Misplaced Pages

Hypostasis (philosophy and religion): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:50, 4 January 2024 editMaterialscientist (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators1,993,917 editsm Reverted edits by 103.146.75.250 (talk) (HG) (3.4.12)Tags: Huggle Rollback← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:01, 16 December 2024 edit undoCitation bot (talk | contribs)Bots5,407,098 edits Removed parameters. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | #UCB_CommandLineTag: Manual revert 
(42 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Underlying state or underlying substance}} {{Short description|Underlying state or underlying substance}}
'''Hypostasis''' (plural: '''hypostases'''), from the ] {{lang|grc-Grek|ὑπόστασις|italic=no}} (''hypóstasis''), is the underlying state or underlying substance and is the fundamental ] that supports all else. In ] the hypostasis of the ], the intellect ('']'') and "]" was addressed by ].{{sfn|Anton|1977|pp=258–271}} In ], the ] consists of three hypostases: Hypostasis of the ], Hypostasis of the ], and Hypostasis of the ].<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Encyclopedia of Christianity|volume= 5|publisher= Eerdman|others= Fahlbusch, Erwin, Lochman, Jan Milič, Mbiti, John S., Pelikan, Jaroslav, 1923–2006, Vischer, Lukas, Bromiley, G. W. (Geoffrey William)|year=2008|isbn=978-0802824134|location=Grand Rapids, Michigan|page=|oclc=39914033|url=https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofch0001unse_t6f2/page/543}} '''Hypostasis''' (plural: '''hypostases'''), from the ] {{lang|grc-Grek|ὑπόστασις|italic=no}} (''hypóstasis''), is the underlying, fundamental state or substance that supports all of ]. It is not the same as the ]{{Citation needed|reason=citation of statement or further detail for context|date=August 2024}}. In ], the hypostasis of the ], the intellect ('']'') and "]" was addressed by ].{{sfn|Anton|1977|pp=258–271}} In ], the ] consists of three hypostases: that of the ], that of the ], and that of the ].<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Encyclopedia of Christianity|volume= 5|publisher= Eerdman|others= Fahlbusch, Erwin, Lochman, Jan Milič, Mbiti, John S., Pelikan, Jaroslav, 1923–2006, Vischer, Lukas, Bromiley, G. W. (Geoffrey William)|year=2008|isbn=978-0802824134|location=Grand Rapids, Michigan|page=|oclc=39914033|url=https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofch0001unse_t6f2/page/543}}
</ref> </ref>


==Ancient Greek philosophy== ==Ancient Greek philosophy==
] used hypostasis in the sense of ].<ref>], '']'', 4.19.</ref> ] used "hypostasis" in the sense of ].<ref>], '']'', 4.19.</ref>


Neoplatonists argue that beneath the surface phenomena that present themselves to our senses are three higher spiritual principles, or hypostases, each one more sublime than the preceding. For ], these are ], ], and ].{{sfn|Anton|1977|pp=258–271}}<ref name=Paula>''Neoplatonism (Ancient Philosophies)'' by Pauliina Remes (2008), University of California Press {{ISBN|0520258347}}, pp. 48–52.</ref> Neoplatonists argue that beneath the surface phenomena that present themselves to our senses are three higher spiritual principles (or ''hypostases''): each one more sublime than the preceding. For ], these are ], ], and ].{{sfn|Anton|1977|pp=258–271}}<ref name=Paula>''Neoplatonism (Ancient Philosophies)'' by Pauliina Remes (2008), University of California Press {{ISBN|0520258347}}, pp. 48–52.</ref>


==Christian theology== ==Christian theology==
] icon, representing the ], Venice (16th century)]] ] icon, representing the ], Venice (16th century)]]
{{see also|Hypostatic union}} {{see also|Hypostatic union}}
The term hypostasis has a particular significance in ], particularly in ] (study of the ]), and also in ] (study of ]).{{sfn|Meyendorff|1989|pp=190–192, 198, 257, 362}}{{sfn|Daley|2009|pp=342–345}} The term ''hypostasis'' has particular significance in ]; particularly in ]{{em dash}}the study of the Christian doctrine of the ]{{em dash}}as well as ] (study of ]).{{sfn|Meyendorff|1989|pp=190–192, 198, 257, 362}}{{sfn|Daley|2009|pp=342–345}}


===In Christian triadology=== ===Triadology===
In Christian triadology three specific theological concepts have emerged throughout history,{{sfn|Ramelli|2012|pp=302–350}} in reference to number and mutual relations of divine hypostases: In Christian triadology, three specific theological concepts have emerged throughout history in reference to the number and interrelationship of the ''hypostases'':{{sfn|Ramelli|2012|pp=302–350}}
* the ''Monohypostatic'' (or ''miahypostatic'') concept advocates that God has only one hypostasis;{{sfn|Lienhard|1993|pp=97–99}}{{sfn|Bulgakov|2009|pp=82, 143–144}}
* the ''Dyohypostatic'' concept advocates that God has two hypostases (Father and Son);{{sfn|Lienhard|1993|pp=94–97}}
* the ''Trihypostatic'' concept advocates that God has three hypostases (], ] and the ]).{{sfn|Bulgakov|2009|pp=15, 143, 147}}
Origen "taught that there were three ''hypostases'' within the Godhead."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|185}} "Arius&nbsp;... spoke readily of the hypostases of Father, Son and Holy Spirit."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|187}} ], a leading ], "said that there were three hypostases."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|187}}


==== Monohypostatic ====
Eustathius and Marcellus promoted a monohypostatic interpretation of the Nicene Creed;<ref name="Hanson 1988">{{cite book |last=Hanson |first1=Richard P. C |url=https://archive.org/details/searchforchristi0000hans/page/235/mode/1up |title=The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318–381 |publisher=Baker Academic |year=1988 |location=Grand Rapids, Michigan |page=235 |quote=If we are to take the ] at its face value, the theology of Eustathius and Marcellus was the theology which triumphed at Nicaea. That creed admits the possibility of only one ''ousia'' and one ''hypostasis''. This was the hallmark of the theology of these two men. |access-date=2023-12-01}}</ref>{{rp|235}} They were ]: "It seems most likely that Eustathius was primarily deposed for the heresy of Sabellianism."<ref name="Hanson 1988" />{{rp|211}} Marcellus of Ancyra "cannot be acquitted of Sabellianism".<ref name="hansonmarcellus"></ref>
The ''monohypostatic'' (or ''miahypostatic'') concept advocates that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one single ''hypostasis''{{sfn|Lienhard|1993|pp=97–99}}{{sfn|Bulgakov|2009|pp=82, 143–144}} in a single ''ousia''{{em dash}}meaning that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single ]. Historically, there were variations of this view:


* The second-century ] believed that "Father" and "Son" are two names for the same God.{{Citation needed|date=August 2024}}
The "clear inference from usage" is that "there is only one hypostasis in God."<ref name=":1">{{Cite book |last=Ayres |first=Lewis |title=Nicaea and its legacy |year=2004}}</ref>{{rp|48}} The ] also preferred a one hypostasis theology: " had attended the Council of Serdica among the Western bishops in 343, and a formal letter of that Council had emphatically opted for the belief in one, and only one, ''hypostasis'' as orthodoxy. Athanasius certainly accepted this doctrine at least up to 359, even though he tried later to suppress this fact."<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last=Hanson |first=Richard P. C |title=The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318–381 |year=1987}}</ref>{{rp|444}}
* In the third century, ] taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three parts of one ''hypostasis''.{{Citation needed|date=August 2024}}
* In the fourth century, ] and ] believed that the Son is ''part'' of the Father. Similarly, the ] at Serdica described the Son as "the Father's 'true' '''Wisdom''', Power, and '''Word'''" (Ayres, p. 125), meaning he is the Father's ''only'' Wisdom and Word.{{Citation needed|date=August 2024}}


Among the pre-Nicene Church Fathers, "] ... said that it is wrong to divide the divine monarchy 'into three ... separated ''hypostases'' ... people who hold this in effect produce three gods'."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|185}}
Both traditional Trinity doctrine and the Arians taught three distinct hypostases in the Godhead. The difference is that, in the Trinity doctrine, they are one '']'' ('substance').


