View source for Hypostasis (philosophy and religion)

{{Short description|Underlying state or underlying substance}}
'''Hypostasis''' (plural: '''hypostases'''), from the [[Ancient Greek|Greek]] {{lang|grc-Grek|ὑπόστασις|italic=no}} (''hypóstasis''), is the underlying, fundamental state or substance that supports all of [[reality]]. It is not the same as the [[Substance theory|concept of a substance]].{{Citation needed|reason=citation of statement or further detail for context|date=August 2024}} In [[Neoplatonism]], the hypostasis of the [[soul]], the intellect (''[[nous]]'') and "[[Monad (philosophy)|the one]]" was addressed by [[Plotinus]].{{sfn|Anton|1977|pp=258–271}} In [[Christian theology]], the [[Holy Trinity]] consists of three hypostases: that of the [[God the Father (Christianity)|Father]], that of the [[God the Son (Christianity)|Son]], and that of the [[Holy Spirit in Christianity|Holy Spirit]].<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Encyclopedia of Christianity|volume= 5|publisher= Eerdman|others= Fahlbusch, Erwin, Lochman, Jan Milič, Mbiti, John S., Pelikan, Jaroslav, 1923–2006, Vischer, Lukas, Bromiley, G. W. (Geoffrey William)|year=2008|isbn=978-0802824134|location=Grand Rapids, Michigan|page=[https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofch0001unse_t6f2/page/543 543]|oclc=39914033|url=https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofch0001unse_t6f2/page/543}}
</ref>

==Ancient Greek philosophy==
{{Neoplatonism}}
[[Pseudo-Aristotle]] used "hypostasis" in the sense of [[Matter|material substance]].<ref>[[Pseudo-Aristotle]], ''[[De mundo]]'', 4.19.</ref>

Neoplatonists argue that beneath the surface phenomena that present themselves to our senses are three higher spiritual principles (or ''hypostases''): each one more sublime than the preceding. For [[Plotinus]], these are [[wikt:psyche#English|the Soul]], [[Nous|the Intellect]], and [[Henology|the One]].{{sfn|Anton|1977|pp=258–271}}<ref name=Paula>''Neoplatonism (Ancient Philosophies)'' by Pauliina Remes (2008), University of California Press {{ISBN|0520258347}}, pp. 48–52.</ref>

==Christian theology==
[[File:Сопрестолье Венеция.jpeg|thumb|right|220px|[[Italo-Greek style|Italo-Greek]] icon, representing the [[Holy Trinity]], Venice (16th century)]]
{{see also|Hypostatic union}}
The term ''hypostasis'' has particular significance in [[Christian theology]]; particularly in [[Christian triadology]]{{em dash}}the study of the Christian doctrine of the [[trinity]]{{em dash}}as well as [[Christology]] (study of [[Christ]]).{{sfn|Meyendorff|1989|pp=190–192, 198, 257, 362}}{{sfn|Daley|2009|pp=342–345}} 

===Triadology===
In Christian triadology, three specific theological concepts have emerged throughout history in reference to the number and interrelationship of the ''hypostases'':{{sfn|Ramelli|2012|pp=302–350}} 

==== Monohypostatic ====
The ''monohypostatic'' (or ''miahypostatic'') concept advocates that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one single ''hypostasis''{{sfn|Lienhard|1993|pp=97–99}}{{sfn|Bulgakov|2009|pp=82, 143–144}} in a single ''ousia''{{em dash}}meaning that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single [[Prosopon|Person]]. Historically, there were variations of this view: 

* The second-century [[Monarchianism|Monarchians]] believed that "Father" and "Son" are two names for the same God.{{Citation needed|date=August 2024}}
* In the third century, [[Sabellius]] taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three parts of one ''hypostasis''.{{Citation needed|date=August 2024}}

Among the pre-Nicene Church Fathers, "[[Dionysius of Rome]] ... said that it is wrong to divide the divine monarchy 'into three ... separated ''hypostases'' ... people who hold this in effect produce three gods'."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|185}} 

In the fourth century, Sabellians<ref name="revjesussabellian">{{cite web | url=https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/sabellians/ | title=The Sabellians of the Fourth Century | date=March 2024 }}</ref> (such as Eustathius<ref>“It seems most likely that Eustathius was primarily deposed for the heresy of Sabellianism.” (Hanson, p. 211)</ref> and Marcellus,<ref>“Marcellus of Ancyra had produced a theology … which could quite properly be called Sabellian.” (Hanson, p. ix)</ref><ref name=":2">“If we are to take the [[Nicene Creed]] at its face value, the theology of Eustathius and Marcellus was the theology which triumphed at Nicaea. That creed admits the possibility of only one ''ousia'' and one ''hypostasis''. This was the hallmark of the theology of these two men.” Hanson, RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God - 

