Essence and Person in the Earliest Centuries

 In the whole New Testament, the only direct use of hypostasis in a theological sense to denote one of the persons of the Trinity is in Hebrews 1:3: 

“And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature (hypostasis, ὑποστάσεως), and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” 

The phrase “exact representation of His nature” has also been translated, the “perfect imprint of His essence,” (AMP) or “very image of his substance.” (ASV) In Heb. 1:3 the Son is the the word for representation is χαρακτὴρ. The term was often used to signify the wax impression left by a signet ring after it was pressed into hot wax. (Thayer, p. 202.) Throughout ancient civilization, and even in some modern situations, it is customary to affix a wax impression upon a scroll, letter, book, or important document. This same analogy was also used by Clement of Rome in the second century:

 

“Above all, as the most excellent and by far the greatest work of his intelligence, with his holy and faultless hands he formed humankind as a representation (χαρακτῆρα) of his own image.” (1Clem. 33:4.)

A signet ring was often made of metal or crystal, but the impression was made of wax, the attributes of the signet ring and the impression are different entirely. Therefore, use of the word alone need not imply the items under discussion are of the same essence. The signet ring and the wax impress created by it are not consubstantial. The noun ὑποστάσεως here signifies, “God's substantial nature real being, essence,” (Friberg, p. 393.) and Vincent remarks:

 

“The primary sense of ὑπόστάσις substance is something which stands underneath; foundation, ground of hope or confidence, and so, assurance itself. In a philosophical sense, substantial nature; the real nature of anything which underlies and supports its outward form and properties … Here the essential being of God is conceived as setting its distinctive stamp upon Christ, coming into definite and characteristic expression in his person, so that the son bears the exact impress of the divine nature and character.” (M. Vincent, Word Studies Vol. IV., p. 382, 383.)

 

Therefore, it does the original language justice to translate ὑποστάσεως in Heb. 1:3 as “very being,” “substance,” or even “essential being,” and all would convey the sense well. Kelly (p. 129) explained that they “were originally synonymous terms, the former Stoic and the latter Platonic.” It is not until Basil of Casarea in the fourth century that there is a rigid distinction between these terms. “The distinction between οὐσία (essence) and ὑπόστασις (being) is the same as that between the general and the particular; as, for instance, between the animal and the particular man.” (Letter 236.) Even in the anathemas appended to the Nicene Creed of 325 all are condemned who say the Son is of another “essence or hypostasis,” ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσιάς, than the Father. Schaff (Vol. III, p. 677) remarks:

 

"In each person there is the same inseparable divine essence, united with the individual property and relation which distinguishes that person from the others. The word person is in reality only a make-shift, in the absence of a more adequate term. Our idea of God is more true and deep than our terminology, and the essence and character of God far transcends our highest ideas… All speculation on divine things ends in a mystery, and reaches an inexplicable residue, before which the thinking mind must bow in humble devotion."

 

This radical view of divine transcendence is nowhere taught in the Bible but it is from the rich Hellenistic tradition that the Church inherited through its fathers. Augustine wrote, “If we be asked to define the Trinity, we can only say, it is not this or that.” (De Trinitatae, IV. 100, §1) The Ante-Nicene fathers would not express the generation of the Son with much philosophical precision. (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 61, 62, 129; Apology, 1.16, 23; 2.13; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.4, 22; 3. 15, 16, 19; 4. 20, 5. 22; Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 13; Against Hermogenes, 3.; Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 2.6; 6.23; 8.14; Against Celsus, 8.14; Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, 2.10; Basil of Caesarea, Letters 38, 125, 236; Alexander of Alexandria, The Deposition of Arius, 1.12; Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, 1.2.)

In a strange passage, Ignatius in his Epistle to the Ephesians 7:2, where he describes Christ as “unborn,” or “uncaused" in his divine nature. Athanasius is quick to reinterpret this so that it does not entail a denial of eternal generation. (De Synodis, §47.) The concept of generic unity of essence has been described as follows by Schaff,

 

“The terms essence (οὐσία) and nature (φύσις), in the philosophical sense, denote not an individual, a personality, but the genus or species; not unum in numero, but ens unum in multis. All men are of the same substance, partake of the same human nature, though as persons and individuals they are very different.” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity, A.D. 311-600 (Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1910), §130, p. 672-674.)

