ON SOME FEATURES OF THE MIAPHISITE AND DIAPHYSITE CHRISTOLOGICAL CONCEPTIONS

• Published in: Bulletin of the institute of oriental studies (Online) Vol. 32; no. 1; pp. 104 - 131
• Main Author: Matevosyan Arthur
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: National Academy of Sciences of Armenia 01-01-2019
• ISSN: 2738-2710; 2738-2702
• DOI: 10.52837/18291422-2019.32a-104

The problem of the relationship between divine and human natures in the person of Christ began to interest the Church as early as the 4th century, but Christological problems became particularly relevant in the next, 5th century due to the emergence of Nestorian and Arian heresies, which were rejected and condemned by the Church. The Council of Chalcedon had an essential role in the approval of Christological dogma and its decisions were not adopted by the majority of the Eastern Churches, and among them the Armenian Church. During the long struggle against Chalcedonian Christology, the Armenian Church developed its own Christological conception, which is distinguished by consistency and convincingness. According to this conception, Christ is the Logos, who adopted the perfect human nature. After incarnation, the divine and human natures in Christ formed unspeakable and unmixed unity, as a result of which all attempts to explain this great mystery of faith are doomed to failure, because the mind is unable to understand the inseparable unity of ontological opposites, each of which retains its qualitative definition. The Logos became incarnate of St. Virgin, whose nature the Holy Spirit had previously purified from original sin, so that the Son of God would be free from its consequences. The divine nature of the Logos was initially inextricably linked with the human nature of Jesus, so that the fact that St. Cyril of Alexandria called "the one nature of God the Word incarnate."