Eutyches - The head of a large monastery in Constantinople (A.D. t8-455), who taught that Jesus' two natures were not distinct, but intermixed in His Person
The Council of Chalcedon
Concerning the natures of Jesus Christ the Council ruled:
"That after His (Christ's) incarnation the unity of His Person consisted of two natures, which are without confusion, without change, but also without division, and without separation."
5. The denial of the distinctiveness of the two natures of Christ - Eutyches taught an opposite error from that of Nestorius regarding Jesus' natures. Eutyches taught that the two natures were intermixed into one - into a new God-man nature. This teaching denies the distinctive characteristics of both the divine and human natures. It also produces various confusing and mistaken ideas, such as Christ's being everywhere-present in His human as well as divine properties. This error falsely degrades the divine nature, mixing it with the human; and wrongly exalts the human nature, mixing it with the divine.
The Council of Chalcedon met in the year A.D. 45 1, to examine the teachings of both Nestorius and Eutyches. It condemned both teachings as false and concluded that Scripture teaches the following regarding Christ's two natures in one Person:
The two natures of Jesus Christ are:
a. Without division and without separation (against Nestorius)
b. Without mixture and without change (against Eutyches)
The mixing of Jesus' two natures has led to several strange and incorrect teachings and practices. Two of these are:
1. The Roman Catholic Church, by mixing the two natures of Christ, teaches the worshipping of Jesus' human nature. It practices the bowing before, and worshipping of, bread (a wafer) which is "changed into" the body of Christ.
2. The great reformer, Martin Luther, also failed to clearly see the scriptural teaching of the distinctiveness of each of Jesus' natures. He believed that Jesus' human nature mixed with the divine and became everywhere-present after His ascension. From this view, he taught that Jesus' body attached itself to the bread served at the Lord's supper - coming in, with, and under the bread.
How did these errors in teaching and practice develop from not maintaining that Jesus' natures are without mixture and change?