In the fourth century, Sabellians<ref name="revjesussabellian">{{cite web | url=https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/sabellians/ | title=The Sabellians of the Fourth Century | date=March 2024 }}</ref> (such as Eustathius<ref>“It seems most likely that Eustathius was primarily deposed for the heresy of Sabellianism.” (Hanson, p. 211)</ref> and Marcellus,<ref>“Marcellus of Ancyra had produced a theology … which could quite properly be called Sabellian.” (Hanson, p. ix)</ref><ref name=":2">“If we are to take the ] at its face value, the theology of Eustathius and Marcellus was the theology which triumphed at Nicaea. That creed admits the possibility of only one ''ousia'' and one ''hypostasis''. This was the hallmark of the theology of these two men.” Hanson, RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God -
===Hypostasis and ousia===
{{close paraphrase|section|source=''The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church''|date=January 2022}}


The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987, p. 235</ref>), Alexander,<ref>"The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius insists there is only one ''hypostasis.''“ (Ayres, p. 69)</ref> Athanasius,<ref>The “clear inference from his (Athanasius') usage” is that “there is only '''one hypostasis''' in God.” (Ayres, Nicaea and its legacy, 2004, p. 48)</ref><ref name="revjesusalexatha">{{cite web | url=https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/alexander-and-athanasius/ | title=Athanasius was not a Trinitarian. He was a Unitarian | date=6 May 2024 }}</ref> and the Western Church<ref>“He had attended the Council of Serdica among the Western bishops in 343, and a formal letter of that Council had emphatically opted for the belief in one, and only one, ''hypostasis'' as orthodoxy. Athanasius certainly accepted this doctrine at least up to 359, even though he tried later to suppress this fact.” (Hanson, p. 444)</ref> taught a single hypostasis in God. The "clear inference from usage" is that "there is only one hypostasis in God."<ref>Lewis Ayres, p. 48</ref> Some leading scholars claim that even the Nicene Creed professes a 'one hypostasis' theology.<ref name=":2" />
==== Nicene Creed ====
"One of the most striking aspects of Nicaea in comparison to surviving baptismal creeds from the period, and even in comparison to the creed which survives from the council of Antioch in early 325, is its use of the technical terminology of ''ousia'' and ''hypostasis''."<ref name=":1" />{{rp|92}}


==== Dyohypostatic ====
"Considerable confusion existed about the use of the terms ''hypostasis'' and ''ousia'' at the period when the Arian Controversy broke out."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|181}} "The ambiguous anathema in N (the Nicene Creed) against those who believe that the Son is 'from another ''hypostasis'' or ''ousia'' than the Father'&nbsp;... (is one example) of this unfortunate semantic misunderstanding."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|181}} R.&nbsp;P.&nbsp;C.&nbsp;Hanson says that the Nicene Creed "apparently (but not quite certainly) identifies ''hypostasis'' and ''ousia''."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|188}}
The ''Dyohypostatic'' concept advocates that God has two hypostases (Father and Son);{{sfn|Lienhard|1993|pp=94–97}} When the fourth-century Controversy began, the focus was only on the Son, not on the Holy Spirit.<ref>“The Council of Nicaea adverted to the Holy Spirit in what might seem like a mere afterthought: ‘And we believe in the Holy Spirit.’” (Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea, 2011, p. 28)</ref> Later in that century, some groups, such as the ], accepted the Son as fully divine but not the Holy Spirit.<ref>E.g., “the Macedonians also believed in the full divinity of the Son, under the rubric of ‘likeness of essence’, but withheld both worship and confession of divinity from the Spirit.” (Anatolios, p. 28-9)</ref> This is why in AD 381, during the ], the Nicene Creed{{Citation needed|date=August 2024}} was revised to be explicit, the final word, on the deity of the Holy Spirit.<ref>{{cite book|author=Lewis Ayres|title=Nicaea and its legacy: an approach to fourth-century Trinitarian theology|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CYbDjXRz5-0C&pg=PA254|access-date=1 July 2024|date=3 May 2006|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-875505-0}}</ref>


==== Trinitarian doctrine ==== ==== Trihypostatic ====
The ''Trihypostatic'' (tri=three; hypo=upon; static = a stationary situation of being such that it grounds upon which forces arises?) concept, that is, idea, advocates that God has three of these spaces (], ] and the ]),{{sfn|Bulgakov|2009|pp=15, 143, 147}} each having the same ''ousia'', that is (i.e.), one Divine nature or true being, substance, being, existence After Sabellianism was condemned in the third century, Origen's three-hypostases view dominated.<ref>"Origen "used ''hypostasis'' and ''ousia'' freely as interchangeable terms to describe the Son's distinct reality within the Godhead. ... He taught that there were three ''hypostases'' within the Godhead." (Hanson, p. 184)</ref> The Eusebians (traditionally but erroneously called 'Arians')<ref>{{Cite web |last=Niekerk |first=Andries van |date=2023-05-15 |title=Athanasius invented Arianism. |url=https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/little-writings/ |access-date=2024-08-26 |website=From Daniel to Revelation |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>“My second theological trajectory ... I will term ‘Eusebian’. When I use this term I mean to designate any who would have found common ground with ''either'' of Arius’ most prominent supporters, Eusebius of Nicomedia or Eusebius of Caesarea.” (Ayres, p. 52)</ref> believed in three hypostases.<ref>Arius had a “strong commitment to belief in three distinct divine hypostases.” (Williams, Rowan, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987, p. 97)</ref><ref>“Asterius (a leading Eusebian) insists also that Father, Son, and Spirit are three ''hypostases.''” (Ayres, p. 54)</ref> The leaders of the Eusebians were Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia. In this view, Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct minds. For example, the Eastern ] says, "They are three in ''hypostasis'' but one in agreement." (Hanson, p. 286) "Agreement" implies distinct minds.{{Citation needed|date=August 2024}}
Hanson described Trinitarian doctrine, as developed through the fourth-century ], as follows:
<blockquote>"The champions of the Nicene faith&nbsp;... developed a doctrine of God as a Trinity, as one substance or ousia who existed as three hypostases, three distinct realities or entities (I refrain from using the misleading word 'Person'), three ways of being or modes of existing as God." </blockquote>
Hanson explains hypostases as 'realities', 'entities', 'ways of being', and 'modes of existing' but says that the term ''person'' is misleading. ''Person'', as used in English, where each person is a distinct entity with his or her own mind and will, is not equivalent to the concept of hypostasis in the "doctrine of God as a Trinity."


There were also variations of the 'three hypostases' view. "What is conventionally regarded as the key-word in the Creed homoousion, falls completely out of the controversy very shortly after the Council of Nicaea and is not heard of for over twenty years." (Hanson Lecture) Athanasius re-introduced the term into the debate in the 350s, some 30 years after Nicaea.<ref>“It is not until he (Athanasius) writes the De Decretis (356 or 357) that Athanasius again mentions the word and begins to defend it.” (Hanson, p. 436)</ref><ref>“Athanasius’ decision to make Nicaea and ''homoousios'' central to his theology has its origins in the shifting climate of the 350s.” (Ayres, p. 144)</ref> This caused the Eusebians to divide into various views. Some said the Father's and Son's substances are unlike (heterousios). Others said their substances are similar (homoiousios). Still others refused to talk about substance (the ]).{{Citation needed|date=August 2024}}
But the main point of the definition is that God is one "''ousia'' who existed as three ''hypostases''." The purpose here is to show that the Nicene Creed probably uses these terms as synonyms but that their meanings were changed to enable the formulation of the central doctrine of the Trinity.


