This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 121.179.131.132 (talk) at 08:31, 20 July 2020 (Source criticism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 08:31, 20 July 2020 by 121.179.131.132 (talk) (Source criticism)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Hypostasis (Greek: ὑπόστασις, hypóstasis) is the underlying state or underlying substance and is the fundamental reality that supports all else. In Neoplatonism the hypostasis of the soul, the intellect (nous) and "the one" was addressed by Plotinus.
If someone uses a hypostasis in Christian theology, it means one of the three hypostases (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) of the Trinity.
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
See also: TrinityIn early Christian writings, hypostasis is used to denote "being" or "substantive reality" and is not always distinguished in meaning from ousia ('essence' or 'substance'). It was used in this way by Tatian and Origen, and also in the anathemas appended to the Nicene Creed of 325.
Early Christian definitions
It was mainly under the influence of the Cappadocian Fathers that the terminology was clarified and standardized so that the formula "three hypostases in one ousia" came to be accepted as an epitome of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Specifically, Basil of Caesarea (330-379), refuting Paul of Samosata, in Letter 52, says God is One Essence(Homoousion)/Co-Essence with Three Relations.
For they maintained that the homoousion set forth the idea both of essence and of what is derived from it, so that the essence, when divided, confers the title of co-essential on the parts into which it is divided. This explanation has some reason in the case of bronze and coins made therefrom, but in the case of God the Father and God the Son there is no question of substance anterior or even underlying both; the mere thought and utterance of such a thing is the last extravagance of impiety. What can be conceived of as anterior to the Unbegotten? By this blasphemy faith in the Father and the Son is destroyed, for things, constituted out of one, have to one another the relation of brothers.
And moreover, in Letter 236, Basil of Caesarea (330-379) makes distinction between Ousia (Essence) and Hypostasis (Subsistence), accepts God with Three Hypostases/Persons but mentions that error of Sabellius, being hesitant to speak of Three Hypostases, is the claim of One Essence and Hypostasis with Three Persons.
The distinction between Ousia and Hypostasis is the same as that between the general and the particular; as, for instance, between the animal and the particular man. Wherefore, in the case of the Godhead, we confess one essence or substance so as not to give a variant definition of existence, but we confess a particular hypostasis, in order that our conception of Father, Son and Holy Spirit may be without confusion and clear. If we have no distinct perception of the separate characteristics, namely, fatherhood, sonship, and sanctification, but form our conception of God from the general idea of existence, we cannot possibly give a sound account of our faith. We must, therefore, confess the faith by adding the particular to the common. The Godhead is common; the fatherhood particular. We must therefore combine the two and say, I believe in God the Father. The like course must be pursued in the confession of the Son; we must combine the particular with the common and say I believe in God the Son, so in the case of the Holy Ghost we must make our utterance conform to the appellation and say in God the Holy Ghost. Hence it results that there is a satisfactory preservation of the unity by the confession of the one Godhead, while in the distinction of the individual properties regarded in each there is the confession of the peculiar properties of the Persons. On the other hand those who identify essence or substance and hypostasis are compelled to confess only three Persons, and, in their hesitation to speak of three hypostases, are convicted of failure to avoid the error of Sabellius, for even Sabellius himself, who in many places confuses the conception, yet, by asserting that the same hypostasis changed its form to meet the needs of the moment, does endeavour to distinguish persons.
Likewise, in Against Eunomius, Vol. 2, Gregory of Nyssa (335-394) says God is One Essence with Three Relations/Subsistences/Persons.
In regard to essence He is one, wherefore the Lord ordained that we should look to one Name: but in regard to the attributes indicative of the Persons, our belief in Him is distinguished into belief in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ; He is divided without separation, and united without confusion.
… Now since Deity by its very nature is permanently and immutably the same in all that pertains to its essence, nor did it at any time fail to be anything that it now is, nor will it at any future time be anything that it now is not, and since He Who is the very Father was named Father by the Word, and since in the Father the Son is implied — since these things are so, we of necessity believe that He Who admits no change or alteration in His nature was always entirely what He is now, or, if there is anything which He was not, that He assuredly is not now. … For the differentiation of the subsistences makes the distinction of Persons clear and free from confusion, while the one Name standing in the forefront of the declaration of the Faith clearly expounds to us the unity of essence of the Persons Whom the Faith declares — I mean, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. … Divine Essence is ineffable and incomprehensible: for it is plain that the title of Father does not present to us the Essence, but only indicates the relation to the Son. … For it necessarily follows that, if the Father alone neither begets Himself nor is begotten of Himself, everything which is not incorruptible both begets itself and is begotten of itself, and becomes its own father and son, shifting from its own proper essence to each of these relations. For if to be incorruptible belongs to the Father alone, and if not to be the things specified is a special property of the incorruptible, then, of course, according to this heretical argument, the Son is not incorruptible, and all these circumstances of course, find place about Him — to have His essence divided, to beget Himself and to be begotten by Himself, to become Himself His own father and His own son. ... But when all such material, temporal and local existence is excluded from the sense of the term Son, community of nature alone is left, and for this reason by the title Son is declared, concerning the Only-begotten, the close affinity and genuineness of relationship which mark His manifestation from the Father. ...
