A mural painting from the catacomb of Commodilla, the late 4th century. Image credit: WikipediaDuring this series of reflections on the history of Christianity in Northern and Eastern Africa, I have referred to Nestorianism and Miaphysitism. The two terms seem to address similar topics and may easily be confused, but they address different questions related to the early development of Christianity.  Theologians from the Northern African city of Alexandria played a powerful role in correcting Nestorianism's mistakes in their understanding of Jesus Christ. It was eventually rejected by all sides of the Universal Church. On the other hand, Miaphysitism became a controversy at the core of a split within the Universal Church, leading Roman Catholics to go one way and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church to go another. In this installment, I will try to clear up any confusion between the two terms and discuss what they mean for us as we try to live a life in Christ today.
Nestorianism and Miaphysitism offer differing understandings of Jesus Christ's nature. Nestorians believe that Jesus Christ exists as two persons: one divine (the Son of God) and one human (the man Jesus). They argue that these two natures coexist but remain distinct and not united in one person. Nestorians reject the term "Theotokos" (God-bearer) for Mary, preferring "Christotokos" (Christ-bearer) to emphasize that Mary gave birth to the human Jesus, not the divine Logos. Nestorianism was condemned as heretical at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD. The council affirmed that Jesus Christ is one person with two natures (divine and human) and upheld the use of "Theotokos" for Mary.
 
Miaphysitism, on the other hand, is derived from the Greek word "mia" meaning "one" and "physis" meaning "nature." It describes the belief in the single, united nature of Christ. Miaphysites hold that in the one person of Jesus Christ, the divine and human natures are united into one single (mia) nature. This one nature is both fully divine and fully human, without division or separation. In contrast to this, as Catholics, we believe that Jesus is one person with two natures, a nature that is fully human and a nature that is fully divine.
 
Miaphysitism uses the term "Theotokos" for Mary, just as we do, affirming that she gave birth to Jesus Christ, who is both God and man. Miaphysitism differs from us in that it rejects the definition of the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD), which proclaimed that Christ exists in two distinct natures (divine and human) in one person. They rejected this formula because saw it as suggesting a potential division of Christ's personhood itself, which neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Ethiopian Orthodox Church would find acceptable.
 
Considering all of this, we might ask the following questions: How does the emphasis on Christ having two natures (human and divine) in the Chalcedonian definition help us relate to Jesus as both divine and human? Conversely, how might this emphasis present challenges in understanding the unity of his person?
 
In what ways might Miaphysitism’s emphasis on the united nature of Christ deepen our understanding of the mystery and mysticism in Christianity? Does this approach potentially make Christ less relatable or accessible to believers?
 
Consider the role of narrative in understanding Christ's life and teachings. How might focusing on the distinct natures (as per Chalcedon) versus a united nature (as per Miaphysitism) affect our interpretation of the Gospel stories and the lessons we draw from them?
 
Which aspect of Christ’s nature do you find easier to connect with personally—the divine, the human, or the unified nature? How does this affect your spiritual life and practices?