The Cappadocian fathers were the first pro-Nicenes to believe in three hypostases. For example, Basil of Caesarea said that the Son's statements that he does the will of the Father "is '''not because He lacks deliberate purpose or power of initiation'''" but because "'''His own will''' is connected in indissoluble union with the Father."<ref>Basil in his treatise, "De Spiritu Sancto"</ref>
==== Greek philosophy ====
These terms originate from Greek philosophy, where they had essentially the same meaning and meant the fundamental reality that supports all else. In a Christian context, this concept may refer to ''God'' or the ''Ultimate Reality''.


This dispute about the number of hypostases in God was at . Both traditional Trinity doctrine and the Arians taught three distinct hypostases in the Godhead. The difference is that, in the Trinity doctrine, they are one also identified as a single Being.{{Citation needed|date=August 2024}}
==== The Bible ====
According to Hanson, "the only strictly theological use (of the word hypostasis) is that of ], where the Son is described as 'the impression of the nature' of God."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|182}} "The word also occurs twenty times in the ] (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament), but only one of them can be regarded as theologically significant. ... At Wisdom 16:21 the writer speaks of God's ''hypostasis'', meaning his nature; and no doubt this is why Hebrews uses the term 'impression of his nature'."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|182}}


===Hypostasis and ousia===
The Bible never refers to God's ''ousia''.
{{close paraphrase|section|source=''The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church''|date=January 2022}}
Hypostasis is the individual aspect of ousia, this means ousia is the parent characteristic that is shared by the hypostasis under it. Ousia can be shared by numerous hypostases, as hypostasis is the individual expression of that ousia just how ego is an expression of the underlying soul. In this case it's clear to see that the ego and the soul are seemingly different as well as the same thing for the ego is not without the soul, they can however coexist. Ousia is the nature of that existence and all things that exist have ousia, as it's the nature of that existence in the way that it exists. Ousia is what makes a rock a rock and hypostasis is the various kinds of rocks; ousia is the form as well as nature of particles that construct an entity in the case of physical phenomena. On the other hand for spiritual phenomena it's the level of presence & creative force that differentiates one ousia from another. Like it has been said earlier this nature of existence(ousia) maybe shared by various hypostasis or instances of ousia.{{Citation needed|date=August 2024}}


Hypostasis is not the same as type or part, a Hypostasis holds all the nature described by its ousia. This means the ousia is equally possessed by each hypostasis & in that sense they are all the same. Each hypostasis is one as well as many at once. This is because all of them hold the same ousia, the difference is in their expressions of it.{{Citation needed|date=August 2024}}
==== Early Church Fathers ====
In ] writings, hypostasis was used to denote 'being' or 'substantive reality' and was not always distinguished in meaning from terms like ''ousia'' ('essence'), ] ('substance') or ] (specific term in ]).{{sfn|Meyendorff|1989|p=173}} It was used in this way by ] and ].{{sfn|Ramelli|2012|pp=302–350}}


==== Greek philosophy ====
"Tertullian at the turn of the second to the third centuries had already used the Latin word ''substantia'' (substance) of God&nbsp;... God therefore had a body and indeed was located at the outer boundaries of space.&nbsp;... It was possible for Tertullian to think of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit sharing this substance, so that the relationship of the Three is, in a highly refined sense, corporeal.&nbsp;... He can use the expression {{lang|la|Unius substantiae}} ('of one substance'). This has led some scholars to see Tertullian as an exponent of Nicene orthodoxy before Nicaea&nbsp;... But this is a far from plausible theory. Tertullian's materialism is&nbsp;... a totally different thing from any ideas of ''ousia'' or ''homoousios'' canvassed during the fourth century."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|184}}
These terms originate from Greek philosophy,<ref>Referring to the Nicene Creed, R.P.C. Hanson describes them as “the new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day.” (Hanson, p. 846)</ref> where they essentially had the same meaning, namely, the fundamental reality that supports all else. In a Christian context, this concept may refer to ''God'' or the ''Ultimate Reality''.{{Citation needed|date=August 2024}}


===== During Arian controversy ===== ==== The Bible ====
The Bible never refers to God's ''ousia'' and only once to God's ''hypostasis'' (Hebrews 1:3).<ref>"The only strictly theological use (of the word hypostasis) is that of Hebrews 1:3, where the Son is described as 'the impression of the nature' of God. (Hanson, p. 182)</ref><ref>"The word also occurs twenty times in the ] (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament), but only one of them can be regarded as theologically significant. ... At Wisdom 16:21 the writer speaks of God's ''hypostasis'', meaning his nature; and no doubt this is why Hebrews uses the term 'impression of his nature'.” (Hanson, p. 182)</ref> In Hebrews 1:3, it is not clear whether ''hypostasis'' refers to God's nature or His entire 'Person' (hypostasis) and is variously translated.{{Citation needed|date=August 2024}}
When the Arian controversy began, ''hypostasis'' and ''ousia'' were synonyms:
<blockquote>"For many people at the beginning of the fourth century the word ''hypostasis'' and the word ''ousia'' had pretty well the same meaning."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|181}} "For at least the first half of the period 318–381, and in some cases considerably later, ''ousia'' and ''hypostasis'' are used as virtual synonyms."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|183}}</blockquote>
Therefore, when dealing with documents from or before the beginning of the Arian controversy:
<blockquote> did not mean, and should not be translated, 'person' and 'substance', as they were used when at last the confusion was cleared up and these two distinct meanings were permanently attached to these words.<ref name=":0" />{{rp|181}}</blockquote>
Even for Athanasius, some decades after the controversy began, "''hypostasis'' and ''ousia'' were still synonymous."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|440}}


==== Alternative views ==== ==== Early Church Fathers ====
In ] writings, hypostasis was used to denote 'being' or 'substantive reality' and was not always distinguished in meaning from terms like ''ousia'' ('essence'), ] ('substance') or ] (specific term in ]).{{sfn|Meyendorff|1989|p=173}} It was used in this way by ] and ].{{sfn|Ramelli|2012|pp=302–350}} Tertullian, writing in Latin, did not use the Greek terms hypostasis and ousia but he did use the related term ''substantia.''<ref>"Tertullian at the turn of the second to the third centuries had already used the Latin word ''substantia'' (substance) of God&nbsp;... God therefore had a body and indeed was located at the outer boundaries of space.&nbsp;... It was possible for Tertullian to think of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit sharing this substance, so that the relationship of the Three is, in a highly refined sense, corporeal.&nbsp;... He can use the expression {{lang|la|Unius substantiae}} ('of one substance'). This has led some scholars to see Tertullian as an exponent of Nicene orthodoxy before Nicaea&nbsp;... But this is a far from plausible theory. Tertullian's materialism is&nbsp;... a totally different thing from any ideas of ''ousia'' or ''homoousios'' canvassed during the fourth century." (Hanson, p. 184)</ref>
Among those who regarded them as synonyms, two groups may be identified:


===== Three hypostases ===== ==== Nicene Creed ====
The Nicene Creed of 325, in one of its anathemas, used the terms hypostasis and ousia: <blockquote>"But as for those ... who assert that the Son of God is of a different '''hypostasis or substance''' ... these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes." ()</blockquote>These terms were not used by any previous creed.<ref>“One of the most striking aspects of Nicaea in comparison to surviving baptismal creeds from the period, and even in comparison to the creed which survives from the council of Antioch in early 325, is its use of the technical terminology of ''ousia'' and ''hypostasis''.” (Ayres, p. 92)</ref> At the time of the Nicene Creed, different people used these terms differently.<ref>“Considerable confusion existed about the use of the terms hypostasis and ousia at the period when the Arian Controversy broke out.” (Hanson, p. 181)</ref> Many used them as synonyms.<ref>“For many people at the beginning of the fourth century the word ''hypostasis'' and the word ''ousia'' had pretty well the same meaning.” (Hanson, p. 181)</ref> Importantly, Athanasius, the main custodian of the Nicene Creed, also used these terms as synonyms.<ref>"Clearly for him ''hypostasis'' and ''ousia'' were still synonymous." (Hanson, 440)</ref> It is, therefore, not surprising that one of the anathemas in the Creed seems to use these terms as synonyms.<ref>Ayres refers to “the seeming equation of ''ousia'' and ''hypostasis''. (Ayres, p. 88)</ref><ref>R.P.C. Hanson says the Nicene Creed "apparently (but not quite certainly) identifies hypostasis and ''ousia''.” (Hanson, p. 188)</ref> However, since they were used as synonyms, the Early Church Texts, which translates ousia as 'substance' is misleading. As mentioned below, the meanings of these terms changed during the Arian Controversy and what Early Church Texts does is to apply the later developed meanings of these terms to the Nicene Creed:<blockquote> "did not mean, and should not be translated, 'person' and 'substance', as they were used when at last the confusion was cleared up and these two distinct meanings were permanently attached to these words."<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last=Hanson |first=Richard P. C |title=The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318–381 |year=1987}}</ref>{{rp|181}}</blockquote>
One group said that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three ''hypostases'' (three distinct realities), each with his own ''ousia'':
<blockquote>Among the pre-Nicene church fathers, Origen "used ''hypostasis'' and ''ousia'' freely as interchangeable terms to describe the Son's distinct reality within the Godhead.&nbsp;... He taught that there were three ''hypostases'' within the Godhead.".<ref name=":0" />{{rp|185}} As examples from the fourth century, Hanson includes Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia, two of the main anti-Nicenes.</blockquote>

===== One hypostasis =====
The other group said that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one single ''hypostasis'' and one ''ousia'', meaning that they are one single reality or being:
<blockquote>Among the pre-Nicene church fathers, "Dionysius of Rome&nbsp;... said that it is wrong to divide the divine monarchy 'into three&nbsp;... separated ''hypostases''&nbsp;... people who hold this in effect produce three gods'."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|185}} In the fourth century, the Sabellians Eustathian and Marcellus] were famous for this teaching.<ref name="revjesussabellian"></ref> It is argued that Athanasius also fell into this category. It is argued that Athanasius also fell into this category.<ref name="revjesusalexatha"></ref> The "clear inference from usage" is that "there is only one hypostasis in God." (LA, 48)</blockquote>

==== Distinction by Arians ====
It is often said that the first person to propose a difference in the meanings of hypostasis and ousia, and for using hypostasis as synonym of ''person'', was ],<ref>{{Cite web |last=Johannes |date=2018-03-31 |title=Ousía and hypostasis from the philosophers to the councils |url=http://ousiakaihypostasis.blogspot.com/ |access-date=2021-09-23 |website=Ousía and hypostasis from the philosophers to the councils}}</ref> namely in his letters 214 (375 A.D.)<ref>{{Cite web |title=St Basil the Great, Letters – Third Part – Full text, in English – 1 |url=https://www.elpenor.org/basil/letters-3.asp |access-date=2021-09-23 |website=www.elpenor.org}}</ref> and 236 (376 A.D.)<ref>{{Cite web |title=St Basil the Great, Letters – Third Part – Full text, in English – 39 |url=https://www.elpenor.org/basil/letters-3.asp?pg=39 |access-date=2021-09-23 |website=www.elpenor.org}}</ref> However Hanson, in his discussion of the two terms, stated that some Arians had already made this distinction decades before Basil:
<blockquote>With respect to Arius, Hanson wrote: "It seems likely that he was one of the few during this period who did not confuse the two." "Arius&nbsp;... spoke readily of the hypostases of Father, Son and Holy Spirit" but "no doubt he believed that the Father and the Son were of unlike substance."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|187}} Speaking of another prominent Arian, Hanson says: "Asterius certainly taught that the Father and the Son were distinct and different in their ''hypostases''.&#x20;... But he also described the Son as 'the exact image of the ''ousia'' and counsel and glory and power' of the Father. Once again we find a writer who clearly did not confuse ''ousia'' and ''hypostasis''."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|187}}</blockquote>Asterius is called an Arian but, as indicated by the quote above, "he thought that the resemblance of the Son to the Father was closer than Arius conceived."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|187}}


==== Cappadocian Fathers ==== ==== Cappadocian Fathers ====
As stated, when the Arian controversy began and for much of the fourth century, ''hypostasis'' and ''ousia'' were synonyms.<ref>"For at least the first half of the period 318–381, and in some cases considerably later, ''ousia'' and ''hypostasis'' are used as virtual synonyms." (Hanson, p. 183)</ref> However, later in that century, a clear distinction was made between the two terms.<ref>“It is only much later in the century that the two are more clearly distinguished by some.” (Ayres, p. 98)</ref><ref>“When at last the confusion was cleared up and these two distinct meanings were permanently attached to these words,” hypostasis and ousia respectively meant “'person' and 'substance'.” (Hanson, p. 181)</ref> The three ], Basil of Caesarea (330 to 379), Gregory of Nazianzus (329 to 389), and Gregory of Nyssa (335 to about 395) who was one of Basil's younger brothers,<ref name=":0" />{{rp|676}} are traditionally credited for being the first to make a clear distinction between ousia and hypostasis, particularly Basil of Caesarea,<ref>Basil “is often identified” with the “distinction between a unitary shared nature at one level, and the personal distinctions of Father, Son, and Spirit at another.” (Ayres, p. 190-191)</ref><ref>“The first person to propose a difference in the meanings of hypostasis and ousía ... was Basil of Caesarea.” (Johannes, Ousía and hypostasis from the philosophers to the councils)</ref><ref>"Basil uses hypostasis to mean 'Person of the Trinity' as distinguished from 'substance' which is usually expressed as either ousia or 'nature' (physis) or 'substratum'." (Hanson, p. 690-691)</ref><ref>"Basil's most distinguished contribution towards the resolving of the dispute about the Christian doctrine of God was in his clarification of the vocabulary." (Hanson, p. 690)</ref> namely in his letters 214 (375 AD)<ref>{{Cite web |title=St Basil the Great, Letters – Third Part – Full text, in English – 1 |url=https://www.elpenor.org/basil/letters-3.asp |access-date=2021-09-23 |website=www.elpenor.org}}</ref> and 236 (376 AD)<ref>{{Cite web |title=St Basil the Great, Letters – Third Part – Full text, in English – 39 |url=https://www.elpenor.org/basil/letters-3.asp?pg=39 |access-date=2021-09-23 |website=www.elpenor.org}}</ref>
The three ] are Basil of Caesarea (330 to 379), Gregory of Nazianzus (329 to 389), and Gregory of Nyssa (335 to about 395) who was one of Basil's younger brothers.<ref name=":0" />{{rp|676}}

"Basil's most distinguished contribution towards the resolving of the dispute about the Christian doctrine of God was in his clarification of the vocabulary."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|690}}

"Basil uses hypostasis to mean 'Person of the Trinity' as distinguished from 'substance' which is usually expressed as either ousia or 'nature' (physis) or 'substratum'."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|690–691}}

==== Not one undivided substance ====
However, the Cappadocians did not yet understand God as one undivided ousia (substance), as in the Trinity doctrine. They said that the Father, Son, and Spirit have exactly the same type of substance, but each has his own substance. This can be shown as follows:

===== Unalterably like in respect of ''ousia'' =====
Basil began his career as theologian as a Homoiousian. He therefore believed similar to other Homoiousians, that the Son's substance is similar to the Father's:
<blockquote>" came from what might be called an 'Homoiousian' background." (RH, 699) Therefore, "the doctrine of 'like in respect of ousia' was one which they could accept, or at least take as a starting point, and which caused them no uneasiness."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|678}}</blockquote>
This means that Basil believed in two distinct hypostases with similar substances. Later, he replaced the concept of 'similar substance' with 'exactly the same substance' but retained the idea of two distinct hypostases:
<blockquote>He says that in his own view '<nowiki/>'''like in respect of ''ousia'''''<nowiki/>' (the slogan of the party of Basil of Ancyra) was an acceptable formula, provided that the word '<nowiki/>'''unalterably'''<nowiki/>' was added to it, for then it would be equivalent to ''homoousios''." "Basil himself prefers homoousios." "Basil has moved away from but has not completely repudiated his origins.<ref name=":0" />{{rp|694}}</blockquote>
This also meant that Basil understood homoousios in a generic sense of two beings with the same type of substance, rather than two beings sharing one single substance.