 

This exact language is used in the Nicene Creed, and it should be noted that “coessential” already had an established and well-known meaning by the time of the 325 council. The statement that the Father and Son are of the same essence might be understood in either the generic or the numeric sense, depending upon the context of the statement.

 

“The term homoousion, in its strict grammatical sense, differs from monoousion or toutoousion, as well as from heteroousion, and signifies not numerical identity, but equality of essence or community of nature among several beings. It is clearly used thus in the Chalcedonian symbol, where it is said that Christ is “consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father as touching the Godhead, and consubstantial with us (and yet individually, distinct from us) as touching the manhood.” The Nicene Creed does not expressly assert the singleness or numerical unity of the divine essence (unless it be in the first article: “We believe in one God”); and the main point with the Nicene fathers was to urge against Arianism the strict divinity and essential equality of the Son and Holy Ghost with the Father. If we press the difference of homoousion from monoousion, and overlook the many passages in which they assert with equal emphasis the monarchia or numerical unity of the Godhead, we must charge them with tritheism.” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. III. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity, A.D. 311-600, printed by Hendrickson Publishers, 2006, §130, p. 672.)  

Whether this 'generic' sense of the word homoousios was truly intended by Nicaea (325) or Chalcedon (451) is a matter of some dispute. Cyril of Alexandria does say in Cum Salvator Noster that the Son shares an "identity of essence" with the Father, not merely a generic sharing of essence. This council is affirmed by the fathers of Chalcedon. Further, one could hardly say that Athanasius believed the persons of the Trinity were generically consubstantial at the time He wrote his epistles to Serapion concerning the Spirit. Kelly (p. 235) makes the following claims:

“It was with this ‘generic’ sense that the word was first applied in Christian theology, to express the Son’s relation to the Father. Origen, if Rufinus’s translation can be trusted, had used it so when he spoke of a ‘community of substance between the Father and Son’, citing steam and the water from which it was generated as an analogy. Dionysus of Alexandria, similarly, understood ὁμοούσιος as synonymous with ὁμογενής and ὁμοφυής, i.e. ‘homogeneous’, ‘of the same nature’; and Dionysius of Rome seems to have been content with this interpretation. The use of the term at the council of Antioch (268) remains something of a mystery, but on balance it appears likely that it was the given meaning generally accepted in the third century.”

 

In his early works Athanasius might have approved of the generic sense but this is by no means clear. (De Synodis, 17, 41; Contr. Arianos, 1.58; 4.1, 9-10) Eusebius of Caesarea insists the Council could even permit a semi-Arian interpretation. (Epistle on the Council of Nicaea, §5-9.) Instead Hosius translated the disputed phrase in the Nicene Creed as “unius substantiae,” when producing his Latin version of the Creed. Newton in his Queries on Homoousios argues that unius substantiae is the literal translation of μονοούσιος and thus implies Hosius mistranslated the Creed.  

Debate Outline: Existence of God

Note: This debate outline was written and delivered in 2021. At present, I have no interest in defending philosophical arguments for God. I presently regard all of the arguments of natural theology to be invalid, unsound or unpersuasive. — A.S. August 12, 2023

Religion is a complicated phenomena. The overwhelming majority of the human population believes in the existence of some God or another. Jews, Christians and Muslims altogether make up over half of the world population.Many people believe in God on the basis of religious experience. As a general principle it is rational to believe experiences in the absence of good contradictory evidence. If you think you see your house on fire it is reasonable to believe that your house actually is on fire on the basis of experience— unless you have reason to believe that you are hallucinating. Equivalently, if you believe you have seen God's hand in your life or in the life of someone else it is rational to believe that there is a God in the absence of good contradictory evidence. Anthony of Sourozh wrote, "Many could say: God exists because I have met him, Christ is risen because I have met the risen Christ."

But while many have such experiences, not everyone does. For such people it is necessary to present some sort of argument or evidence to convince them of God's existence. Many ancient philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle argued from the most general features of the world for the existence of God. This is commonly called natural theology.