The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987, p. 235</ref>), Alexander,<ref>"The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius insists there is only one ''hypostasis.''“ (Ayres, p. 69)</ref> Athanasius,<ref>The “clear inference from his (Athanasius') usage” is that “there is only '''one hypostasis''' in God.” (Ayres, Nicaea and its legacy, 2004, p. 48)</ref><ref name="revjesusalexatha">{{cite web | url=https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/alexander-and-athanasius/ | title=Athanasius was not a Trinitarian. He was a Unitarian | date=6 May 2024 }}</ref> and the Western Church<ref>“He [Athanasius] had attended the Council of Serdica among the Western bishops in 343, and a formal letter of that Council had emphatically opted for the belief in one, and only one, ''hypostasis'' as orthodoxy. Athanasius certainly accepted this doctrine at least up to 359, even though he tried later to suppress this fact.” (Hanson, p. 444)</ref> taught a single hypostasis in God. The "clear inference from [Athanasius'] usage" is that "there is only one hypostasis in God."<ref>Lewis Ayres, p. 48</ref> Some leading scholars claim that even the Nicene Creed professes a 'one hypostasis' theology.<ref name=":2" />

==== Dyohypostatic ====
The ''Dyohypostatic'' concept advocates that God has two hypostases (Father and Son);{{sfn|Lienhard|1993|pp=94–97}} When the fourth-century Controversy began, the focus was only on the Son, not on the Holy Spirit.<ref>“The Council of Nicaea adverted to the Holy Spirit in what might seem like a mere afterthought: ‘And we believe in the Holy Spirit.’” (Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea, 2011, p. 28)</ref> Later in that century, some groups, such as the [[Pneumatomachi|Macedonians]], accepted the Son as fully divine but not the Holy Spirit.<ref>E.g., “the Macedonians also believed in the full divinity of the Son, under the rubric of ‘likeness of essence’, but withheld both worship and confession of divinity from the Spirit.” (Anatolios, p. 28-9)</ref> This is why in AD 381, during the [[First Council of Constantinople]], the Nicene Creed{{Citation needed|date=August 2024}} was revised to be explicit, the final word, on the deity of the Holy Spirit.<ref>{{cite book|author=Lewis Ayres|title=Nicaea and its legacy: an approach to fourth-century Trinitarian theology|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CYbDjXRz5-0C&pg=PA254|access-date=1 July 2024|date=3 May 2006|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-875505-0}}</ref>

==== Trihypostatic ====
The ''Trihypostatic''  (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  ([[God the Father (Christianity)|Father]], [[God the Son|Son]] and the [[Holy Spirit in Christianity|Holy Spirit]]),{{sfn|Bulgakov|2009|pp=15, 143, 147}} each having the same ''ousia'', 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.<ref>"Origen "used ''hypostasis'' and ''ousia'' freely as interchangeable terms to describe the Son's distinct reality within the Godhead. ... He taught that there were three ''hypostases'' within the Godhead." (Hanson, p. 184)</ref> The Eusebians (traditionally but erroneously called 'Arians')<ref>{{Cite web |last=Niekerk |first=Andries van |date=2023-05-15 |title=Athanasius invented Arianism. |url=https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/little-writings/ |access-date=2024-08-26 |website=From Daniel to Revelation |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>“My second theological trajectory ... I will term ‘Eusebian’. When I use this term I mean to designate any who would have found common ground with ''either'' of Arius’ most prominent supporters, Eusebius of Nicomedia or Eusebius of Caesarea.” (Ayres, p. 52)</ref> believed in three hypostases.<ref>Arius had a “strong commitment to belief in three distinct divine hypostases.” (Williams, Rowan, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987, p. 97)</ref><ref>“Asterius (a leading Eusebian) insists also that Father, Son, and Spirit are three ''hypostases.''” (Ayres, p. 54)</ref> 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 Eastern [[Arian creeds|Dedication Creed]] says, "They are three in ''hypostasis'' but one in agreement." (Hanson, p. 286) "Agreement" implies distinct minds.{{Citation needed|date=August 2024}} 