However, Arius and Asterius were two Eusebians who made that distinction much earlier.<ref>Arius used hypostasis for 'Person'. For example, he “spoke readily of the hypostases of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And he said that the ''hypostases'' of Father, Son and Holy Spirit “were different in kind and in rank.” (Hanson, p. 187) But he used ousia for "substance.“ He wrote, for example, “The ''Logos'' is alien and unlike in all respects to the Father's ''ousia.''” (Hanson, p. 186) “It seems likely that he was one of the few during this period who did not confuse the two.” (Hanson, p. 187)</ref><ref>Asterius, another leading 'Arian', “clearly did not confuse ousia and hypostasis.” He used hypostasis for ‘Person’. For example, he “said that there were three hypostases” and “certainly taught that the Father and the Son were distinct and different in their hypostases.” But he used ousia for 'substance'. For example, "he also described the Son as 'the exact image of the ''ousia'' and counsel and glory and power' of the Father.” (Hanson, p. 187)</ref> However, Basil of Caesarea was the first pro-Nicene to make that distinction. While Basil was a , Athanasius and the earlier pro-Nicene theologians were and did not need a distinction between hypostasis and ousia.
===== The general and the particular =====
Basil of Caesarea explains that the distinction between ''ousia'' and ''hypostases'' is the same as that between the general and the particular; as, for instance, between the animal and the particular man:
<blockquote>He wrote: "That relation which the general has to the particular, such a relation has the ousia to the hypostasis."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|692}}


However, the Cappadocians did not yet understand God as one undivided ousia (substance), as in the Trinity doctrine. They said that the Father, Son, and Spirit have exactly the same type of substance, but each has his own substance. Basil began his career as theologian as a Homoiousian. As such, he believed that the Son's substance is similar to the Father's,<ref>" came from what might be called an 'Homoiousian' background." (Hanson, p. 699) Therefore, "the doctrine of 'like in respect of ousia' was one which they could accept, or at least take as a starting point, and which caused them no uneasiness." (Hanson, p. 678)</ref> meaning two distinct hypostases. Later, after he had accepted homoousios (same substance), he retained the idea of two distinct hypostases:<blockquote>He says that in his own view '<nowiki/>'''like in respect of ''ousia'''''<nowiki/>' (the slogan of the party of Basil of Ancyra) was an acceptable formula, provided that the word '<nowiki/>'''unalterably'''<nowiki/>' was added to it, for then it would be equivalent to ''homoousios''." "Basil himself prefers homoousios." "Basil has moved away from but has not completely repudiated his origins.<ref name=":0" />{{rp|694}}</blockquote>
"In the ''DSS'' discusses the idea that the distinction between the Godhead and the Persons is that between an abstract essence, such as humanity, and its concrete manifestations, such as man."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|698}}
This means that Basil understood homoousios in a generic sense of two beings with the same type of substance, rather than two beings sharing one single substance. Consequently, he explained that the distinction between ''ousia'' and ''hypostases'' is the same as that between the general and the particular; as, for instance, between the animal and the particular man.<ref>He wrote: "That relation which the general has to the particular, such a relation has the ousia to the hypostasis." (Hanson, p. 692)</ref><ref>"He can compare the relation of ''ousia'' to ''hypostasis'' to that of 'living being' to a particular man and apply this distinction directly to the three Persons of the Trinity." This suggests "that the three are each particular examples of a 'generic' Godhead." (Hanson, p. 692)</ref><blockquote>"In the ''DSS'' discusses the idea that the distinction between the Godhead and the Persons is that between an abstract essence, such as humanity, and its concrete manifestations, such as man."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|698}}</blockquote>
Basil "argued that was preferable because it actually '''excluded identity of ''hypostases'''''. This, with the instances which we have already seen in which Basil compared the relation of ''hypostasis'' to ''ousia'' in the Godhead to that of particular to general, or of a man to 'living beings', forms the strongest argument for Harnack's ''hypothesis''."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|697}} "Harnack ... argued that Basil and all the Cappadocians interpreted ''homoousios'' only in a 'generic' sense ... that unity of substance was turned into equality of substance."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|696}}


==== Doctrine of the Trinity ====
"Elsewhere he can compare the relation of ''ousia'' to ''hypostasis'' to that of 'living being' to a particular man and apply this distinction directly to the three Persons of the Trinity." This suggests "that the three are each particular examples of a 'generic' Godhead."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|692}}</blockquote>
The terms ousia and hypostasis are foundational in the Trinity doctrine. Hanson described the traditional Trinity doctrine as follows:
Basil "argued that was preferable because it actually '''excluded identity of ''hypostases'''''. This, with the instances which we have already seen in which Basil compared the relation of ''hypostasis'' to ''ousia'' in the Godhead to that of particular to general, or of a man to 'living beings', forms the strongest argument for Harnack's ''hypothesis''."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|697}} "Harnack&nbsp;... argued that Basil and all the Cappadocians interpreted ''homoousios'' only in a 'generic' sense&nbsp;... that unity of substance was turned into equality of substance."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|696}}
<blockquote>"The champions of the Nicene faith ... developed a doctrine of God as a Trinity, as one substance or ousia who existed as three hypostases, three distinct realities or entities (I refrain from using the misleading word 'Person'), three ways of being or modes of existing as God."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Niekerk |first=Andries van |date=2021-11-26 |title=RPC Hanson - A lecture on the Arian Controversy |url=https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/hanson/#dest |access-date=2024-08-26 |website=From Daniel to Revelation |language=en-US}}</ref> </blockquote>
Hanson explains hypostases as 'ways of being' or 'modes of existing' but says that the term 'person' is misleading. As the term is used in English, each 'person' is a distinct entity with his or her own mind and will. This is not equivalent to the concept of hypostasis in the Trinity doctrine because, in that doctrine, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are a single Being with a single mind. For example, ], a leading catholic scholar, said:{{Citation needed|date=August 2024}}<blockquote>"The element of '''consciousness''' ... does not belong to it in our context ." "But there exists in God only one power, '''one will''', only '''one self-presence'''. ... Hence '''self-awareness''' is not a moment which distinguishes the divine "persons" one from the other."</blockquote>


==== Later developments ==== ==== Later developments ====
Consensus was not achieved without some confusion at first in the minds of Western theologians since in the West the vocabulary was different.{{sfn|Weedman|2007|pp=95–97}} Many Latin-speaking theologians understood ''hypo-stasis'' as 'sub-stantia' (]); thus when speaking of three ''hypostases'' in the ], they may have suspected three ''substances'' or ]. However, after the mid-fifth-century ], the word came to be contrasted with ''ousia'' and was used to mean 'individual reality', especially in the trinitarian and ] contexts. The Christian concept of the Trinity is often described as being ] existing in three distinct ''hypostases/personae/persons''.<ref>{{citation|last=González|first=Justo L|author-link=Justo L. González|title=Essential Theological Terms|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DU6RNDrfd-0C|year=2005|publisher=Westminster John Knox Press|location=Louisville|isbn=978-0664228101|pages=80–81|chapter=Hypostasis}}</ref> Consensus was not achieved without some confusion at first in the minds of Western theologians since in the West the vocabulary was different.{{sfn|Weedman|2007|pp=95–97}} Many Latin-speaking theologians understood ''hypo-stasis'' as 'sub-stantia' (]); thus when speaking of three ''hypostases'' in the ], they may have suspected three ''substances'' or ]. However, after the mid-fifth-century ], the word came to be contrasted with ''ousia'' and was used to mean 'individual reality', especially in the trinitarian and ] contexts. The Christian concept of the Trinity is often described as being ] existing in three distinct ''hypostases/personae/persons''.<ref>{{citation|last=González|first=Justo L|author-link=Justo L. González|title=Essential Theological Terms|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DU6RNDrfd-0C|year=2005|publisher=Westminster John Knox Press|location=Louisville|isbn=978-0664228101|pages=80–81|chapter=Hypostasis}}</ref>


