Dyophysitism (;[1] from Greek: δυοφυσιτισμός "two natures") is the Christological position that Jesus Christ is one person of one substance and one hypostasis, with two distinct, inseparable natures, divine and human.[2] It is related to the doctrine of the hypostatic union. Those who insisted on the "two natures" formula were referred to as dyophysites.
Development of dyophysite Christology was gradual; dyophysite tradition and its complex terminology were finally formulated as a result of the long Christological debates that were constant during the 4th and 5th centuries.
Dyophysitism as a position stands in opposition to the views of monophysitism, the doctrine of Jesus having one divine nature, and miaphysitism, the doctrine that Christ is both divine and human but in one nature. Dyophysites believe that the two natures are completely and perfectly united in the one person and hypostasis of Jesus Christ,[3] in union with each other and co-existing without mixture, confusion or change.[4] The importance of dyophysitism was often emphasized by prominent representatives of the Antiochene School.
The miaphysites upheld the idea of one nature in Christ based on their understanding of Cyril of Alexandria's teachings,[5] including his Twelve Anathemas, namely number 4 which states:[6]
Dyophysitism was articulated in the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which produced the Chalcedonian Definition, that states:[7]
Nature (ousia) in the Chalcedonian sense can be understood to be referring to a set of "powers and qualities which constitute a being"[8] whereas person (prosopon) refers to "a concrete individual acting as subject in its own right."[9]
For adherents, the hypostatic union is the center of Jesus's unity (his divinity and humanity being described as natures) whereas those who rejected the Council of Chalcedon saw his nature itself as the point of unity.
Dyophisitism has also been used to describe some aspects of Nestorianism, the doctrines ascribed to Nestorius of Constantinople. It is now generally agreed that some of his ideas were not far from those that eventually emerged as orthodox, but the orthodoxy of his formulation of the doctrine of Christ is still controversial among churches.
After many debates and several councils, dyophysitism gained its official dogmatic form at the Council of Chalcedon and the Second Council of Constantinople of 553, which are accepted in the present day by a majority of Christian churches, including the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Catholic Churches, the Anglican Church, and the Old Catholic Church, as well as Reformed, Lutheran, and various other Christian denominations. Apart from that, the ancient Church of the East has preserved dyophysite Christology and other traditions of the Antiochene School.
There remain churches which hold to the miaphysite positions, such as the Oriental Orthodox Church.[10]