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.<ref>“It is not until he (Athanasius) writes the De Decretis (356 or 357) that Athanasius again mentions the word and begins to defend it.” (Hanson, p. 436)</ref><ref>“Athanasius’ decision to make Nicaea and ''homoousios'' central to his theology has its origins in the shifting climate of the 350s.” (Ayres, p. 144)</ref> 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 (the [[Acacians|Homoians]]).{{Citation needed|date=August 2024}}

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 "is '''not because He lacks deliberate purpose or power of initiation'''" but because "'''His own will''' is connected in indissoluble union with the Father."<ref>Basil in his treatise, "De Spiritu Sancto"</ref>

This dispute about the number of hypostases in God was at [https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/real-issue-at-nicaea/ the 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|date=August 2024}}

===Hypostasis and ousia===
{{close paraphrase|section|source=''The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church''|date=January 2022}}
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|date=August 2024}}

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|date=August 2024}}

==== Greek philosophy ====
These terms originate from Greek philosophy,<ref>Referring to the Nicene Creed, R.P.C. Hanson describes them as “the new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day.” (Hanson, p. 846)</ref> where they essentially had the same meaning, namely, the fundamental reality that supports all else. In a Christian context, this concept may refer to ''God'' or the ''Ultimate Reality''.{{Citation needed|date=August 2024}}

==== The Bible ====
The Bible never refers to God's ''ousia'' and only once to God's ''hypostasis'' (Hebrews 1:3).<ref>"The only strictly theological use (of the word hypostasis) is that of Hebrews 1:3, where the Son is described as 'the impression of the nature' [hypostasis] of God.” (Hanson, p. 182)</ref><ref>"The word also occurs twenty times in the [[LXX]] (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament), but only one of them can be regarded as theologically significant. ... At Wisdom 16:21 the writer speaks of God's ''hypostasis'', meaning his nature; and no doubt this is why Hebrews uses the term 'impression of his nature'.” (Hanson, p. 182)</ref> In Hebrews 1:3, it is not clear whether ''hypostasis'' refers to God's nature or His entire 'Person' (hypostasis) and is variously translated.{{Citation needed|date=August 2024}}

==== Early Church Fathers ====
In [[early Christian]] writings, hypostasis was used to denote 'being' or 'substantive reality' and was not always distinguished in meaning from terms like ''ousia'' ('essence'), [[Substance (Christianity)|substantia]] ('substance') or [[qnoma]] (specific term in [[Syriac Christianity]]).{{sfn|Meyendorff|1989|p=173}} It was used in this way by [[Tatian]] and [[Origen]].{{sfn|Ramelli|2012|pp=302–350}} Tertullian, writing in Latin, did not use the Greek terms hypostasis and ousia but he did use the related term ''substantia.''<ref>"Tertullian at the turn of the second to the third centuries had already used the Latin word ''substantia'' (substance) of God&nbsp;... God therefore had a body and indeed was located at the outer boundaries of space.&nbsp;... It was possible for Tertullian to think of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit sharing this substance, so that the relationship of the Three is, in a highly refined sense, corporeal.&nbsp;... He can use the expression {{lang|la|Unius substantiae}} ('of one substance'). This has led some scholars to see Tertullian as an exponent of Nicene orthodoxy before Nicaea&nbsp;... But this is a far from plausible theory. Tertullian's materialism is&nbsp;... a totally different thing from any ideas of ''ousia'' or ''homoousios'' canvassed during the fourth century." (Hanson, p. 184)</ref>

==== Nicene Creed ====
The Nicene Creed of 325, in one of its anathemas, used the terms hypostasis and ousia: <blockquote>"But as for those ... who assert that the Son of God is of a different '''hypostasis or substance''' [ousia] ... these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes." ([https://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/creed_of_nicaea_325.htm Early Church Texts])</blockquote>These terms were not used by any previous creed.<ref>“One of the most striking aspects of Nicaea in comparison to surviving baptismal creeds from the period, and even in comparison to the creed which survives from the council of Antioch in early 325, is its use of the technical terminology of ''ousia'' and ''hypostasis''.” (Ayres, p. 92)</ref> At the time of the Nicene Creed, different people used these terms differently.<ref>“Considerable confusion existed about the use of the terms hypostasis and ousia at the period when the Arian Controversy broke out.” (Hanson, p. 181)</ref> Many used them as synonyms.<ref>“For many people at the beginning of the fourth century the word ''hypostasis'' and the word ''ousia'' had pretty well the same meaning.” (Hanson, p. 181)</ref> Importantly, Athanasius, the main custodian of the Nicene Creed, also used these terms as synonyms.<ref>"Clearly for him ''hypostasis'' and ''ousia'' were still synonymous." (Hanson, 440)</ref> It is, therefore, not surprising that one of the anathemas in the Creed seems to use these terms as synonyms.<ref>Ayres refers to “the seeming equation of ''ousia'' and ''hypostasis''. (Ayres, p. 88)</ref><ref>R.P.C. Hanson says the Nicene Creed "apparently (but not quite certainly) identifies hypostasis and ''ousia''.” (Hanson, p. 188)</ref> 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:<blockquote>[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."<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last=Hanson |first=Richard P. C |title=The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318–381 |year=1987}}</ref>{{rp|181}}</blockquote>

