Article 6: Sixth and Seventh Century Heresies — Confusion About Christ's Nature and Will

Article 6: Sixth and Seventh Century Heresies — Confusion About Christ's Nature and Will

1. Historical Background

By the sixth and seventh centuries (roughly AD 500–700), the Church had spent almost two hundred years working out how to describe the union of Christ's divine and human natures without falling into error on either side. The Council of Chalcedon (AD 451), held just before this period, had produced a widely used definition of this union — but it was not received in the same way everywhere. Churches in Egypt, Syria, Armenia, and elsewhere in the East did not accept its exact wording, while the wider Byzantine Church did, leading to a lasting division that continues, in institutional form, to this day.

This was also the period in which the Byzantine Empire faced growing external pressure, and the Arab conquest of Egypt in AD 641 brought major political change to the Coptic Church's homeland. Amid all this, theologians continued refining how to speak faithfully about the mystery of the Incarnation.

2. Main Heresies of This Period

• Eutychianism, associated with Eutyches, an archimandrite in Constantinople, taught that after the Incarnation, Christ's human nature was so absorbed into His divine nature that it was effectively blended or swallowed up, no longer remaining a real, distinct human nature. This is sometimes loosely called "Monophysitism" in older writing, though that label has often been applied unfairly to churches that never actually held Eutyches' error.
• Monothelitism, arising in the seventh century, taught that Christ had only one will — a divine will — and no genuine, distinct human will of His own.

It is important to distinguish these genuine heresies from the Miaphysite teaching held by the Coptic Orthodox Church and the other Oriental Orthodox churches. Following St Cyril of Alexandria's language of "one incarnate nature of God the Word," Miaphysite teaching holds that in the one person of Christ, the divine and human natures are united fully and really — without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation — into a single, united reality, while each nature's true properties remain completely intact. This is emphatically not Eutyches' error of blending or erasing the humanity; it is, in the Coptic Orthodox understanding, simply a different, careful way of confessing the very same full humanity and full divinity of Christ that Cyril himself defended at Ephesus.

3. Why These Teachings Were Wrong

From Scripture:

• The writer of Hebrews says Christ was tempted in every way, just as we are, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15, NIV) — showing a real, genuine human experience, not a humanity blended away or made unreal.
• Paul describes the one mediator between God and humanity as the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5, NIV) — a mediating role that depends on Christ being truly and fully human, as well as truly God.
• On the cross, Jesus said simply, "I am thirsty" (John 19:28, NIV) — an ordinary, genuine human experience of physical need.
• In Gethsemane, Jesus prayed, asking that His Father's will, not His own, be done (Luke 22:42, NIV) — showing a real human will, distinct from yet held in perfect harmony with the divine will.

Why it was dangerous: If Christ's humanity were blended away or absorbed, as Eutyches taught, He would no longer truly share our human condition, and His life and death could no longer genuinely represent or redeem humanity. If Christ had no real human will, as the Monothelites taught, then His human choices — including His willing obedience even to death — would not be genuinely His own, weakening the very meaning of His obedience on our behalf.

4. How the Church Responded

• The wider Chalcedonian Church rejected Eutychianism decisively and expressed Christ's union of natures using the language of "two natures... without confusion, without change, without division, without separation" in one person.
• The Coptic Orthodox Church and the other Oriental Orthodox churches rejected Eutyches' teaching just as firmly, while continuing to use Cyril's own preferred language of "one incarnate nature" to express the same full, unconfused union — a difference in words that, sadly, was not resolved peacefully at the time, and became a lasting division between these church families.
• Regarding the will of Christ, the Third Council of Constantinople (AD 680–681) formally condemned Monothelitism, affirming that Christ possesses both a divine will and a genuine human will, acting always in perfect harmony.

5. What Happened Later

• The division between Chalcedonian and Oriental Orthodox churches, including the Coptic Church, persisted for many centuries and remains an institutional reality today. However, careful theological dialogue in more recent times — including joint declarations between Coptic Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox and Catholic leaders in the twentieth century — has recognised that both church families confess the very same faith in the full humanity and full divinity of Christ, even while continuing to use different traditional language to express it.
• Monothelitism largely faded as a formal movement after its condemnation, though reflection on how divine and human will relate within Christ's one person has continued to enrich Christian theology.

6. Lesson for Christians Today

• Christ's humanity was, and is, completely real — never blended away, absorbed, or made unreal by His divinity.
• Christ possesses a genuine human will, freely and perfectly aligned with the Father's will, as shown supremely in Gethsemane.
• Long-standing divisions between Christians are not always about actually believing different things; sometimes, as history has shown here, careful listening can reveal a shared faith beneath differing words — a lesson in patience and humility for the Church today.

A Coptic Orthodox note: This period is central to Coptic Orthodox identity. The Coptic Church holds firmly to St Cyril's confession of "one incarnate nature of God the Word" as a faithful, full expression of Christ's true and unconfused humanity and divinity, and rejects Eutyches' error just as firmly as any other Christian tradition does. The Coptic Church continues, to this day, to treasure this careful, Christ-centred language as part of its living tradition.

7. Short Summary

• This period focused on precisely how Christ's divine and human natures — and wills — relate within His one person.
• Eutychianism wrongly blended or erased Christ's true, distinct human nature.
• Miaphysite teaching, held by the Coptic Orthodox Church, is not Eutychian error, but a faithful confession of Christ's one, fully united, unconfused person.
• Monothelitism wrongly denied that Christ had a genuine human will.
• The Third Council of Constantinople (AD 680–681) affirmed Christ's two wills in perfect harmony.
• The Chalcedonian/Oriental Orthodox division, arising from this era, remains institutionally unresolved but is increasingly understood as a difference in words rather than in faith.
• Christians today can hold firmly to Christ's real, undiminished humanity and will, while showing patience toward long-standing differences in how that truth has been expressed.