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.[1][4]
In Christian triadology, three specific theological concepts have emerged throughout history in reference to the number and interrelationship of the hypostases:[7]
Monohypostatic
The monohypostatic (or miahypostatic) concept advocates that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one single hypostasis[8][9] 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.[citation needed]
In the third century, Sabellius taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three parts of one hypostasis.[citation needed]
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.[citation needed]
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'."[10]: 185
In the fourth century, Sabellians[11] (such as Eustathius[12] and Marcellus,[13][14]), Alexander,[15] Athanasius,[16][17] and the Western Church[18] taught a single hypostasis in God. The "clear inference from [Athanasius'] usage" is that "there is only one hypostasis in God."[19] Some leading scholars claim that even the Nicene Creed professes a 'one hypostasis' theology.[14]
Dyohypostatic
The Dyohypostatic concept advocates that God has two hypostases (Father and Son);[20] When the fourth-century Controversy began, the focus was only on the Son, not on the Holy Spirit.[21] Later in that century, some groups, such as the Macedonians, accepted the Son as fully divine but not the Holy Spirit.[22] This is why in AD 381, during the First Council of Constantinople, the Nicene Creed[citation needed] was revised to be explicit, the final word, on the deity of the Holy Spirit.[23]
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),[24] 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.[25] The Eusebians (traditionally but erroneously called 'Arians')[26][27] believed in three hypostases.[28][29] 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.[citation needed]
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.[30][31] 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).[citation needed]
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."[32]
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.[citation needed]
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]
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]
Greek philosophy
These terms originate from Greek philosophy,[33] 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]
The Bible
The Bible never refers to God's ousia and only once to God's hypostasis (Hebrews 1:3).[34][35] 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]
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).[36] It was used in this way by Tatian and Origen.[7] Tertullian, writing in Latin, did not use the Greek terms hypostasis and ousia but he did use the related term substantia.[37]
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 [ousia] ... these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes." (Early Church Texts)
These terms were not used by any previous creed.[38] At the time of the Nicene Creed, different people used these terms differently.[39] Many used them as synonyms.[40] Importantly, Athanasius, the main custodian of the Nicene Creed, also used these terms as synonyms.[41] It is, therefore, not surprising that one of the anathemas in the Creed seems to use these terms as synonyms.[42][43] 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:
[The two terms] "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."[10]: 181
Cappadocian Fathers
As stated, when the Arian controversy began and for much of the fourth century, hypostasis and ousia were synonyms.[44] However, later in that century, a clear distinction was made between the two terms.[45][46] 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,[10]: 676 are traditionally credited for being the first to make a clear distinction between ousia and hypostasis, particularly Basil of Caesarea,[47][48][49][50] namely in his letters 214 (375 AD)[51] and 236 (376 AD)[52]
However, Arius and Asterius were two Eusebians who made that distinction much earlier.[53][54] 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,[55] 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.[10]: 694
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.[56][57]
"In the DSS [Basil] 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."[10]: 698
Basil "argued that [homoousios] 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."[10]: 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."[10]: 696
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."[58]
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:[citation needed]
"The element of consciousness ... does not belong to it [the Person] in our context [the official doctrine of the {Catholic} Church]." "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.[59] 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.[60]
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;[61]
Dyohypostatic concept advocates that Christ has two hypostases (divine and human).[62]
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."[63]
See also
Look up hypostasis in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
^“It seems most likely that Eustathius was primarily deposed for the heresy of Sabellianism.” (Hanson, p. 211)
^“Marcellus of Ancyra had produced a theology … which could quite properly be called Sabellian.” (Hanson, p. ix)
^ ab“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
^"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)
^The “clear inference from his (Athanasius') usage” is that “there is only one hypostasis in God.” (Ayres, Nicaea and its legacy, 2004, p. 48)
^“He [Athanasius] 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)
^“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)
^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)
^"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)
^“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)
^Arius had a “strong commitment to belief in three distinct divine hypostases.” (Williams, Rowan, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987, p. 97)
^“Asterius (a leading Eusebian) insists also that Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases.” (Ayres, p. 54)
^“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)
^“Athanasius’ decision to make Nicaea and homoousios central to his theology has its origins in the shifting climate of the 350s.” (Ayres, p. 144)
^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)
^"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' [hypostasis] of God.” (Hanson, p. 182)
^"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)
^"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)
^“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)
^“Considerable confusion existed about the use of the terms hypostasis and ousia at the period when the Arian Controversy broke out.” (Hanson, p. 181)
^“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)
^"Clearly for him hypostasis and ousia were still synonymous." (Hanson, 440)
^Ayres refers to “the seeming equation of ousia and hypostasis. (Ayres, p. 88)
^R.P.C. Hanson says the Nicene Creed "apparently (but not quite certainly) identifies hypostasis and ousia.” (Hanson, p. 188)
^"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)
^“It is only much later in the century that the two are more clearly distinguished by some.” (Ayres, p. 98)
^“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)
^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)
^“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)
^"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)
^"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)
^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)
^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)
^"[Basil] 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)
^He wrote: "That relation which the general has to the particular, such a relation has the ousia to the hypostasis." (Hanson, p. 692)
^"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)
