Hypostasis — A Word Study (part 1)
NOTE: This article is adapted from a paper I wrote for the 2023 OCABS Symposium and was presented at St. Elizabeth Orthodox Church in Saint Paul, Minnesota on August 25, 2023.
The saga of the Christological controversies in late antiquity and the Middle Ages can be summed up by an incessant obsession with the precise definition of certain words in order to concoct a robust definition of God. With that precision, however, comes confusion, which is demonstrated by the various councils after Nicea which were largely held to solve disputes about the precise value of theological lingo. One of the main culprits for this confusion was the word hypostasis which was the source of not only the conflict of the Nicene Council but also and more infamously so in the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon which forever divided the Eastern churches over different interpretations and applications of this particular word. The problem with hypostasis wasn’t so much its precise meaning, but rather its precise boundary when describing the nature and function of an individual. The word itself at its most basic breakdown means to stand underneath. It refers to the concrete reality of a thing whether it be a person or not. The confusion was exacerbated by the use of the Greek word ousia in theological circles and how Jesus Christ could be both distinct from God the Father while also being divine himself. It was decided at the council of Nicea that ousia refers to the general “Godness” that the Father and the Son share and that hypostasis refers to the individual identities and functions of the Father and the Son. In other words, ousia referred to general essence and hypostasis referred to particular identity. This was only the start of the issue however, as the word hypostasis became the new focal point for debate along with many other words like physis, or nature. The question of whether two natures, divine and human, could share one hypostasis decimated Christian unity in the East. Some historians have blamed this on cultural differences where hypostasis may have had different meanings to those who were not natively Greek speakers. While this might be partly true, the problem seems to run deeper with a word that can be used in several different applications. In other words, there isn’t a one use fits all approach that is precise enough for these admittedly increasingly abstract debates. The early church historian Socrates Scholasticus makes some astonishing observations in his Ecclesiastical History where in Book III, he describes a synod in Alexandria where the efficacy of the terms ousia and hypostasis were being debated. For reference, this was shortly prior to the council of Nicea. Of this, he wrote,
It was there determined that such expressions as ousia and hypostasis ought not to be used in reference to God: For they argued that the word ousia is nowhere employed in the sacred Scriptures; and that the apostle had misapplied the term hypostasis (Heb. 1:3) owing to an inevitable necessity arising from the nature of the doctrine.
In that last sentence, it is striking that the members of the Synod considered the use of hypostasis in Hebrews 1:3 a misapplied term. The English translation doesn’t really do justice to the original Greek, which has the aorist middle infinitive verb katakrisasthai which means to make full use of in the sense of over using or stretching. In other words, they were saying that the word hypostasis is way too broad to be used for any sort of theological specification. In relation to this very problem, Socrates supplies his own thoughts on this controversy writing:
If we may express our own judgment concerning substance and personality, it appears to us that the Greek philosophers have given us various definitions of ousia, but have not taken the slightest notice of hypostasis. Irenæus the grammarian indeed, in his lexicon “Atticistes”, even declares it to be a barbarous term; for it is not to be found in any of the ancients, except occasionally in a sense quite different from that which is attached to it in the present day.
With a swift stroke of dark propheticism, Socrates explicated the problem that the word hypostasis would cause for the church throughout history as it was precisely the disagreements over hypostasis and other similar theological lingo which shattered Christian unity in the East. It is striking that the Synod also identified the problem specifically with the word ousia. The inference to Hebrews 1:3 is also interesting, because in direct contravention to the theologians of that Alexandrian synod, this verse has been used in light of its theological development and not necessarily on its context within that particular text, nor its usage in other parts of scripture, let alone contemporaneous and historical extra-biblical usage of the term. What does the Apostle mean by hypostasis? To answer this question, we need to not only look at its occurrences in the epistle to the Hebrews, but in the totality of scripture.
Without context, it is tempting to read our theology into the text of Hebrews 1:3. This is reflected in most translations, at least in English. The English Standard Version of Hebrews 1:1–3 reads:
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature (hypostaseos), and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.
Many other translations follow a similar paradigm, sometimes using words such as substance, essence, and person. While this may seem clear cut enough, what is striking is that out of the five occurrences of hypostasis in the New Testament, this is the only place where it could possibly be referring to a person. In the other occurrences, it carries the connotation of assurance or confidence:
Otherwise, if some Macedonians come with me and find that you are not ready, we would be humiliated — to say nothing of you — for being so confident (hypostasei). — 2 Cor. 9:4
What I am saying with this boastful confidence (hypostasei), I say not as the Lord would but as a fool. — 2 Cor. 11:17
For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence (hypostaseōs) firm to the end. — Heb.3:14
Now faith is the assurance (hypostasis) of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. — Heb. 11:1
In this context, the common translation of hypostasis as something akin to nature is the outlier among the New Testament occurrences. With respect to the Septuagint, the pool is even larger and there is a chance to compare with Greek with the original Hebrew text to get even more clarity on how this word functions in scripture. There are nineteen occurrences of this word in the Septuagint, so for the sake of brevity not every occurrence will be chosen but the full range of these occurrences will be represented. The word hypostasis in the Septuagint often translates multiple different Hebrew words of varying connotations. One interesting example is the translation of the Hebrew qum into hypostasis. Here is an example from Deuteronomy 11:6.
