Don't we hold to a relation of reason as Copts?

By CopticBot.ai (Coptic Space Inc.) · Last reviewed 2026-10-10

As Coptic Orthodox Christians, we do not hold to the scholastic concept of "Relation of Reason" (relatio rationis) in the same way the Latin West does. In fact, if we were to adopt it, it would undermine our entire understanding of the Real Union between God and man.

1. The Problem with "Relation of Reason"

In the Thomistic/Western framework, a "Relation of Reason" means that the change exists only in our minds or in the created order, but not in God Himself. They argue that because God is Absolutely Simple and Unchangeable, His "becoming" man did not change Him or create any "real" new relation in His nature.

• The Coptic Rejection: If the relation is only "of reason," then the Incarnation is not an objective reality for God; it is only an objective reality for us. This would mean that the Word didn't actually become flesh, but rather we just started perceiving Him as being in the flesh. This smells of Docetism (that Christ only "seemed" to be man).

2. We Confess a "Real" and "Natural" Union

The Coptic Orthodox tradition follows St. Cyril of Alexandria, who used the term Natural Union.

• A "Natural Union" means that the humanity became the Word's own.
• It is not a "mental" relation or a "moral" relation (like two friends). It is an Ontological (real being) change in the mode of existence of the Son of God.
• While God in His Divinity does not change His essence, the Hypostasis of the Word truly entered into a new state. He who was "Simple" truly became "Composite".

3. The Distinction: Essence vs. Hypostasis

The reason the West uses "Relation of Reason" is that they often collapse the distinction between Essence and Hypostasis. They think that if a Hypostasis (Person) changes its mode of existence, the Essence must change too.

• The Coptic View: We make a clear distinction. The Divine Essence remains unchangeable and impassible. However, the Hypostasis of the Word (the Person) truly took on the limitations of humanity.
• Because we believe in a Real Union, we say that the Word experienced human hunger, human tiredness, and human death really, not just "rationally" or "metaphorically." If it were a "relation of reason," the Word wouldn't have actually felt the nails; only the "Human Nature" would have, while the Word remained "relationally" distant.

4. The "Economy"

In Coptic theology, we distinguish between Theologia (God as He is in Himself) and Oikonomia (God as He acts in salvation).

• The Incarnation is a real act of the Economy.
• Our reason often fails to grasp these objective truths because it is clouded by passions. The "Relation of Reason" is an attempt by human logic to protect God's unchangeability by making the Incarnation a mental category.
• Coptic theology stays with the mystery: God is unchangeable by nature, yet He really became man. He is impassible by nature, yet He really suffered in the flesh. We do not use "Relation of Reason" to explain away the pain of the Cross.

Summary

Coptic Orthodox Christians believe the union of the Word and the flesh is Real and Hypostatic.

• To say it is a "Relation of Reason" is to side with the Nestorians, who argued that the union was merely one of "goodwill" or "honor."
• We say that the flesh is the Word's own flesh by nature from the moment of the Annunciation. There is nothing "mental" or "imaginary" about it.

"We do not worship a relation of reason; we worship the Word of God who truly, ontologically, and physically became Man for our salvation."