in those “pockets” where it had always had a good deal of loyalty: Syria, Egypt, as well as Armenia. It became the official doctrine of the Jacobite (Syria), Coptic (Egypt), and Armenian churches. Since the 7th century, however, their Christologies have changed or reformed, and are no longer Monophysite in nature. The term for their current Christologies is “miaphysite.”
At a couple of points, the See of Rome meddled in this affair, although western Christendom was largely untouched by it. As the conflict heated up again in the east, after Chalcedon, the pope excommunicated the entire east (on the grounds that both sides there had departed from the Chalcedonian compromise). This was resolved when Emperor Justin reaffirmed Chalcedon.
Pope Virgilius attended II Constantinople and contributed to its resolution, mainly to ensure it upheld Chalcedon. Some western bishops, however, especially several in northern Italy (under Lombard tutelage and thus outside papal influence) refused to condemn the Three Chapters (since those bishops read them as supporting orthodoxy). Their refusal to accept the condemnation of the Three Chapters meant that they refused to accept the canons of II Constantinople — placing them, officially, outside of western orthodoxy. These northern Italian sees held out for some time, but by the end of the 7th century came back around, when the Lombards officially embraced Roman Catholicism.
For western Christianity, the conflict was more about acceptance or rejection of the Three Chapters, than it had been about Monophysitism itself. Western Christianity largely neither understood this heresy itself nor cared much about it, except for using it to try to get a leg up on eastern Christendom. The papal excommunication of the entire east at the end of the 5th century was a rash and irrational act, based upon the Pope’s failure to understand the heresy (very likely due to ignorance of the Greek language, in which the Nestorian and Monophysite heresies had been discussed in writing).
Pope Virgilius had entered the affair knowing that the east was divided. He hoped, at the general council of II Constantinople, to emerge as a peacemaker and uniter; but even though the council decided the way he wanted, he didn’t get this result. Had he understood the nature and depth of the conflict — it’s clear he didn’t — he might not have bothered; or else, he might have made more extensive and more carefully diplomatic efforts to get involved in its resolution.
Ultimately, Monophysitism was an eastern heresy, which — as usual — western Christianity did not understand, and did not contribute to resolving in any significant way. It wound down and vanished because the Byzantine Emperors stopped propping it up, and allowed hierarchs loyal to the canons of Chalcedon to enforce its terms on the eastern Church.
↵ Go back up to Early Christian History menu.