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.
Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Mille, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Canada: Trafford Publishing, 2005.
John N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1978.
No comments:
Post a Comment