Hello! Welcome to your second lesson.
In our first lesson, we established the foundational doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the belief in one God as three co-equal Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This belief is shared across all Apostolic Churches, including the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church (EOTC).
Today, we dive into the first major division within the early Church. This split wasn't about the Trinity itself, but about the nature of the second Person of the Trinity, the Son, after he became human as Jesus Christ. The question was: How are divinity and humanity related in the single person of Jesus? The answer to this question, debated fiercely in the 5th century, is the primary theological distinction that defines the EOTC and its sister churches.
By the end of this lesson, you will be able to analyze these crucial Christological debates, distinguishing Miaphysitism—the position of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church—from Dyophysitism, the position of the Chalcedonian churches (Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox). Understanding this is the key to unlocking the meaning of "Tewahedo" in the church's very name.
1. The Council of Chalcedon: A Fork in the Road
The year is 451 AD. Church leaders from across the Roman Empire gather for the Fourth Ecumenical Council in the city of Chalcedon. Their goal is to create a definitive statement about the nature of Christ that will unify the Church against various competing ideas.
The central challenge was to affirm that Jesus is simultaneously fully God and fully man without compromising either reality. The council produced a statement known as the Chalcedonian Definition. This became the position of what would become the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. This view is called Dyophysitism.
To understand what the Council of Chalcedon affirmed, let's read a concise summary and the key part of the definition itself.
What's The Difference Between Coptic and Eastern ...
This reading, from an Eastern Orthodox source, clearly defines the Dyophysite (Chalcedonian) position. It provides historical context for the Council and includes the crucial part of its official confession.
Please read the sections 'What is the Eastern Orthodox Communion?' and 'The Confession of Chalcedon'. Focus on the language used to describe Christ's nature. Note the bolded phrases in the confession, especially 'to be acknowledged in two natures'.
The key takeaway from the Chalcedonian Definition is the formula: Christ is one person (hypostasis) existing in two natures (physeis), a divine nature and a human nature. The definition strongly emphasizes that these two natures are united "inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably," with the properties of each nature being preserved.
However, this was not universally accepted. The churches of Alexandria (Egypt), Antioch (Syria), and Armenia, among others, rejected this "in two natures" formula. This rejection led to the first great schism in Christianity, separating the Chalcedonian churches from the Non-Chalcedonian churches, today known as the Oriental Orthodox communion, which includes the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church.
2. The "Tewahedo" Position: Miaphysitism
The Oriental Orthodox churches, including the EOTC, hold a Christological view known as Miaphysitism. It's crucial to distinguish this from a heresy with a similar-sounding name.
- Monophysitism: (From Greek mono, "single" + physis, "nature"). This is the heretical teaching of a monk named Eutyches. He taught that Christ's humanity was absorbed into his divinity, like a drop of honey dissolving in the sea. This view diminishes Christ's true humanity and is rejected by the EOTC.
- Miaphysitism: (From Greek mia, "one/a unity" + physis, "nature"). This is the orthodox teaching of St. Cyril of Alexandria, a revered father of the Church. He taught that out of the two natures (divine and human), there is one united or composite nature of the incarnate Word of God. The two are united without mixing, confusion, or separation.
The difference between mono (a simple, single thing) and mia (a composite unity, like one family made of many people) is the heart of the matter.
Let's explore this distinction with a helpful table and then read the EOTC's own explanation of its faith.
What's The Difference Between Coptic and Eastern ...
This resource provides a clear table contrasting the heresy of Monophysitism with the doctrine of Miaphysitism. This is an essential clarification.
Please read from the heading 'Why did the Copts reject this?' down to the end of the table under 'Monophysitism vs. Miaphysitism'. This explains the rationale for the rejection and clarifies the key theological terms.
Now that the distinction between Monophysitism and Miaphysitism is clearer, let's examine how the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church articulates its own position. The very word Tewahedo is the Ge'ez term for this Miaphysite faith. It means "being made one" or "unified."
