| Part of a series on |
| Christology |
|---|
.jpg) |
Doctrines
|
Hypostatic union (from the Greek:ὑπόστασιςhypóstasis, 'person, subsistence') is a technical term inChristiantheology employed in mainstreamChristology to describe the union of Christ's human nature and divine nature in one composedhypostasis, or individual personhood.[1]
In the most basic terms, the concept of hypostatic union states that Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully man. He is simultaneously perfectly divine and perfectly human, having two complete and distinct natures at once.
TheAthanasian Creed recognized this doctrine and affirmed its importance by stating:
He is God from the essence of the Father, begotten before time; and he is human from the essence of his mother, born in time; completely God, completely human, with a rational soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as regards divinity, less than the Father as regards humanity. Although he is God and human, yet Christ is not two, but one. He is one, however, not by his divinity being turned into flesh, but by God's taking humanity to himself. He is one, certainly not by the blending of his essence, but by the unity of his person. For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh, so too the one Christ is both God and human.
The Greek termhypostasis (ὑπόστασις) had come into use as a technical term prior to the Christological debates of the late fourth and fifth centuries. In pre-Christian times,Greek philosophy (primarilyStoicism) used the word.[4][5] Some occurrences of the termhypostasis in theNew Testament foreshadow the later, technical understanding of the word.[6] Although it can translate literally as "substance", this has been a cause of some confusion;[7] accordingly theNew American Standard Bible translates it as "subsistence".Hypostasis denotes an actual, concrete existence, in contrast to abstract categories such asPlatonic ideals.
InKierkegaard'sPhilosophical Fragments, the dual nature of Christ is explored as a paradox, i.e. as "the ultimate paradox", because God, understood as a perfectly good, perfectly wise, perfectly powerful being, fully became a human, in theChristian understanding of the term: burdened by sin, limited in goodness, knowledge, and understanding.[8] This paradox can only be resolved, Kierkegaard believed, by aleap of faith away from one's understanding and reason towards belief in God.
As the precise nature of this union is held to defy finite human comprehension, the hypostatic union is also referred to by the alternative term "mystical union".
| Part of a series on |
| Palamism |
|---|
 |
Similar positions |
 Christianity portal |
Apollinaris of Laodicea was the first to use the term hypostasis in trying to understand theIncarnation.[9] Apollinaris described the union of the divine and human in Christ as being of a single nature and having a single essence — a single hypostasis.
In the 5th century, a dispute arose betweenCyril of Alexandria andNestorius in which Nestorius claimed that the termtheotokos could not be used to describe Mary, the mother of Christ. Nestorius argued for two distinct substances or hypostases, of divinity and humanity, in Christ. He maintained that divinity could not be born from a human because the divine nature is unoriginate. TheCouncil of Ephesus in 431, under the leadership of Cyril himself as well as the Ephesian bishop Memnon, labeled Nestorius a neo-adoptionist, implying that the man Jesus is divine and the Son of God only by grace and not by nature, and deposed him as a heretic. In his letter to Nestorius, Cyril used the term "hypostatic" (Greek, καθ᾽ ὑπόστασινkath' hypóstasin) to refer to Christ's divine and human natures being one, saying, "We must follow these words and teachings, keeping in mind what 'having been made flesh' means .... We say ... that the Word, by having united to himself hypostatically flesh animated by a rational soul, inexplicably and incomprehensibly became man." Cyril also stressed on "μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη, meaning "one physis ["nature"] of the Word of God made flesh" (or "one physis of God the Word made flesh")"[10]
The preeminent Antiochene theologianTheodore of Mopsuestia, contending against themonophysite heresy ofApollinarism, is believed to have taught that in Christ there are two natures (dyophysite), human and divine, and two corresponding hypostases (in the sense of "subject", "essence" but not "person") which co-existed.[11] However, in Theodore's time the wordhypostasis could be used in a sense synonymous withousia (which clearly means "essence" rather than "person") as it had been used byTatian andOrigen. The Greek and Latin interpretations of Theodore's Christology have come under scrutiny since the recovery of hisCatechetical Orations in the Syriac language.
In 451, the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon promulgated theChalcedonian Definition. It agreed with Theodore that there were two natures in theIncarnation. However, theCouncil of Chalcedon also insisted that hypostasis be used as it was in the Trinitarian definition: to indicate the person (prosopon) and not the nature as with Apollinaris.
TheOriental Orthodox Churches, having rejected the Chalcedonian Definition, were known asMiaphysites because they maintain theCyrilian definition that characterized the incarnate Son as having one nature. TheChalcedonian "in two natures" formula (based, at least partially, on Colossians 2:9) was seen as derived from and akin to aNestorian Christology.[12] Contrariwise, the Chalcedonians saw the Oriental Orthodox as tending towardsEutychianMonophysitism. However, the Oriental Orthodox persistently specified that they have never believed in the doctrines ofEutyches, that they have always affirmed that Christ's humanity is consubstantial with our own, and they thus prefer the termMiaphysite to be referred to as a reference to Cyrillian Christology, which used the phrase "μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη", "mía phýsis toû theoû lógou sesarkōménē". The termmiaphysic meansone united nature as opposed to one singular nature (monophysites). Thus the Miaphysite position maintains that although the nature of Christ is from two, it may only be referred to as one in its incarnate state because the natures always act in unity.
In 1989 and 1990, leaders from theEastern Orthodox andOriental Orthodox churches signed joint statements[13] in an attempt to work towards reunification (for more, seeMiaphysitism). Likewise the leaders of theAssyrian Church of the East, which veneratesNestorius andTheodore, in 1994 signeda joint agreement with leaders of theRoman Catholic Church acknowledging that their historical differences were over terminology rather than the actual intended meaning.
This article incorporates text from a publication now in thepublic domain: Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). "Hypostatic Union".Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
| Bible (Scriptures) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Foundations | |||||||||
| History (timeline) (spread) |
| ||||||||
| Denominations (list,members) |
| ||||||||
| Theology |
| ||||||||
| Philosophy | |||||||||
| Other features |
| ||||||||