God is supposed to be a person without a physical body who has existed from eternity and who is omnipotent and self-sufficient. To say that he is omnipotent means that he can do anything which does not entail a contradiction. To say that his existence is self-sufficient means that his existence is dependent upon no conditions external to himself. God is also supposed to be perfectly good. Human beings are imperfect hence we have irrational desires. We sometimes choose to do what is good and sometimes we do what is bad. But God on the other hand is good by nature. He always does what is good and never does what is bad. So there is a significant difference between God's freedom and human Freedom. Humans have the freedom to choose between good and bad actions but God only has the freedom to choose between good actions.

Why should we believe that there is a God? The diameter of the observable Universe has been estimated to be 93 billion light-years. The size of the universe is so extraordinary that it is beyond human comprehension. And yet every particle of matter in the entire universe behaves according to regular and orderly laws. This is a very remarkable fact about the world. Matter behaves in accord with fixed principles which can be studied by physicists and chemists. Why is the world this way? All the universe might not have existed at all. Or it might have been chaotic, some laws applying at one second and an entirely different set of laws applying at the next. So why does the universe behave according to certain regular laws of nature? What is the explanation?

There are two basic kinds of explanations: personal and impersonal explanations. Personal explanations seek to explain some phenomena through the actions, beliefs and powers of a person (or persons). For example I am here today because I had a belief that I would be having a debate, I had the power to bring myself here, and so I did. Impersonal explanations seek to explain some phenomena through initial conditions and laws of nature. For example, the impersonal explanation for why some river has frozen over during wintertime is that water freezes when it is below 32 degrees Fahrenheit and the water in the river reached that temperature so it froze—this is an explanation in terms of some initial conditions and laws of nature. These are our two methods of explaining things.

There could not be an impersonal explanation for the orderliness and regularity of natural laws because such explanations assume the existence of these laws. If we were to explain the existence of natural laws in terms of more general natural laws that still does not explain why there are any natural laws whatsoever. We would be positing laws to explain laws and arguing in a circle. Hence if there could not be an impersonal explanation there is a personal explanation.

This person or persons must be extremely powerful, plausibly omnipotent, to cause every particle in the Universe to operate in a law-like way and would surely merit being called "God." It is simpler to posit one God than it is to posit many gods. And it is simpler to posit an omnipotent God rather than a limited God and therefore monotheism is the best account. If there were a God, he would have reason to create a world governed by orderly and regular laws. For creatures who are limited in knowledge to understand the world around them, it must behave in a regular way. If our world were chaotic and were not governed by regular laws, we would have no idea how our actions would affect the world and we could not make meaningful choices or lead productive lives. The present argument might be summarized in this way,

1. There is an explanation for why the Universe is governed by orderly and regular natural laws.

2. The explanation for why the Universe is governed by orderly and regular natural laws is either a PE or an IE.

3. The explanation could not be an IE.

4. Therefore the explanation is a PE. (2, 3)

5. If the explanation is a PE, it is theistic.

6. Hence, the explanation is theistic. (4, 5)

7. The simplest theistic explanation for why the Universe is governed by orderly and regular natural laws is monotheism.

8. The simplest explanation is the best explanation.

9. Therefore, monotheism is the best explanation for why the Universe is governed by orderly and regular natural laws. (7, 8)

Very few would deny that the universe is, overall, a very beautiful place. Philosophers, artists and poets have admired the beauty of the Sun, moon, planets, stars, and galaxies. The splendor of flowers and the great forests. No reasonable person could deny that there is beauty in abundance in the natural world. One can look into the night sky with a telescope, or even with his natural eye alone and see there symmetry, beauty, harmony and diversity—and rightly conclude that there is an intelligent Creator of the world. If there is a God, then he has reason to provide humans with a basically beautiful universe to live in, and to leave it up to us whether to beautify the world further or to introduce ugliness to the world it by our choices; to bless our neighbors or curse them. If there were not a God, then there is no reason to expect the existence of a basically beautiful universe over a basically ugly universe. In fact, without the existence of God there is no reason to expect the existence of any universes at all. The present argument may be summarized in this way,

1. If God exists, he has reason to bring into existence a universe which is overall beautiful.

2. Hence if God exists, we would have reason to expect a universe which is overall beautiful rather than a universe which is overall ugly.