But since it is impossible to detach the eternity of the Son from the eternal Father, seeing that the term Father by its very signification implies the Son, for this reason it is that he rejects the title Father and shifts his phrase to ungenerate, since the meaning of this latter name has no sort of relation or connection with the Son, and by thus misleading his readers through the substitution of one term for the other, into not contemplating the Son along with the Father, he opens up a path for his sophistry, paving the way of impiety by slipping in the term ungenerate.
Similarly in Against Eunomius Vol. 1, alluding to former matter that Basil's attempt to cure Eunomius of Cyzicus was impossible even with abiding ardour of his own love, Gregory of Nyssa (335-394) undermined Eunomius' thought, in the same vein of Heresy of Sabellius, as the abyss of misbelief away from all true members of the Church. He says Eunomius' thought is a poor little abortion of something.
Against Eunomius Vol. 1. This thought suggests itself when I think of one who freely communicated to others the beauties of his own soul, I mean that man of God, that mouth of piety, Basil; one who from the abundance of his spiritual treasures poured his grace of wisdom into evil souls whom he had never tested, and into one among them, Eunomius, who was perfectly insensible to all the efforts made for his good. Pitiable indeed seemed the condition of this poor man, from the extreme weakness of his soul in the matter of the Faith, to all true members of the Church; for who is so wanting in feeling as not to pity, at least, a perishing soul? But Basil alone, from the abiding ardour of his love, was moved to undertake his cure, and therein to attempt impossibilities; he alone took so much to heart the man's desperate condition, as to compose, as an antidote of deadly poisons, his refutation of this heresy , which aimed at saving its author, and restoring him to the Church.
He, on the contrary, like one beside himself with fury, resists his doctor; he fights and struggles; he regards as a bitter foe one who only put forth his strength to drag him from the abyss of misbelief; and he does not indulge in this foolish anger only before chance hearers now and then; he has raised against himself a literary monument to record this blackness of his bile; and when in long years he got the requisite amount of leisure, he was travailling over his work during all that interval with mightier pangs than those of the largest and the bulkiest beasts; his threats of what was coming were dreadful, while he was still secretly moulding his conception: but when at last and with great difficulty he brought it to the light, it was a poor little abortion, quite prematurely born. ...
It may seem to many useless to linger over what is so obvious, and to attempt a discussion of that which to them is on the face of it false and abominable and groundless: nevertheless, to avoid even the appearance of having to let these statements pass for want of counter-arguments, we will meet them with all our might. He says, each being among them is unmixed, single, and absolutely one, as estimated by its dignity, both in fact and in conception. Then premising this very doubtful statement as an axiom and valuing his own 'ipse dixit' as a sufficient substitute for any proof, he thinks he has made a point. There are three Beings: for he implies this when he says, 'each being among them:' he would not have used these words, if he meant only one. Now if he speaks thus of the mutual difference between the Beings in order to avoid complicity with the heresy of Sabellius, who applied three titles to one subject, we would acquiesce in his statement: nor would any of the Faithful contradict his view, except so far as he seems to be at fault in his names, and his mere form of expression in speaking of 'beings' instead of 'persons:' for things that are identical on the score of being will not all agree equally in definition on the score of personality.
In close examination of the same book, denying divine depth is found out of Eunomius' terms during Ad hominem against Basil of Caesarea (330-379), where we can catch a glimpse of Eunomius' teaching for divine depth.