==== Cappadocian Fathers ====
As stated, when the Arian controversy began and for much of the fourth century, ''hypostasis'' and ''ousia'' were synonyms.<ref>"For at least the first half of the period 318–381, and in some cases considerably later, ''ousia'' and ''hypostasis'' are used as virtual synonyms." (Hanson, p. 183)</ref> However, later in that century, a clear distinction was made between the two terms.<ref>“It is only much later in the century that the two are more clearly distinguished by some.” (Ayres, p. 98)</ref><ref>“When at last the confusion was cleared up and these two distinct meanings were permanently attached to these words,” hypostasis and ousia respectively meant “'person' and 'substance'.” (Hanson, p. 181)</ref> The three [[Cappadocian 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,<ref name=":0" />{{rp|676}} are traditionally credited for being the first to make a clear distinction between ousia and hypostasis, particularly Basil of Caesarea,<ref>Basil “is often identified” with the “distinction between a unitary shared nature at one level, and the personal distinctions of Father, Son, and Spirit at another.” (Ayres, p. 190-191)</ref><ref>“The first person to propose a difference in the meanings of hypostasis and ousía ... was Basil of Caesarea.” (Johannes, Ousía and hypostasis from the philosophers to the councils)</ref><ref>"Basil uses hypostasis to mean 'Person of the Trinity' as distinguished from 'substance' which is usually expressed as either ousia or 'nature' (physis) or 'substratum'." (Hanson, p. 690-691)</ref><ref>"Basil's most distinguished contribution towards the resolving of the dispute about the Christian doctrine of God was in his clarification of the vocabulary." (Hanson, p. 690)</ref> namely in his letters 214 (375 AD)<ref>{{Cite web |title=St Basil the Great, Letters – Third Part – Full text, in English – 1 |url=https://www.elpenor.org/basil/letters-3.asp |access-date=2021-09-23 |website=www.elpenor.org}}</ref> and 236 (376 AD)<ref>{{Cite web |title=St Basil the Great, Letters – Third Part – Full text, in English – 39 |url=https://www.elpenor.org/basil/letters-3.asp?pg=39 |access-date=2021-09-23 |website=www.elpenor.org}}</ref> 

