Hypostatic union

File:Spas vsederzhitel sinay.jpg at Saint Catherine's Monastery. The two different facial expressions on either side emphasize Christ's dual nature as both divine and human.God's human face: the Christ-icon by Christoph Schoenborn 1994 {{ISBN|0-89870-514-2}} page 154Sinai and the Monastery of St. Catherine by John Galey 1986 {{ISBN|977-424-118-5}} page 92]]

File:Composite_christ_pantocrator.png

{{Main|Hypostasis (philosophy and religion)}}

The Greek term hypostasis (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 (primarily Stoicism) used the word.R. Norris, "Hypostasis," in The Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, ed. E. Ferguson. New York: Garland Publishing, 1997Aristotle, "Mund.", IV, 21. Some occurrences of the term hypostasis in the New Testament foreshadow the later, technical understanding of the word.There are only five occurrences in the NT, in general used in the sense of assurance, substance, reality. Definition (lit: an underlying): (a) confidence, assurance, (b) a giving substance (or reality) to, or a guaranteeing, (c) substance, reality. The occurrences are: 2 Corinthians 9:4 – ἐν τῇ ὑποστάσει ταύτῃ (by this confidence); 2 Corinthians 11:17 – ταύτῃ τῇ ὑποστάσει τῆς καυχήσεως (in this confidence of boasting); Hebrews 1:3 –χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ φέρων (and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds); Hebrews 3:14 –ἀρχὴν τῆς ὑποστάσεως μέχρι τέλους (the beginning of our assurance firm); and Hebrews 11:1 – πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος (faith is the assurance of [things] hoped). See: http://biblehub.com/str/greek/5287.htm Although it can translate literally as "substance", this has been a cause of some confusion;{{cite book |last=Placher |first=William |author-link=William Placher |title=A History of Christian Theology: An Introduction |year=1983 |location=Philadelphia |publisher=Westminster Press |isbn=0-664-24496-3 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/historyofchristi00plac/page/78 78–79] |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/historyofchristi00plac/page/78 }} accordingly the New American Standard Bible translates it as "subsistence". Hypostasis denotes an actual, concrete existence, in contrast to abstract categories such as Platonic ideals.

In Kierkegaard's Philosophical 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 the Christian understanding of the term: burdened by sin, limited in goodness, knowledge, and understanding.Concluding Unscientific Postscript p. 217 (read p.202-217) also see Philosophical Fragments p.31-35 and The Sickness Unto Death p. 132-133 Hannay This paradox can only be resolved, Kierkegaard believed, by a leap 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".

{{Palamism}}

Apollinaris of Laodicea was the first to use the term hypostasis in trying to understand the Incarnation.Gregory of Nyssa, Antirrheticus Adversus Apollinarem. 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 between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius in which Nestorius claimed that the term theotokos 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. The Council 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᾽ ὑπόστασιν kath' 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")"Saint Cyril of Alexandria. St. Cyril of Alexandria: Letters. Trans. John McEnerney. Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1987. Print.

The preeminent Antiochene theologian Theodore of Mopsuestia, contending against the monophysite heresy of Apollinarism, 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."Theodore" in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian History, ed. J. Brauer. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971. However, in Theodore's time the word hypostasis could be used in a sense synonymous with ousia (which clearly means "essence" rather than "person") as it had been used by Tatian and Origen. The Greek and Latin interpretations of Theodore's Christology have come under scrutiny since the recovery of his Catechetical Orations in the Syriac language.

In 451, the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon promulgated the Chalcedonian Definition. It agreed with Theodore that there were two natures in the Incarnation. However, the Council 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.

The Oriental Orthodox Churches, having rejected the Chalcedonian Definition, were known as Miaphysites because they maintain the Cyrilian definition that characterized the incarnate Son as having one nature. The Chalcedonian "in two natures" formula (based, at least partially, on Colossians 2:9) was seen as derived from and akin to a Nestorian Christology.[http://www.britishorthodox.org/113e.php Britishorthodox.org] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080619000000/http://www.britishorthodox.org/113e.php |date=June 19, 2008 }} Contrariwise, the Chalcedonians saw the Oriental Orthodox as tending towards Eutychian Monophysitism. However, the Oriental Orthodox persistently specified that they have never believed in the doctrines of Eutyches, that they have always affirmed that Christ's humanity is consubstantial with our own, and they thus prefer the term Miaphysite to be referred to as a reference to Cyrillian Christology, which used the phrase "{{lang|grc|μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη}}", "mía phýsis toû theoû lógou sesarkōménē". The term miaphysic means one 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 the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches signed joint statements{{cite web|url=https://www.trinityorthodox.ca/sites/default/files/Agreed%20Statements-Orthodox-Oriental%20Orthodox%20Dialogue-1989-1990.pdf |title=Agreed Statements between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches (June 1989 & September 1990) |author=Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches}} in an attempt to work towards reunification (for more, see Miaphysitism). Likewise the leaders of the Assyrian Church of the East, which venerates Nestorius and Theodore, in 1994 signed a joint agreement with leaders of the Roman Catholic Church acknowledging that their historical differences were over terminology rather than the actual intended meaning.