And what he did to Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, son of Reuben, how the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households, their tents, and every living thing (hypostasin/ ha-yequm) that followed them, in the midst of all Israel.
While the English translation in the ESV renders ha-yequm to living things the literal rendering would be of those who are standing out. This can be seen in another instance where ha-yequm is rendered as exanastasin in the Greek:
For in seven days I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living thing (exanastasin/ yaqum) that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground. — Gen. 7:4
Here, both of these roots are employed as equivalents as they are in the biblical text, and they reinforce the basic etymological rendering of hypostasis as having to do with standing. Another example can be seen in Job 22:20 where the word qimanu from the root qum is describing an adversary. Quite literally, it has the connotation of one standing against something or someone:
Saying, ‘Surely our adversaries (hypostasis/ qimanu) are cut off, and what they left the fire has consumed.’
Another such example is from the verb ‘amad which usually has the value of taking one’s stand.
Here is an occurrence from Psalm 69:2.
I sink in deep mire, where there is no foothold (hypostasis/ ma‘omad); I have come into deep waters.
Here the connotation is that of a lower support, something to rest one’s feet on. This connotation of hypostasis as being a support both literally and figuratively is quite common throughout the scriptures. Hypostasis is also used to describe support columns or some physical support structure. Firstly, the connotation of weightiness can be readily seen in the very first instance of hypostasis in the Septuagint:
How can I bear by myself the weight and burden (hypostasin/massa’kem) of you and your strife? And then in Ezekiel 26:11, we can see the connotation with the support columns. With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets. He will kill your people with the sword, and your mighty pillars (hypostasin/ maṣebot) will fall to the ground. —Deut. 1:12
Here, the Septuagint translates the Hebrew word maṣebah which is often used for physical structures. The context in that verse is an admonition against the King of Tyre, and the prophetic warning of God sending Nebuchadnezzar the Babylonian king to destroy the city of Tyre, including and most especially, their palaces and temples. Even more striking than this, is the occurrence of hypostasis in the Greek translation of Ezekiel 43:11. Here, the context is surrounding the completion of God’s eschatological temple:
And if they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the temple, its arrangement, its exits and its entrances, that is, its whole design (hypostasin/ surat).
Here, the word hypostasis is referring to the totality of God’s temple. It is not merely the support beam as in maṣebah but the whole design. It is from this vantage point that we can see where the common gloss of hypostasis as referring to essence can be seen. But what is meant by essence here doesn’t have to do with metaphysics, it is merely the totality of the thing in question. For example, the Septuagint often uses hypostasis as a gloss to describe a group of people or as a means of describing a person’s totality. In the former case, we have the occurrences in 1 Samuel where the word hypostasis is used to describe the garrison of the Philistines:
And the garrison (hypostaseos/maṣab) of the Philistines went out to the pass of Michmash. — 1 Sam. 13:23
Within the passes, by which Jonathan sought to go over to the Philistine garrison (hypostasin/ maṣab), there was a rocky crag on the one side and a rocky crag on the other side. The name of the one was Bozez, and the name of the other Seneh. — 1 Sam. 14:4
There is another example in Judges 6:4 where the entirety of the living creatures are glossed by the word hypostasis:
They would encamp against them and devour the produce of the land, as far as Gaza, and leave no sustenance (hypostasin/ miḥya) in Israel and no sheep or ox or donkey.
In the latter case, of hypostasis referring to a person’s totality, there are a few examples from the Psalms:
Behold, you have made my days a few handbreadths, and my lifetime (hypostasis mou/ ḥeldi) is as nothing before you. Surely all mankind stands as a mere breath! — Ps. 39:5
Let my (hypostasis/ḥeled) be remembered, as to what sort it is, for did you create the sons of men in vain? — Ps. 89:47
My bones were not hidden from you, which you made in secret, and my (hypostasis) from the depths of the earth. — Ps. 139:15
There is another example of this usage from the book of Jeremiah:
Gather your (hypostasin/ kinatek) dwelling among the elect. — Jer. 10:17
But if they had stood in my council (hypostasei/ besowdi), then they would have proclaimed my words to my people, and they would have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their deeds. —Jer. 22:23
Finally, the Septuagint also uses hypostasis figuratively in accordance with the majority of the occurrences in the New Testament. In the following examples, we see a few instances where hypostasis is rendered as hope.
Turn back, my daughters; go your way, for I am too old to have a husband. If I should say I have hope (hypostasis/ tiqwah), even if I should have a husband this night and should bear sons. — Jer. 10:17
And now, O Lord, for what do I wait? My hope (hypostasis/ towḥalti) is in you. — Jer. 10:17
As can be seen from these examples, hypostasis can be used in a myriad of ways and it is extremely difficult to gloss its entire potentiality of value into one all-encompassing English word. So to understand what hypostasis is referring to in a given text, we cannot determine its overall meaning but its function in the sentence and the broader context.