3. Conversely, if God did not exist we would not have reason to expect a universe which is overall beautiful.

4. Therefore, if the universe is overall, a beautiful place, that would highly favor theism over atheism. (1-3)

5. The Universe is overall beautiful.

6. Therefore, the existence of an overall beautiful Universe highly favors theism over atheism. (4, 5)

The Bible is the most well-read and scrutinized book in all human history. For thousands of years the Bible has successfully resisted all attempts to discredit it. The chief argument for the divine inspiration of the Bible is the argument from fulfilled prophecy. God is supposed to be omniscient, capable of foreseeing the future with perfect accuracy. There are many religious books in the world with the Bible alone contains hundreds or specific predictions about the future which are declared to be the utterances of God himself. If these prophecies are genuine predictions which have accurately foretold improbable future events then they would constitute good evidence that the Bible has a divine origin. In the fifteenth century the prophet Moses gathered the nation of Israel before him and foretold the fall of the nation as a political power, thousands of years in advance.

Deut. 28:49: "Jehovah will bring a nation against thee from afar, from the end of the earth, as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand."

Regarding these words, Gaebelein commented, "the Roman power, which was used to break the Jews, is clearly predicted by Moses, and that in a time when no such power existed... The eagle was the standard of the Roman armies; the Jews understood many oriental languages, but were ignorant of Latin.” This is an especially remarkable prediction. If someone living at the time were to make an educated guess about who would finally crush ancient Israel, he would likely predict one of the neighboring nations. Israel was already surrounded by hostile neighboring nations who spoke similar languages. Yet Moses predicts "from afar, from the end of the earth" who will speak a language the Israelites will not understand. The Prophet gave further details starting in verse 50,

"A nation of fierce countenance, that shall not regard the person of the old, nor show favor to the young... And they shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fortified walls come down... in all thy gates throughout all thy land, which Jehovah thy God hath given thee... And Jehovah will bring thee into Egypt again with ships... and there ye shall sell yourselves unto your enemies for bondmen and for bondwomen, and no man shall buy you." (Deut. 28:50, 52, 68)

Each of these predictions came to pass in 70 C.E. When Jerusalem was laid Siege by the Roman army. No mercy was shown to the old or to the young. Their fortified Towers in defenses were overwhelmed. Note that Moses is specifically foretold the Israelites would be sent back to Egypt in ships and would again be sold into slavery. The Roman Emperor Titus sent all Jewish prisoners who were above seventeen years old to work in the Egyptian mines. (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, VI., 418, 420, 421.) Moses foretold that the Israelites who remained would die of pestilence and famine. (Deut. 28:52-55, 59-60) This was also fulfilled. (Wars of the Jews, VI., 421.)

In 538 B.C.E. The prophet Daniel foretold that Jerusalem would be destroyed and 49 years later it would be rebuilt with a wall and moat. (Dan. 9:25) And then 434 years after the rebuilding of Jerusalem that the Messiah would arrive and then be executed. (Dan. 9:26) And then after the death of the Messiah, the city of Jerusalem and its Temple would be destroyed permanently “the sacrifice and the oblation will cease.” These are all very specific predictions. The historical record shows that this prophecy was fulfilled in every detail. In 455 BC Artaxerxes issued an edict to rebuild Jerusalem and 49 years later and 406 BC Jerusalem was rebuilt with a wall and the moat. Then 434 years later the Messiah arrived when Jesus of Nazareth was baptized by John and began his ministry in 29 C.E. And as predicted he was put to death, Dan. 9:26 states, “Messiah shall be cut off [an expression used throughout the Bible for execution] and shall have nothing: and the people of the prince that shall come, shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” To this very day the temple in Jerusalem has not been rebuilt.

What is the probability that Daniel through mere guesswork could predict such events hundreds of years before their fulfillment with complete accuracy? It is not more reasonable to believe that Daniel was actually a prophet of the God of Israel as he claimed?

In summary, The most general features of the universe are exactly what we would expect if God exists. We would expect to find a universe which is governed by orderly laws; that is overall beautiful rather than ugly; that there are creatures with the free will to choose between good and evil; where most people believe in his existence. We would have no reason to expect them if there was not a God. Furthermore, the Bible is exactly the sort of divine revelation we would expect. It contains verifiable examples of fulfilled prophecy and is the most widely distributed and translated book in the world. If anything I have said interests you, I urge you to search for God sincerely and he will let himself be found, "draw close to God and he will draw close to you." (Acts 17:27; Jas. 4:8; Prov. 2:4-6) Thank you all for your attention.