{{portal|Christianity}}

• Dyophysitism
• God-man (Christianity)
• Homoousion
• Person of Christ

{{reflist}}

{{Refbegin|2}}

• {{Cite book|last=Grillmeier|first=Aloys|author-link= Aloys Grillmeier|title=Christ in Christian Tradition: From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451)|year=1975|orig-year=1965|edition=2nd revised|location=Louisville|publisher=Westminster John Knox Press|isbn=9780664223014|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LH-cBwmmY2cC}}
• {{Cite book|last=Gorman|first=Michael|title=Aquinas on the Metaphysics of the Hypostatic Union|year=2017|location=Cambridge|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=9781107155329 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vjm8DgAAQBAJ}}
• {{Cite book|last=Kuhn|first=Michael F.|title=God is One: A Christian Defence of Divine Unity in the Muslim Golden Age|year=2019|location=Carlisle|publisher=Langham Publishing|isbn=9781783685776 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mXPnDwAAQBAJ}}
• {{Cite book|last=Loon|first=Hans van|year=2009|title=The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria|place=Leiden-Boston|publisher=Basil BRILL|isbn=978-9004173224|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BVDsO6IbdOYC}}
• {{Cite journal|last=McLeod|first=Frederick G.|title=Theodore of Mopsuestia's Understanding of Two Hypostaseis and Two Prosopa Coinciding in One Common Prosopon|journal=Journal of Early Christian Studies|year=2010|volume=18|number=3|pages=393–424|doi=10.1353/earl.2010.0011 |s2cid=170594639 |url=https://doi.org/10.1353/earl.2010.0011}}
• {{Cite book|last=Meyendorff|first=John|author-link=John Meyendorff|title=Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church 450–680 A.D.|year=1989|location=Crestwood, NY|publisher=St. Vladimir's Seminary Press|isbn=9780881410563|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6J_YAAAAMAAJ}}
• {{Cite book|editor-last=Norris|editor-first=Richard A.|title=The Christological Controversy|year=1980|location=Minneapolis|publisher=Fortess Press|isbn=9780800614119 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9tCTomd0LcgC}}
• {{Cite book|last=Ramelli|first=Ilaria|author-link=Ilaria Ramelli|chapter=Gregory of Nyssa’s Trinitarian Theology in In Illud: Tunc et ipse filius. His Polemic against Arian Subordinationism and the ἀποκατάστασις|title=Gregory of Nyssa: The Minor Treatises on Trinitarian Theology and Apollinarism|year=2011|location=Leiden-Boston|publisher=Brill|pages=445–478|isbn=9789004194144 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZOF5DwAAQBAJ}}
• {{Cite journal|last=Ramelli|first=Ilaria|author-link=Ilaria Ramelli|title=Origen, Greek Philosophy, and the Birth of the Trinitarian Meaning of Hypostasis|journal=The Harvard Theological Review|year=2012|volume=105|number=3|pages=302–350|doi=10.1017/S0017816012000120|jstor=23327679|s2cid=170203381 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/23327679}}
• {{Cite journal|last=Turcescu|first=Lucian|author-link=Lucian Turcescu|title=Prosopon and Hypostasis in Basil of Caesarea's "Against Eunomius" and the Epistles|journal=Vigiliae Christianae|year=1997|volume=51|number=4|pages=374–395|doi=10.2307/1583868 |jstor=1583868|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1583868}}
• {{Cite book|last=Weedman|first=Mark|title=The Trinitarian Theology of Hilary of Poitiers|year=2007|location=Leiden-Boston|publisher=Brill|isbn=978-9004162242|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9Z8GhJl6BG8C}}

{{refend}}

{{wiktionary|hypostasis}}

{{Catholic Encyclopedia|wstitle=Hypostatic Union}}

{{Christian theology|state=uncollapsed}}

{{Christianity footer}}

Category:Christology

Category:Christian terminology

Category:Catholic theology and doctrine

Category:Eastern Orthodox theology

Category:Mystical union

Category:Nature of Jesus Christ