However, Arius and Asterius were two Eusebians who made that distinction much earlier.<ref>Arius used hypostasis for 'Person'. For example, he “spoke readily of the hypostases of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And he said that the ''hypostases'' of Father, Son and Holy Spirit “were different in kind and in rank.” (Hanson, p. 187) But he used ousia for "substance.“ He wrote, for example, “The ''Logos'' is alien and unlike in all respects to the Father's ''ousia.''” (Hanson, p. 186) “It seems likely that he was one of the few during this period who did not confuse the two.” (Hanson, p. 187)</ref><ref>Asterius, another leading 'Arian', “clearly did not confuse ousia and hypostasis.” He used hypostasis for ‘Person’. For example, he “said that there were three hypostases” and “certainly taught that the Father and the Son were distinct and different in their hypostases.” But he used ousia for 'substance'. For example, "he also described the Son as 'the exact image of the ''ousia'' and counsel and glory and power' of the Father.” (Hanson, p. 187)</ref> However, Basil of Caesarea was the first pro-Nicene to make that distinction. While Basil was a [https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/basil/ three-hypostasis theologian], Athanasius and the earlier pro-Nicene theologians were [https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/alexander-and-athanasius/ one-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,<ref>"[Basil] came from what might be called an 'Homoiousian' background." (Hanson, p. 699) Therefore, "the doctrine of 'like in respect of ousia' was one which they could accept, or at least take as a starting point, and which caused them no uneasiness." (Hanson, p. 678)</ref> meaning two distinct hypostases. Later, after he had accepted homoousios (same substance), he retained the idea of two distinct hypostases:<blockquote>He says that in his own view '<nowiki/>'''like in respect of ''ousia'''''<nowiki/>' (the slogan of the party of Basil of Ancyra) was an acceptable formula, provided that the word '<nowiki/>'''unalterably'''<nowiki/>' was added to it, for then it would be equivalent to ''homoousios''." "Basil himself prefers homoousios." "Basil has moved away from but has not completely repudiated his origins.<ref name=":0" />{{rp|694}}</blockquote>
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 between ''ousia'' and ''hypostases'' is the same as that between the general and the particular; as, for instance, between the animal and the particular man.<ref>He wrote: "That relation which the general has to the particular, such a relation has the ousia to the hypostasis." (Hanson, p. 692)</ref><ref>"He can compare the relation of ''ousia'' to ''hypostasis'' to that of 'living being' to a particular man and apply this distinction directly to the three Persons of the Trinity." This suggests "that the three are each particular examples of a 'generic' Godhead." (Hanson, p. 692)</ref><blockquote>"In the ''DSS'' [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."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|698}}</blockquote>
Basil "argued that [homoousios] was preferable because it actually '''excluded identity of ''hypostases'''''. This, with the instances which we have already seen in which Basil compared the relation of ''hypostasis'' to ''ousia'' in the Godhead to that of particular to general, or of a man to 'living beings', forms the strongest argument for Harnack's ''hypothesis''."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|697}} "Harnack ... argued that Basil and all the Cappadocians interpreted ''homoousios'' only in a 'generic' sense ... that unity of substance was turned into equality of substance."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|696}}

==== Doctrine of the Trinity ====
The terms ousia and hypostasis are foundational in the Trinity doctrine. Hanson described the traditional Trinity doctrine as follows:
<blockquote>"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."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Niekerk |first=Andries van |date=2021-11-26 |title=RPC Hanson - A lecture on the Arian Controversy |url=https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/hanson/#dest |access-date=2024-08-26 |website=From Daniel to Revelation |language=en-US}}</ref> </blockquote>
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|date=August 2024}}<blockquote>"The element of '''consciousness''' ... 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''', only '''one self-presence'''. ... Hence '''self-awareness''' is not a moment which distinguishes the divine "persons" one from the other."</blockquote>

==== Later developments ====
Consensus was not achieved without some confusion at first in the minds of Western theologians since in the West the vocabulary was different.{{sfn|Weedman|2007|pp=95–97}} Many Latin-speaking theologians understood ''hypo-stasis'' as 'sub-stantia' ([[Substance (Christianity)|substance]]); thus when speaking of three ''hypostases'' in the [[Godhead in Christianity|Godhead]], they may have suspected three ''substances'' or [[tritheism]]. However, after the mid-fifth-century [[Council of Chalcedon]], the word came to be contrasted with ''ousia'' and was used to mean 'individual reality', especially in the trinitarian and [[Christological]] contexts. The Christian concept of the Trinity is often described as being [[monotheism|one God]] existing in three distinct ''hypostases/personae/persons''.<ref>{{citation|last=González|first=Justo L|author-link=Justo L. González|title=Essential Theological Terms|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DU6RNDrfd-0C|year=2005|publisher=Westminster John Knox Press|location=Louisville|isbn=978-0664228101|pages=80–81|chapter=Hypostasis}}</ref>

===Nature of Christ===
Within [[Christology]], two specific theological concepts have emerged throughout history, in reference to the Hypostasis of [[Christ]]: 
* Monohypostatic concept advocates that Christ has only one hypostasis;{{sfn|McGuckin|2011|p=57}}
* Dyohypostatic concept advocates that Christ has two hypostases (divine and human).{{sfn|Kuhn|2019|p=}}

=== John Calvin's views ===
[[John Calvin]] wrote: "The word {{lang|grc-Grek|ὑπόστασις|italic=no}} 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 ({{lang|grc-Grek|οὐσία|italic=no}}) 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."<ref>John Calvin, ''Commentary on Hebrews'', 35 (CCEL PDF ed.); https://ccel.org/ccel/c/calvin/calcom44/cache/calcom44.pdf; plain text version: https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/cal/hebrews-1.html</ref>