===In Christology=== ===Nature of Christ===
Within ], two specific theological concepts have emerged throughout history, in reference to the Hypostasis of ]: Within ], two specific theological concepts have emerged throughout history, in reference to the Hypostasis of ]:
* monohypostatic concept (in Christology) advocates that Christ has only one hypostasis;{{sfn|McGuckin|2011|p=57}} * Monohypostatic concept advocates that Christ has only one hypostasis;{{sfn|McGuckin|2011|p=57}}
* dyohypostatic concept (in Christology) advocates that Christ has two hypostases (divine and human).{{sfn|Kuhn|2019|p=}} * Dyohypostatic concept advocates that Christ has two hypostases (divine and human).{{sfn|Kuhn|2019|p=}}


=== John Calvin's views === === John Calvin's views ===

Latest revision as of 19:01, 16 December 2024

Underlying state or underlying substance

Hypostasis (plural: hypostases), from the Greek ὑπόστασις (hypóstasis), is the underlying, fundamental state or substance that supports all of reality. It is not the same as the concept of a substance. In Neoplatonism, the hypostasis of the soul, the intellect (nous) and "the one" was addressed by Plotinus. In Christian theology, the Holy Trinity consists of three hypostases: that of the Father, that of the Son, and that of the Holy Spirit.

Ancient Greek philosophy

Pseudo-Aristotle used "hypostasis" in the sense of material substance.

Neoplatonists argue that beneath the surface phenomena that present themselves to our senses are three higher spiritual principles (or hypostases): each one more sublime than the preceding. For Plotinus, these are the Soul, the Intellect, and the One.

Christian theology

Italo-Greek icon, representing the Holy Trinity, Venice (16th century)
See also: Hypostatic union

The term hypostasis has particular significance in Christian theology; particularly in Christian triadology—the study of the Christian doctrine of the trinity—as well as Christology (study of Christ).

Triadology

In Christian triadology, three specific theological concepts have emerged throughout history in reference to the number and interrelationship of the hypostases:

Monohypostatic

The monohypostatic (or miahypostatic) concept advocates that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one single hypostasis in a single ousia—meaning that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Person. Historically, there were variations of this view:

  • The second-century Monarchians believed that "Father" and "Son" are two names for the same God.
  • In the third century, Sabellius taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three parts of one hypostasis.
  • In the fourth century, Alexander and Athanasius believed that the Son is part of the Father. Similarly, the Western manifesto at Serdica described the Son as "the Father's 'true' Wisdom, Power, and Word" (Ayres, p. 125), meaning he is the Father's only Wisdom and Word.

Among the pre-Nicene Church Fathers, "Dionysius of Rome ... said that it is wrong to divide the divine monarchy 'into three ... separated hypostases ... people who hold this in effect produce three gods'."

In the fourth century, Sabellians (such as Eustathius and Marcellus,), Alexander, Athanasius, and the Western Church taught a single hypostasis in God. The "clear inference from usage" is that "there is only one hypostasis in God." Some leading scholars claim that even the Nicene Creed professes a 'one hypostasis' theology.

Dyohypostatic

The Dyohypostatic concept advocates that God has two hypostases (Father and Son); When the fourth-century Controversy began, the focus was only on the Son, not on the Holy Spirit. Later in that century, some groups, such as the Macedonians, accepted the Son as fully divine but not the Holy Spirit. This is why in AD 381, during the First Council of Constantinople, the Nicene Creed was revised to be explicit, the final word, on the deity of the Holy Spirit.

Trihypostatic

The Trihypostatic (tri=three; hypo=upon; static = a stationary situation of being such that it grounds upon which forces arises?) concept, that is, idea, advocates that God has three of these spaces (Father, Son and the Holy Spirit), each having the same ousia, that is (i.e.), one Divine nature or true being, substance, being, existence After Sabellianism was condemned in the third century, Origen's three-hypostases view dominated. The Eusebians (traditionally but erroneously called 'Arians') believed in three hypostases. The leaders of the Eusebians were Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia. In this view, Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct minds. For example, the Eastern Dedication Creed says, "They are three in hypostasis but one in agreement." (Hanson, p. 286) "Agreement" implies distinct minds.

There were also variations of the 'three hypostases' view. "What is conventionally regarded as the key-word in the Creed homoousion, falls completely out of the controversy very shortly after the Council of Nicaea and is not heard of for over twenty years." (Hanson Lecture) Athanasius re-introduced the term into the debate in the 350s, some 30 years after Nicaea. This caused the Eusebians to divide into various views. Some said the Father's and Son's substances are unlike (heterousios). Others said their substances are similar (homoiousios). Still others refused to talk about substance (the Homoians).

The Cappadocian fathers were the first pro-Nicenes to believe in three hypostases. For example, Basil of Caesarea said that the Son's statements that he does the will of the Father "is not because He lacks deliberate purpose or power of initiation" but because "His own will is connected in indissoluble union with the Father."

This dispute about the number of hypostases in God was at the core of the 'Arian' Controversy. Both traditional Trinity doctrine and the Arians taught three distinct hypostases in the Godhead. The difference is that, in the Trinity doctrine, they are one also identified as a single Being.

Hypostasis and ousia

This section contains close paraphrasing of a non-free copyrighted source, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help Misplaced Pages by rewriting this section with your own words. (January 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Hypostasis is the individual aspect of ousia, this means ousia is the parent characteristic that is shared by the hypostasis under it. Ousia can be shared by numerous hypostases, as hypostasis is the individual expression of that ousia just how ego is an expression of the underlying soul. In this case it's clear to see that the ego and the soul are seemingly different as well as the same thing for the ego is not without the soul, they can however coexist. Ousia is the nature of that existence and all things that exist have ousia, as it's the nature of that existence in the way that it exists. Ousia is what makes a rock a rock and hypostasis is the various kinds of rocks; ousia is the form as well as nature of particles that construct an entity in the case of physical phenomena. On the other hand for spiritual phenomena it's the level of presence & creative force that differentiates one ousia from another. Like it has been said earlier this nature of existence(ousia) maybe shared by various hypostasis or instances of ousia.

Hypostasis is not the same as type or part, a Hypostasis holds all the nature described by its ousia. This means the ousia is equally possessed by each hypostasis & in that sense they are all the same. Each hypostasis is one as well as many at once. This is because all of them hold the same ousia, the difference is in their expressions of it.

Greek philosophy

These terms originate from Greek philosophy, where they essentially had the same meaning, namely, the fundamental reality that supports all else. In a Christian context, this concept may refer to God or the Ultimate Reality.

The Bible

The Bible never refers to God's ousia and only once to God's hypostasis (Hebrews 1:3). In Hebrews 1:3, it is not clear whether hypostasis refers to God's nature or His entire 'Person' (hypostasis) and is variously translated.

Early Church Fathers

In early Christian writings, hypostasis was used to denote 'being' or 'substantive reality' and was not always distinguished in meaning from terms like ousia ('essence'), substantia ('substance') or qnoma (specific term in Syriac Christianity). It was used in this way by Tatian and Origen. Tertullian, writing in Latin, did not use the Greek terms hypostasis and ousia but he did use the related term substantia.