See how valiantly this doughty champion of the truth fights against falsehood! Then he dares to call our mighty Basil 'a malicious rascal and a liar.' and besides that, 'a bold ignorant parvenu , no deep divine, and he adds to his list of abusive terms, 'stark mad,' scattering an infinity of such words over his pages, as if he imagined that his own bitter invectives could outweigh the common testimony of mankind, who revere that great name as though he were one of the saints of old. He thinks in fact that he, if no one else, can touch with calumny one whom calumny has never touched; but the sun is not so low in the heavens that any one can reach him with stones or any other missiles; they will but recoil upon him who shot them, while the intended target soars far beyond his reach. If any one, again, accuses the sun of want of light, he has not dimmed the brightness of the sunbeams with his scoffs; the sun will still remain the sun, and the fault-finder will only prove the feebleness of his own visual organs; and, if he should endeavour, after the fashion of this 'apology,' to persuade all whom he meets and will listen to him not to give in to the common opinions about the sun, nor to attach more weight to the experiences of all than to the surmises of one individual by 'assigning victory to mere quantity,' his nonsense will be wasted on those who can use their eyes.
Eunomius of Cyzicus, denying completely existing of God the Son even in a less degree, argues his person seems to be only depth. But then, not quarreling about the particular way, Gregory of Nyssa (335-394), refutes his statement as the Self-refuting idea from some Proof by contradiction by arguing that if God the Son also subsisted in some substantial way, it proves Him to exist not properly and lacks any of the properties.
If, then, he denies that we can regard the Only-begotten as completely existing — for to this depth his statement seems to lead — in withholding from Him a proper existence, let him deny it even in a less degree. If, however, he does grant that the Son subsists in some substantial way — we will not quarrel now about the particular way — why does he take away again that which he has conceded Him to be, and prove Him to exist not properly, which is tantamount, as we have said, to not at all? For as humanity is not possible to that which does not possess the complete connotation of the term 'man,' and the whole conception of it is cancelled in the case of one who lacks any of the properties, so in every thing whose complete and proper existence is denied, the partial affirmation of its existence is no proof of its subsisting at all; the demonstration, in fact, of its incomplete being is a demonstration of its effacement in all points. So that if he is well-advised, he will come over to the orthodox belief, and remove from his teaching the idea of less and of incompleteness in the nature of the Son and the Spirit: but if he is determined to blaspheme, and wishes for some inscrutable reason thus to requite his Maker and God and Benefactor, let him at all events part with his conceit of possessing some amount of showy learning, unphilosophically piling, as he does, being over being, one above the other, one proper, one not such, for no discoverable reason. We have never heard that any of the infidel philosophers have committed this folly, any more than we have met with it in the inspired writings, or in the common apprehension of mankind.
And Gregory of Nyssa (335-394) conludes metaphorical deeper meanings in God mentioning it came from evangelist, instead of Depth of God.
It is therefore clear that these are metaphors, which contain a deeper meaning than the obvious one: so that there is no reason from them that any suspicion that our Lord was created should be entertained by reverent inquirers, who have been trained according to the grand words of the evangelist, that all things that have been made were made by Him and consist in Him. Without Him was not anything made that was made. The evangelist would not have so defined it if he had believed that our Lord was one among the things made. How could all things be made by Him and in Him consist, unless their Maker possessed a nature different from theirs, and so produced, not Himself, but them? If the creation was by Him, but He was not by Himself, plainly He is something outside the creation.
Furthermore, Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389/330-390), in his Oration 33, classifies Sabellius' followers characterized as the belief in Depth (Adducer footnote: Gnostic Bythos in greek) or Abyss (religion) of God who see Godhead is One Nature with Three Personalities, absorbed, contracted but not separate but only numerically separate Depth of God, as those who don't love to hear Good Shepherd Jesus Christ and but love to hear the voice of their own from strangers of named stars thus will flee from Triune God in company with Valentinus (Gnostic), Marcion of Sinope, Montanus, Mani (prophet), and Novatian.
These I call by name (for they are not nameless like the stars which are numbered and have names), and they follow me, for I rear them up beside the waters of rest; and they follow every such shepherd, whose voice they love to hear, as you see; but a stranger they will not follow, but will flee from him, because they have a habit of distinguishing the voice of their own from that of strangers. They will flee from Valentinus with his division of one into two, refusing to believe that the Creator is other than the Good. They will flee from Depth and Silence, and the mythical Æons, that are verily worthy of Depth and Silence. They will flee from Marcion's god, compounded of elements and numbers; from Montanus' evil and feminine spirit; from the matter and darkness of Manes; from Novatus' boasting and wordy assumption of purity; from the analysis and confusion of Sabellius, and if I may use the expression, his absorption, contracting the Three into One, instead of defining the One in Three Personalities; from the difference of natures taught by Arius and his followers, and their new Judaism, confining the Godhead to the Unbegotten; from Photinus earthly Christ, who took his beginning from Mary. But they worship the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, One Godhead; God the Father, God the Son and (do not be angry) God the Holy Ghost, One Nature in Three Personalities, intellectual, perfect, Self-existent, numerically separate, but not separate in Godhead.