The issue between Monophysitism and Dyophysitism
This article from the EOTC's own website is the best source for its self-understanding. It explains the 'Tewahido' faith, its basis in the teachings of St. Cyril, and why the Chalcedonian formula is rejected.
Please read from the start of section 1, which directly contrasts the positions, and continue through section 2, which explains the term 'Tewahido'. Focus on points 1, 4, 6, and 7. These points summarize the core of the EOTC's belief: rejection of Eutyches (Monophysitism), adherence to St. Cyril's formula ('one Incarnate Nature'), and the meaning of 'Tewahedo' as an inseparable union.
As you've read, the Tewahedo position insists on an inseparable union. The Church fears that the Dyophysite ("two natures") language creates a division in Christ. For example, the EOTC reading argues that if you separate the natures, you might be tempted to say that Christ was crucified merely as a man. For the Tewahedo faith, this would be impossible, as God alone can redeem the world. Therefore, it was the one, undivided, incarnate God-man who suffered and died, acting as a "united being, not separately as man or separately as God."
Test your understanding!
A friend familiar with Western Christianity says, "I understand that Jesus is one person with two natures—a divine one and a human one."
Based on what you've learned about the Tewahedo faith, how would you gently explain the different emphasis of the Ethiopian Orthodox position?
Show answer
You could explain that while both traditions believe Jesus is fully God and fully man, they use different language to protect that truth. You might say: "That's the Chalcedonian view, which emphasizes the distinction of the two natures. The Ethiopian Orthodox 'Tewahedo' tradition, following St. Cyril of Alexandria, prefers to say that from the two natures, Christ has one united nature. They worry that talking about 'two natures' after the incarnation could lead to splitting Christ's actions, as if sometimes 'only the man' was acting and other times 'only God' was acting. For them, every action of Christ is the action of the one, incarnate Son of God."
3. A Schism of Words and Fears
Why did this monumental split happen? Modern dialogue between the two families of churches has concluded that the division was tragic and, perhaps, unnecessary. The disagreement stemmed from two main factors:
-
Terminology: As the EOTC resource mentions, the Greek philosophical terms used—physis (nature), hypostasis (person, concrete existence), prosopon (person, face, mask)—had overlapping and sometimes ambiguous meanings. The two sides were often talking past each other, using the same words to mean slightly different things.
-
Fear of Heresy: Each side feared the other was leaning toward a heresy it had just condemned.
- The Chalcedonians heard "one nature" and feared a return to Monophysitism, where Christ's humanity is erased.
- The Non-Chalcedonians heard "in two natures" and feared a return to Nestorianism, a heresy that so radically separated the natures that it implied there were two persons in Christ (a human person and a divine person) rather than one.
The political rivalries between the great theological centers of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople also played a significant role, turning a theological dispute into an ecclesiastical schism that has lasted over 1,500 years.
Conclusion
Today we have navigated the complex events and ideas of the 5th century that define the core theological identity of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church.
Key Takeaways:
- The Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) defined the Dyophysite position: Christ is one person in two natures (divine and human). This is the faith of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians.
- The EOTC, along with the other Oriental Orthodox Churches, rejected this council. They adhere to Miaphysitism: from the divine and human natures, Christ is one united nature.
- The Ge'ez word for this belief is Tewahedo, meaning "made one," which is part of the church's official name.
- The EOTC emphatically rejects the heresy of Monophysitism, which claims Christ's humanity was absorbed by his divinity.
- The schism was heavily influenced by linguistic misunderstandings and the mutual fear that the other side was falling into heresy (Nestorianism vs. Monophysitism).
You now have the essential key to understanding the primary doctrinal difference between the EOTC and the other major Apostolic Churches.
Preview of the Next Lesson:
The story of church divisions doesn't end in 451. The "Chalcedonian" world that agreed on Christ's two natures would itself split apart several centuries later. In our next lesson, we will examine the East-West Schism of 1054, which divided the Chalcedonian communion into the Roman Catholic Church in the West and the Eastern Orthodox Church in the East. This will complete our map of the major branches of Christianity before we focus exclusively on the history and identity of the EOTC.