Over the past several years, an intriguing phenomenon has captured the attention of many in Christian circles: Muslims across the Middle East purportedly experiencing dreams and visions of Jesus, leading to their conversion to Christianity. Prominent Evangelical leaders such as David Platt, Russell Moore, and David Uth have lent credence to these accounts, recognizing them as credible expressions of divine intervention. Yet this trend prompts a profound and somewhat controversial question: Is this the manner in which Jesus would truly choose to reveal Himself? Is the Jesus of these dreams the same Jesus delineated in the Scriptures or a false Jesus? Here, I’ll discuss just one of many problems with the religion many of the Muslims are converting to.

In the intricate and complex halls of Christian theology, one invariably stumbles upon deeper theological concepts such as the Hypostatic Union and Monophysitism. These two ideologies represent divergent understandings of the nature of Christ. While the former remains the historic position of orthodox biblical Christianity, the latter, Monophysitism, is generally regarded as a heresy.

Firstly, let’s unpack the Hypostatic Union, a term established at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD to explain the nature of Christ. The Hypostatic Union professes that Jesus Christ, in one person, unites two natures: He is fully God and fully man. This starkly contrasts Monophysitism, a belief that Jesus Christ had one single nature—a fusion of the divine and human.

The Hypostatic Union is foundational to biblical faith, illuminating the bridge that Christ forms between the Divine and humanity. He, who was in the form of God, took on the likeness of men (Philippians 2:6-8). Hence, He could sympathize with our weaknesses, being tempted in every way, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15). It is this same Jesus, the God-Man, who ascended to the right hand of the Father, where He intercedes on behalf of His people (Romans 8:34).

Contrastingly, Monophysitism undercuts the richness of this biblical truth. By merging the divine and human natures into a single, indistinct nature, Monophysitism skews our understanding of Christ. How could Christ sympathize with our human plight if His human nature is swallowed up by the divine? How could He be the perfect High Priest, standing in the gap for us, if He was not fully human and fully divine? Monophysitism, as such, threatens the Gospel’s heart and guts.

Various sects have, unfortunately, veered towards Monophysitism over the centuries. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, including the Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Syrian Orthodox Churches, diverged from the main body of Christendom following the Council of Chalcedon. They preferred a view closer to what is often described as “Miaphysitism,” a nuanced form of Monophysitism. These churches maintain that in Christ, the human and divine natures are so united that they become one without mixing, confusion, or alteration.

In the light of Scripture, however, the Hypostatic Union maintains a delicate yet powerful balance. It respects the mystery of the Incarnation, acknowledging that Christ’s nature is both fully divine and fully human. It sustains the integrity of the Gospel, validating Christ’s unique position as the only mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5). As such, it stands as a stalwart of Christian orthodoxy, firmly grounded in the biblical narrative.

Monophysitism, while asserting a commitment to Christ’s divinity, risks losing the crucial human aspect of His nature. This poses a grave danger to the core of our faith, undermining the Incarnation’s profound mystery. A Christ without His human nature is a Christ who cannot fully understand or advocate for us. This is why the Church has consistently rejected Monophysitism, upholding the Hypostatic Union as the biblical understanding of Christ’s nature.

In the face of such fascinating accounts of these dreams, it is essential that we not lose sight of the clear and unambiguous message of Scripture. It is not for us to dismiss out of hand the possibility that the Holy Spirit may use extraordinary means such as dreams to prompt someone toward Him—it’s possible. However, it becomes deeply problematic when people assert, in contradiction to the revealed Word of God, that they have come to faith through dreams alone, with no prior exposure to the Gospel.

Romans 10 outlines the process of genuine faith. “Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17). This clarifies that faith is not a mystical experience, but a trust in the revealed Word of God. It is through the preaching of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection that the Spirit brings men and women to repentance and faith. These dreams, stripped of the clear gospel message, are inadequate to produce a true saving faith. The lack of scriptural grounding casts a shadow of doubt on the legitimacy of these experiences.

Further, when people come to saving faith, they embrace the real Jesus, as He is presented in the Bible. They do not flock to a false religion or accept a distorted version of Him. Jesus Himself stated, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). He would not call people to a misrepresentation of Himself.

Thus, while we may find these accounts of dream conversions fascinating, it is critical to ground our understanding of faith and conversion in the truth of Scripture. The Word of God is our sole authority, revealing and pointing us to the one true Jesus, in all His fullness and glory. Only in this Jesus can we find true redemption and salvation.