Nicene Creed

The Nicene Creed of 325, in one of its anathemas, used the terms hypostasis and ousia:

"But as for those ... who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance ... these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes." (Early Church Texts)

These terms were not used by any previous creed. At the time of the Nicene Creed, different people used these terms differently. Many used them as synonyms. Importantly, Athanasius, the main custodian of the Nicene Creed, also used these terms as synonyms. It is, therefore, not surprising that one of the anathemas in the Creed seems to use these terms as synonyms. However, since they were used as synonyms, the Early Church Texts, which translates ousia as 'substance' is misleading. As mentioned below, the meanings of these terms changed during the Arian Controversy and what Early Church Texts does is to apply the later developed meanings of these terms to the Nicene Creed:

"did not mean, and should not be translated, 'person' and 'substance', as they were used when at last the confusion was cleared up and these two distinct meanings were permanently attached to these words."

Cappadocian Fathers

As stated, when the Arian controversy began and for much of the fourth century, hypostasis and ousia were synonyms. However, later in that century, a clear distinction was made between the two terms. The three Cappadocian Fathers, Basil of Caesarea (330 to 379), Gregory of Nazianzus (329 to 389), and Gregory of Nyssa (335 to about 395) who was one of Basil's younger brothers, are traditionally credited for being the first to make a clear distinction between ousia and hypostasis, particularly Basil of Caesarea, namely in his letters 214 (375 AD) and 236 (376 AD)

However, Arius and Asterius were two Eusebians who made that distinction much earlier. However, Basil of Caesarea was the first pro-Nicene to make that distinction. While Basil was a three-hypostasis theologian, Athanasius and the earlier pro-Nicene theologians were one-hypostasis theologians and did not need a distinction between hypostasis and ousia.

However, the Cappadocians did not yet understand God as one undivided ousia (substance), as in the Trinity doctrine. They said that the Father, Son, and Spirit have exactly the same type of substance, but each has his own substance. Basil began his career as theologian as a Homoiousian. As such, he believed that the Son's substance is similar to the Father's, meaning two distinct hypostases. Later, after he had accepted homoousios (same substance), he retained the idea of two distinct hypostases:

He says that in his own view 'like in respect of ousia' (the slogan of the party of Basil of Ancyra) was an acceptable formula, provided that the word 'unalterably' was added to it, for then it would be equivalent to homoousios." "Basil himself prefers homoousios." "Basil has moved away from but has not completely repudiated his origins.

This means that Basil understood homoousios in a generic sense of two beings with the same type of substance, rather than two beings sharing one single substance. Consequently, he explained that the distinction between ousia and hypostases is the same as that between the general and the particular; as, for instance, between the animal and the particular man.

"In the DSS discusses the idea that the distinction between the Godhead and the Persons is that between an abstract essence, such as humanity, and its concrete manifestations, such as man."

Basil "argued that was preferable because it actually excluded identity of hypostases. This, with the instances which we have already seen in which Basil compared the relation of hypostasis to ousia in the Godhead to that of particular to general, or of a man to 'living beings', forms the strongest argument for Harnack's hypothesis." "Harnack ... argued that Basil and all the Cappadocians interpreted homoousios only in a 'generic' sense ... that unity of substance was turned into equality of substance."

Doctrine of the Trinity

The terms ousia and hypostasis are foundational in the Trinity doctrine. Hanson described the traditional Trinity doctrine as follows:

"The champions of the Nicene faith ... developed a doctrine of God as a Trinity, as one substance or ousia who existed as three hypostases, three distinct realities or entities (I refrain from using the misleading word 'Person'), three ways of being or modes of existing as God."

Hanson explains hypostases as 'ways of being' or 'modes of existing' but says that the term 'person' is misleading. As the term is used in English, each 'person' is a distinct entity with his or her own mind and will. This is not equivalent to the concept of hypostasis in the Trinity doctrine because, in that doctrine, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are a single Being with a single mind. For example, Karl Rahner, a leading catholic scholar, said:

"The element of consciousness ... does not belong to it in our context ." "But there exists in God only one power, one will, only one self-presence. ... Hence self-awareness is not a moment which distinguishes the divine "persons" one from the other."

Later developments

Consensus was not achieved without some confusion at first in the minds of Western theologians since in the West the vocabulary was different. Many Latin-speaking theologians understood hypo-stasis as 'sub-stantia' (substance); thus when speaking of three hypostases in the Godhead, they may have suspected three substances or tritheism. However, after the mid-fifth-century Council of Chalcedon, the word came to be contrasted with ousia and was used to mean 'individual reality', especially in the trinitarian and Christological contexts. The Christian concept of the Trinity is often described as being one God existing in three distinct hypostases/personae/persons.

Nature of Christ

Within Christology, two specific theological concepts have emerged throughout history, in reference to the Hypostasis of Christ:

  • Monohypostatic concept advocates that Christ has only one hypostasis;
  • Dyohypostatic concept advocates that Christ has two hypostases (divine and human).

John Calvin's views

John Calvin wrote: "The word ὑπόστασις which, by following others, I have rendered substance, denotes not, as I think, the being or essence of the Father, but his person; for it would be strange to say that the essence of God is impressed on Christ, as the essence of both is simply the same. But it may truly and fitly be said that whatever peculiarly belongs to the Father is exhibited in Christ, so that he who knows him knows what is in the Father. And in this sense do the orthodox fathers take this term, hypostasis, considering it to be threefold in God, while the essence (οὐσία) is simply one. Hilary everywhere takes the Latin word substance for person. But though it be not the Apostle's object in this place to speak of what Christ is in himself, but of what he is really to us, yet he sufficiently confutes the Asians and Sabellians; for he claims for Christ what belongs to God alone, and also refers to two distinct persons, as to the Father and the Son. For we hence learn that the Son is one God with the Father, and that he is yet in a sense distinct from him, so that a subsistence or person belongs to both."

