andrew of caesarea and the apocalypse in the ancient church of the ...

-26-
union," was the Monophysite position, as opposed to the Chalcedonian concept of one person
"in two natures" (èv ôvo tyvceoiv). Monophysites believed that maintaining the distinction of
"two natures" after their "union" in the person of Christ created a Nestorian-type of division
between the natures which amounted to two Christs. Oikoumenios frequently emphasizes the
union of the divine and the human in Christ 81 and specifically refers to the quality of the
"hypostatic union." 82 He also uses other common Monophysite phrases, such as the Lord's
body "animated by a mind" 83 or "animated by the soûl," 84 as well as terms which refer to the
spécifie properties or qualities of each nature preserved as they were prior to the union. 85
Also noteworthy is Oikoumenios' use of "Emmanuel," which was a favorite title of
Monophysites for Christ 86 and the citation of Fathers who were especially favored by
Monophysite theologians. The emphasis on union is not necessarily contrary to Chalcedon.
In fact it was the entire point of the décision of Chalcedon, but the Monophysites remained
convinced that Chalcedon had in fact maintained a Nestorian séparation of the humanity and
divinity in Christ. For this reason, the emphasis in Oikoumenios on the unity of natures is not
only anti-Nestorian, it is anti-Chalcedonian. Other shorter Christological comments are
81 Oik. 1.3.3, 1.11.1,2.13.13, 10.13.20, 12.3.20.
82 Including KCIO'wrôaTaoïv èvoùôfivcu (2.13.13), KCX0' wôaraaiv èvcoôeiç (10.13.20), and KCI0' ùrcôaraaw
ô Aôyoç fyvœim (12.3.20).
83 èmruxœuévTiç voeprôç. 1.3.3, Suggit 21, and voepœç è.\yy\)%(ù\ièvox> odyiatoç, 3.3.3, Suggit 50.
84 èn.\|n)%a>névoç voeprâç 12.3.20, Suggit 193.
85 Kcrcà TtoiÔTTyra (jruaticfiv tôiô-rryta "spécifie characteristic of each nature," (Suggit 21), and ii Kara TtoiÔTtyra