==See also==
{{Wiktionary|hypostasis}}
{{portal|Christianity}}
* [[Aspect (religion)]]
* [[Haecceity]]{{snd}}a term used by the followers of [[Duns Scotus]] to refer to that which formally distinguishes one thing from another with a common nature
* [[Hypokeimenon]]
* [[Hypostatic union]]
* [[Hypostatic abstraction]]
* [[Instantiation principle]]
* [[Kalyptos]] in Gnosticism
* [[Noema]]{{snd}}a similar term used by [[Edmund Husserl]]
* [[Prakṛti]]{{snd}}a similar term found in [[Hinduism]]
* [[Principle of individuation]]
* [[Prosopon]] or [[persona]]
* [[Reification (fallacy)]]
* [[Substance theory]]

==References==
{{Reflist|35em}}

==Sources==
{{Refbegin|35em}}
* {{Cite journal|last=Anton|first=John P.|author-link=John P. Anton|title=Some Logical Aspects of the Concept of Hypostasis in Plotinus|journal=The Review of Metaphysics|year=1977|volume=31|number=2|pages=258–271|jstor=20127050|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/20127050}}
* {{Cite book|last=Bulgakov|first=Sergius|author-link=Sergei Bulgakov|title=The Burning Bush: On the Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God|year=2009|location=Grand Rapids, MI|publisher=William B. Eerdmans Publishing|isbn=978-0802845740|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1ixfwIjq4n8C}}
* {{Cite book|last=Daley|first=Brian E.|author-link=Brian E. Daley|chapter=The Persons in God and the Person of Christ in Patristic Theology: An Argument for Parallel Development|title=God in Early Christian Thought|year=2009|location=Leiden & Boston|publisher=Brill|pages=323–350|isbn=978-9004174122|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9bAyYn_QkbkC}}
* {{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=978-1783685776|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mXPnDwAAQBAJ}}
* {{Cite book|last=Lienhard|first=Joseph T.|chapter=The Arian Controversy: Some Categories Reconsidered|title=Doctrines of God and Christ in the Early Church|year=1993|location=New York and London|publisher=Garland Publishing|pages=87–109|isbn=978-0815310693|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1JQ-1IZL9DcC}}
* {{Cite book|last=Loon|first=Hans van|year=2009|title=The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria|place=Leiden & Boston|publisher=Brill|isbn=978-9004173224|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BVDsO6IbdOYC}}
* {{Cite book|editor-last=McGuckin|editor-first=John Anthony|editor-link=John Anthony McGuckin|title=The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity|year=2011|volume=1|location=Malden, MA|publisher=Wiley-Blackwell|isbn=9781405185394 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=N3y2wwEACAAJ}}
* {{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|url-access=subscription}}
* {{Cite book|last=Meyendorff|first=John|author-link=John Meyendorff|title=Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes|year=1983|orig-year=1974|edition=2nd revised|location=New York|publisher=Fordham University Press|isbn=978-0823209675|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GoVeDXMvY-8C}}
* {{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=978-0881410563|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6J_YAAAAMAAJ}}
* {{Cite book|last=Owens|first=Joseph|author-link=Joseph Owens (Redemptorist)|title=The Doctrine of Being in the Aristotelian Metaphysics: A Study in the Greek Background of Mediaeval Thought|year=1951|location=Toronto|publisher=Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xl-zAAAAMAAJ}}
* {{Cite book|last=Pásztori-Kupán|first=István|title=Theodoret of Cyrus|year=2006|location=London & New York|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1134391769|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9LVdGlohtkAC}}
* {{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|url-access=subscription}}
* {{Cite book|last=Toepel|first=Alexander|chapter=Zur Bedeutung der Begriffe Hypostase und Prosopon bei Babai dem Großen|title=Georgian Christian Thought and Its Cultural Context|year=2014|location=Leiden & Boston|publisher=Brill|pages=151–171|isbn=978-9004264274|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XpMXAwAAQBAJ}}
* {{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|url-access=subscription}}
* {{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}} 

{{Theology}}
{{Ancient Greek philosophical concepts}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hypostasis (Philosophy)}}
[[Category:Ancient Christian controversies]]
[[Category:Christian terminology]]
[[Category:Christianity and Hellenistic philosophy]]
[[Category:Christology]]
[[Category:Concepts in ancient Greek metaphysics]]
[[Category:New Testament Greek words and phrases]]
[[Category:Theories in ancient Greek philosophy]]
[[Category:Trinitarianism]]
[[Category:Nature of Jesus Christ]]