See also

References

  1. ^ Anton 1977, pp. 258–271.
  2. The Encyclopedia of Christianity. Vol. 5. Fahlbusch, Erwin, Lochman, Jan Milič, Mbiti, John S., Pelikan, Jaroslav, 1923–2006, Vischer, Lukas, Bromiley, G. W. (Geoffrey William). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdman. 2008. p. 543. ISBN 978-0802824134. OCLC 39914033.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  3. Pseudo-Aristotle, De mundo, 4.19.
  4. Neoplatonism (Ancient Philosophies) by Pauliina Remes (2008), University of California Press ISBN 0520258347, pp. 48–52.
  5. Meyendorff 1989, pp. 190–192, 198, 257, 362.
  6. Daley 2009, pp. 342–345.
  7. ^ Ramelli 2012, pp. 302–350.
  8. Lienhard 1993, pp. 97–99.
  9. Bulgakov 2009, pp. 82, 143–144.
  10. ^ Hanson, Richard P. C (1987). The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318–381.
  11. "The Sabellians of the Fourth Century". March 2024.
  12. “It seems most likely that Eustathius was primarily deposed for the heresy of Sabellianism.” (Hanson, p. 211)
  13. “Marcellus of Ancyra had produced a theology … which could quite properly be called Sabellian.” (Hanson, p. ix)
  14. ^ “If we are to take the Nicene Creed at its face value, the theology of Eustathius and Marcellus was the theology which triumphed at Nicaea. That creed admits the possibility of only one ousia and one hypostasis. This was the hallmark of the theology of these two men.” Hanson, RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God - The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987, p. 235
  15. "The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius insists there is only one hypostasis.“ (Ayres, p. 69)
  16. The “clear inference from his (Athanasius') usage” is that “there is only one hypostasis in God.” (Ayres, Nicaea and its legacy, 2004, p. 48)
  17. "Athanasius was not a Trinitarian. He was a Unitarian". 6 May 2024.
  18. “He had attended the Council of Serdica among the Western bishops in 343, and a formal letter of that Council had emphatically opted for the belief in one, and only one, hypostasis as orthodoxy. Athanasius certainly accepted this doctrine at least up to 359, even though he tried later to suppress this fact.” (Hanson, p. 444)
  19. Lewis Ayres, p. 48
  20. Lienhard 1993, pp. 94–97.
  21. “The Council of Nicaea adverted to the Holy Spirit in what might seem like a mere afterthought: ‘And we believe in the Holy Spirit.’” (Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea, 2011, p. 28)
  22. E.g., “the Macedonians also believed in the full divinity of the Son, under the rubric of ‘likeness of essence’, but withheld both worship and confession of divinity from the Spirit.” (Anatolios, p. 28-9)
  23. Lewis Ayres (3 May 2006). Nicaea and its legacy: an approach to fourth-century Trinitarian theology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-875505-0. Retrieved 1 July 2024.
  24. Bulgakov 2009, pp. 15, 143, 147.
  25. "Origen "used hypostasis and ousia freely as interchangeable terms to describe the Son's distinct reality within the Godhead. ... He taught that there were three hypostases within the Godhead." (Hanson, p. 184)
  26. Niekerk, Andries van (2023-05-15). "Athanasius invented Arianism". From Daniel to Revelation. Retrieved 2024-08-26.
  27. “My second theological trajectory ... I will term ‘Eusebian’. When I use this term I mean to designate any who would have found common ground with either of Arius’ most prominent supporters, Eusebius of Nicomedia or Eusebius of Caesarea.” (Ayres, p. 52)
  28. Arius had a “strong commitment to belief in three distinct divine hypostases.” (Williams, Rowan, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987, p. 97)
  29. “Asterius (a leading Eusebian) insists also that Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases.” (Ayres, p. 54)
  30. “It is not until he (Athanasius) writes the De Decretis (356 or 357) that Athanasius again mentions the word and begins to defend it.” (Hanson, p. 436)
  31. “Athanasius’ decision to make Nicaea and homoousios central to his theology has its origins in the shifting climate of the 350s.” (Ayres, p. 144)
  32. Basil in his treatise, "De Spiritu Sancto"
  33. Referring to the Nicene Creed, R.P.C. Hanson describes them as “the new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day.” (Hanson, p. 846)
  34. "The only strictly theological use (of the word hypostasis) is that of Hebrews 1:3, where the Son is described as 'the impression of the nature' of God.” (Hanson, p. 182)
  35. "The word also occurs twenty times in the LXX (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament), but only one of them can be regarded as theologically significant. ... At Wisdom 16:21 the writer speaks of God's hypostasis, meaning his nature; and no doubt this is why Hebrews uses the term 'impression of his nature'.” (Hanson, p. 182)
  36. Meyendorff 1989, p. 173.
  37. "Tertullian at the turn of the second to the third centuries had already used the Latin word substantia (substance) of God ... God therefore had a body and indeed was located at the outer boundaries of space. ... It was possible for Tertullian to think of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit sharing this substance, so that the relationship of the Three is, in a highly refined sense, corporeal. ... He can use the expression Unius substantiae ('of one substance'). This has led some scholars to see Tertullian as an exponent of Nicene orthodoxy before Nicaea ... But this is a far from plausible theory. Tertullian's materialism is ... a totally different thing from any ideas of ousia or homoousios canvassed during the fourth century." (Hanson, p. 184)
  38. “One of the most striking aspects of Nicaea in comparison to surviving baptismal creeds from the period, and even in comparison to the creed which survives from the council of Antioch in early 325, is its use of the technical terminology of ousia and hypostasis.” (Ayres, p. 92)
  39. “Considerable confusion existed about the use of the terms hypostasis and ousia at the period when the Arian Controversy broke out.” (Hanson, p. 181)
  40. “For many people at the beginning of the fourth century the word hypostasis and the word ousia had pretty well the same meaning.” (Hanson, p. 181)
  41. "Clearly for him hypostasis and ousia were still synonymous." (Hanson, 440)
  42. Ayres refers to “the seeming equation of ousia and hypostasis. (Ayres, p. 88)
  43. R.P.C. Hanson says the Nicene Creed "apparently (but not quite certainly) identifies hypostasis and ousia.” (Hanson, p. 188)
  44. "For at least the first half of the period 318–381, and in some cases considerably later, ousia and hypostasis are used as virtual synonyms." (Hanson, p. 183)
  45. “It is only much later in the century that the two are more clearly distinguished by some.” (Ayres, p. 98)
  46. “When at last the confusion was cleared up and these two distinct meanings were permanently attached to these words,” hypostasis and ousia respectively meant “'person' and 'substance'.” (Hanson, p. 181)
  47. Basil “is often identified” with the “distinction between a unitary shared nature at one level, and the personal distinctions of Father, Son, and Spirit at another.” (Ayres, p. 190-191)
  48. “The first person to propose a difference in the meanings of hypostasis and ousía ... was Basil of Caesarea.” (Johannes, Ousía and hypostasis from the philosophers to the councils)
  49. "Basil uses hypostasis to mean 'Person of the Trinity' as distinguished from 'substance' which is usually expressed as either ousia or 'nature' (physis) or 'substratum'." (Hanson, p. 690-691)
  50. "Basil's most distinguished contribution towards the resolving of the dispute about the Christian doctrine of God was in his clarification of the vocabulary." (Hanson, p. 690)
  51. "St Basil the Great, Letters – Third Part – Full text, in English – 1". www.elpenor.org. Retrieved 2021-09-23.
  52. "St Basil the Great, Letters – Third Part – Full text, in English – 39". www.elpenor.org. Retrieved 2021-09-23.
  53. Arius used hypostasis for 'Person'. For example, he “spoke readily of the hypostases of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And he said that the hypostases of Father, Son and Holy Spirit “were different in kind and in rank.” (Hanson, p. 187) But he used ousia for "substance.“ He wrote, for example, “The Logos is alien and unlike in all respects to the Father's ousia.” (Hanson, p. 186) “It seems likely that he was one of the few during this period who did not confuse the two.” (Hanson, p. 187)
  54. Asterius, another leading 'Arian', “clearly did not confuse ousia and hypostasis.” He used hypostasis for ‘Person’. For example, he “said that there were three hypostases” and “certainly taught that the Father and the Son were distinct and different in their hypostases.” But he used ousia for 'substance'. For example, "he also described the Son as 'the exact image of the ousia and counsel and glory and power' of the Father.” (Hanson, p. 187)
  55. " came from what might be called an 'Homoiousian' background." (Hanson, p. 699) Therefore, "the doctrine of 'like in respect of ousia' was one which they could accept, or at least take as a starting point, and which caused them no uneasiness." (Hanson, p. 678)
  56. He wrote: "That relation which the general has to the particular, such a relation has the ousia to the hypostasis." (Hanson, p. 692)
  57. "He can compare the relation of ousia to hypostasis to that of 'living being' to a particular man and apply this distinction directly to the three Persons of the Trinity." This suggests "that the three are each particular examples of a 'generic' Godhead." (Hanson, p. 692)
  58. Niekerk, Andries van (2021-11-26). "RPC Hanson - A lecture on the Arian Controversy". From Daniel to Revelation. Retrieved 2024-08-26.
  59. Weedman 2007, pp. 95–97.
  60. González, Justo L (2005), "Hypostasis", Essential Theological Terms, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, pp. 80–81, ISBN 978-0664228101
  61. McGuckin 2011, p. 57.
  62. Kuhn 2019.
  63. John Calvin, Commentary on Hebrews, 35 (CCEL PDF ed.); https://ccel.org/ccel/c/calvin/calcom44/cache/calcom44.pdf; plain text version: https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/cal/hebrews-1.html

Sources

Theology
Conceptions of God
Theism
Forms
Concepts
Singular god
theologies
By faith
Concepts
God as
Trinitarianism
Eschatology
By religion
Feminist
Other concepts
Names of God in
By faith
Christian
Hindu
Islamic
Jewish
Pagan
Religion portal
Ancient Greek philosophical concepts
Categories: