The term mia physis was used by St. Cyril of Alexandria in his "Five Tomes Against Nestorius" in A.D. 430 in order to emphasize the reality of the incarnation in opposition to the Nestorian heresy; for, as he put it, after the union there is ". . . one nature of God the Logos incarnate (mia physis tou Theou Logou sesarkomene)." [1]  Now, the use of this term (i.e., mia physis) does not involve the blending of divinity and humanity in Christ; instead, it simply affirms the interpenetration (perichoresis) of the two natures in the one person (hypostasis) of the incarnate Logos.  To put it another way, St. Cyril held that the Hypostatic Union involves a union of the two natures in a way that affirms their actual inseparability, without confusion or change; while also affirming their proper distinction in contemplation only (tei theoriai monei). [2]

A Brief Response to a Question About the Use of the Term "Mia Physis" in Christology

by Steven Todd Kaster

Original Version:  7 April 2007 (from a thread at the Phatmass Phorum)

_____________________________________

End Notes:

[1] St. Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Nestorius," I, 1, 6, 33.

[2] See Canon VII of the Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 553) which affirms the following:  "If anyone, when speaking about the two natures, does not confess a belief in our one Lord Jesus Christ, understood in both His divinity and His humanity, so as by this to signify a difference of natures of which an ineffable union has been made, without confusion, in which neither the nature of the Word was changed into the nature of human flesh, nor was the nature of human flesh changed into that of the Word (each remained what it was by nature, even after the union, as this had been made in respect of subsistence); and if anyone understands the two natures in the mystery of Christ in the sense of a division into parts, or if he expresses his belief in the plural natures in the same Lord Jesus Christ, God the Word made flesh, but does not consider the difference of those natures, of which He is composed, to be only in the onlooker's mind [τη θεωρία μόνη], a difference which is not compromised by the union (for He is one from both and the two exist through the one) but uses the plurality to suggest that each nature is possessed separately and has a subsistence of its own: let him be anathema." [Norman P. Tanner, S.J. (Editor), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London:  Sheed and Ward, Ltd., 1990), volume 1, page 117]

Copyright © 2007-2025 Steven Todd Kaster