Hypostasis (plural:hypostases), from theGreekὑπόστασις (hypóstasis), is the underlying, fundamental state or substance that supports all ofreality. It is not the same as theconcept of a substance[citation needed]. InNeoplatonism, the hypostasis of thesoul, the intellect (nous) and "the one" was addressed byPlotinus.[1] InChristian theology, theHoly Trinity consists of three hypostases: that of theFather, that of theSon, and that of theHoly Spirit.[2]
Pseudo-Aristotle used "hypostasis" in the sense ofmaterial substance.[3]
Neoplatonists argue that beneath the surface phenomena that present themselves to our senses are three higher spiritual principles (orhypostases): each one more sublime than the preceding. ForPlotinus, these arethe Soul,the Intellect, andthe One.[1][4]
The termhypostasis has particular significance inChristian theology; particularly inChristian triadology—the study of the Christian doctrine of thetrinity—as well asChristology (study ofChrist).[5][6]
In Christian triadology, three specific theological concepts have emerged throughout history in reference to the number and interrelationship of thehypostases:[7]
Themonohypostatic (ormiahypostatic) concept advocates that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one singlehypostasis[8][9] in a singleousia—meaning that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a singlePerson. Historically, there were variations of this view:
Among the pre-Nicene Church Fathers, "Dionysius of Rome ... said that it is wrong to divide the divine monarchy 'into three ... separatedhypostases ... 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]
TheDyohypostatic 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 theMacedonians, accepted the Son as fully divine but not the Holy Spirit.[22] This is why in AD 381, during theFirst Council of Constantinople, the Nicene Creed[citation needed] was revised to be explicit, the final word, on the deity of the Holy Spirit.[23]
TheTrihypostatic (tri=three; hypo=upon; static = a stationary situation of being such that it is a foundation upon which forces arise?) concept, that is, idea, advocates that God has three of these spaces (Father,Son and theHoly Spirit),[24] each having the sameousia, 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 EasternDedication Creed says, "They are three inhypostasis 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 (theHomoians).[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 "isnot 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 atthe 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]
 | This sectioncontainsclose paraphrasing of a non-free copyrighted source,The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Relevant discussion may be found on thetalk page. Please help Wikipedia byrewriting 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.[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]
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 toGod or theUltimate Reality.[citation needed]
The Bible never refers to God'sousia and only once to God'shypostasis (Hebrews 1:3).[34][35] In Hebrews 1:3, it is not clear whetherhypostasis refers to God's nature or His entire 'Person' (hypostasis) and is variously translated.[citation needed]
Inearly Christian writings, hypostasis was used to denote 'being' or 'substantive reality' and was not always distinguished in meaning from terms likeousia ('essence'),substantia ('substance') orqnoma (specific term inSyriac Christianity).[36] It was used in this way byTatian andOrigen.[7] Tertullian, writing in Latin, did not use the Greek terms hypostasis and ousia but he did use the related termsubstantia.[37]
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 differenthypostasis 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
As stated, when the Arian controversy began and for much of the fourth century,hypostasis andousia were synonyms.[44] However, later in that century, a clear distinction was made between the two terms.[45][46] The threeCappadocian 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 athree-hypostasis theologian, Athanasius and the earlier pro-Nicene theologians wereone-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 ofousia' (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 tohomoousios." "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 betweenousia andhypostases is the same as that between the general and the particular; as, for instance, between the animal and the particular man.[56][57]
"In theDSS [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 actuallyexcluded identity ofhypostases. This, with the instances which we have already seen in which Basil compared the relation ofhypostasis toousia in the Godhead to that of particular to general, or of a man to 'living beings', forms the strongest argument for Harnack'shypothesis."[10]: 697 "Harnack ... argued that Basil and all the Cappadocians interpretedhomoousios only in a 'generic' sense ... that unity of substance was turned into equality of substance."[10]: 696
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 ofconsciousness ... 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, onlyone self-presence. ... Henceself-awareness is not a moment which distinguishes the divine "persons" one from the other."
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 understoodhypo-stasis as 'sub-stantia' (substance); thus when speaking of threehypostases in theGodhead, they may have suspected threesubstances ortritheism. However, after the mid-fifth-centuryCouncil of Chalcedon, the word came to be contrasted withousia and was used to mean 'individual reality', especially in the trinitarian andChristological contexts. The Christian concept of the Trinity is often described as beingone God existing in three distincthypostases/personae/persons.[60]
WithinChristology, two specific theological concepts have emerged throughout history, in reference to the Hypostasis ofChrist:
John Calvin wrote: "The wordὑπόστασις 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]
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