As you can see above in the Letter 52 and Letter 236 of Basil of Caesarea (330-379), and in Against Eunomius, Vol. 2 and Against Eunomius, Vol. 1 of Gregory of Nyssa (335-394), their early christian understanding of Triune God as One Essence or Name with Three Relations/Hypostases/Subsistences/Persons had considered thought of Eunomius of Cyzicus that God is One Essence and Hypostasis with Three persons, in the same vein of Heresy of Sabellius as incompatible Heretical argument. And as you can see in his Oration 33, Gregory Nazianzen(329-389/330-390)'s Understanding of Triune God is also incompatible with Sabellius' Heretical argument for Depth or Abyss (religion) of God that Godhead is One Nature with Three Personalities, absorbed, contracted but not separate but only numerically separate Depth of God.
In accord with this, Early Christian Theologians including 3rd Century Early Christians stand for One Essence or Name with Three Relations/Hypostases/Subsistences and Real distinctions with Three Persons, instead of heretical thought such as Dynamic Monarchianism that Godhead is One Person with Three Names including Paul of Samosata, Noetus of Smyrna, Praxeas, Sabellius; Sabellianism of Dynamic Monarchianism that Godhead is One Essence/Nature/Hypostasis with Three persons Three Personalities, absorbed, contracted but not separate but only numerically separate Depth of God; and Modalistic Monarchianism that Godhead is One Act of Salvation with Three Modes/Names.
In this regard, a modern Ecclesiastical historian Philip Schaff in the background of United Church of Christ also recognizes that heresy of Sabellius was Heretical argument for the Abyss of Godhead.
Western definitions
 | This section relies largely or entirely on a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources. Find sources: "Hypostasis" philosophy and religion – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (July 2015) |
This consensus, however, 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 might suspect three "substances" or tritheism. However, from the middle of the fifth century onwards, marked by Council of Chalcedon, the word came to be contrasted with ousia and 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.
See also
- Haecceity – a term used by the followers of Duns Scotus to refer to that which formally distinguishes one thing from another with a common nature
- Hypokeimenon
- Hypostatic union
- Hypostatic abstraction
- Instantiation principle
- Noema – a similar term used by Edmund Husserl
- Prakṛti – a similar term found in Hinduism
- Principle of individuation
- Prosopon or persona
- Reification (fallacy)
- Substance theory
References
- 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. pp. 543. ISBN 978-0802824134. OCLC 39914033.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link) - Pseudo-Aristotle, De mundo, 4.19.
- "Who was Plotinus?". 2011-06-07.
- Neoplatonism (Ancient Philosophies) by Pauliina Remes (2008), University of California Press ISBN 0520258347, pp. 48–52.
- Philip F. Esler, Portland Chair of New Testament Studies. The Early Christian World. Routledge (2002): p. 23
- González, Justo L. (1987). A History of Christian Thought: From the Beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. p. 307. ISBN 0-687-17182-2.
- ^ William M. Johnston. Encyclopedia of Monasticism. Routledge (2013): p. 86
- ^ Basil of Caesarea. Letter 52. New Advent.
- ^ Basil of Caesarea. Letter 236. New Advent.
- ^ Mark W. Elliott. Isaiah 40-66. Intervarsity Press (2007): p. 335
- ^ Gregory of Nyssa. Against Eunomius, Vol. 2. New Advent.
- ^ Gregory of Nyssa. Against Eunomius, Vol. 1 New Advent.
- ^ Geoffrey Greatrex, Samuel N. C. Lieu. The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars AD 363-628. Routledge (2005): p. 23
- ^ Gregory of Nazianzus. Oration 33 New Advent.
- ^ Thomas P. Halton. Gregory of Nazianzus. Select Orations. Catholic University of America Press (2010): p. 163
- ^ Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen. Christology: A Global Introduction. Baker Academic (2003): p. 68
- John Williamson Nevin, Philip Schaff. The Incarnate Word: Selected Writings on Christology. Wipf and Stock (2014): p. 74
- González, Justo L (2005), "Hypostasis", Essential Theological Terms, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, pp. 80–81, ISBN 978-0-664-22810-1
Sources
- Meyendorff, John (1989). Imperial unity and Christian divisions: The Church 450–680 A.D. The Church in history. Vol. 2. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press. ISBN 9780881410556.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help)
| Theology | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Religion portal | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||