Summary
One of the most striking aspects of the Nicene Creed is the terms ousia and hypostasis. These terms were not found in any previous creed. They originate from Greek philosophy, where they more or less had the same meaning and meant ‘the Ultimate Reality’.
In the Trinity doctrine, God is one “ousia who existed as three hypostases.” This article shows that the Nicene Creed uses these terms as synonyms but that their meanings were changed after Nicaea to enable this formulation of the Trinity doctrine.
During the Arian Controversy, although theologians regarded them as synonyms, theologians were divided into two classes:
-
-
- One group said that Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases (three distinct Realities), each with his own ousia.
- The other group, particularly the Sabellians, said that Father, Son, and Spirit are one single hypostases and one ousia, meaning that they are one single Reality or Being.
-
The first people to make a distinction between hypostasis and ousia were Arians. Through the Cappadocians, this distinction became generally accepted. 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.
In conclusion, the Trinity doctrine uses two terms that are basically synonyms to describe both what the Father, Son, and Spirit are individually and collectively.
The Nicene Creed
“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.” (LA, 92)
The Trinity Doctrine
R.P.C. Hanson described the Trinity doctrine, as developed through the fourth-century Arian Controversy, as follows:
“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.” (Hanson Lecture)
Note that Hanson explains hypostases (plural of hypostasis) as ‘realities’, ‘entities’, ‘ways of being’, and ‘modes of existing’ but says that the term “Person” is ‘misleading’. The term ‘person’, as it is used in the English language, where each person is a distinct entity with his or her own mind and will, is not equivalent to the concept of hypostasis in the “doctrine of God as a Trinity” because, in that doctrine, Father, Son, and Spirit share one single mind and will.
But the main point of the definition is that God is one “ousia who existed as three hypostases.”
Purpose
The purpose of this article is to show that the Nicene Creed probably uses these terms as synonyms but that their meanings were changed after Nicaea to enable this formulation of the Trinity doctrine.
Authors
This article is largely based on the following recent writings of world-class scholars:
Hanson – A lecture by R.P.C. Hanson in 1981 on the Arian Controversy.
RH = Bishop R.P.C. Hanson
The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God –
The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987
LA = Lewis Ayres
Nicaea and its legacy, 2004
Ayres is a Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology at Durham University in the United Kingdom.
Greek Philosophy
These terms originate from Greek philosophy, where they had pretty much the same meaning and meant the fundamental reality that supports all else. In a Christian context, we perhaps might refer to this concept as ‘God’ or ‘the Ultimate Reality’.
The Bible
“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.” (RH, 182) “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’.” (RH, 182)
The Bible never refers to God’s ousia.
Early Church Fathers
In early Christian writings, hypostasis was used to denote “being” or “substantive reality” and was not always distinguished in meaning from ousia (substance’). It was used in this way by Tatian and Origen.1Ramelli, Ilaria (2012). “Origen, Greek Philosophy, and the Birth of the Trinitarian Meaning of Hypostasis”. The Harvard Theological Review. 105 (3): 302–350. doi:10.1017/S0017816012000120. JSTOR 23327679. S2CID 170203381.
“Tertullian at the turn of the second to the third centuries had already used the Latin word substantia (substance) of God … God therefore had a body and indeed was located at the outer boundaries of space. … 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. … He can use the expression Unius substantiae (‘of one substance’). This has led some scholars to see Tertullian as an exponent of Nicene orthodoxy before Nicaea … But this is a far from plausible theory. Tertullian’s materialism is … a totally different thing from any ideas of ousia or homoousios canvassed during the fourth century.” (RH, 184)
When the Arian Controversy began
When the Arian Controversy began, hypostasis and ousia were synonyms:
“For many people at the beginning of the fourth century the word hypostasis and the word ousia had pretty well the same meaning.” (RH, 181)
“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.” (RH, 183)
Therefore, when dealing with documents from or before the beginning of the Arian Controversy:
“They (these 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.” (RH, 181)
Even for Athanasius, some decades after the Controversy began, “hypostasis and ousia were still synonymous.” (RH, 440)
Alternative Views
Among those who regarded them as synonyms, two classes may be identified:
Three Hypostases
One group said that Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases (three distinct Realities), each with his own ousia:
Among the pre-Nicene church fathers, 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.” (RH, 185).
As examples from the fourth century, Hanson includes Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia, two of the main anti-Nicenes.
One Hypostasis
The other group said that Father, Son, and Spirit are one single hypostases and one ousia, meaning that they are one single Reality or Being:
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’.” (RH, 185)
In the fourth century, the Sabellians Eustathian and Marcellus were famous for this teaching.
The “’one hypostasis’ of the Godhead was to become the slogan and rallying-cry of the continuing Eustathians.” (RH, 213)
“One point about Marcellus which is unequivocally clear is that he believed that God constituted only one hypostasis.” (RH, 229-230)
It is argued that Athanasius also fell into this category. The “clear inference from his (Athanasius’) usage” is that “there is only one hypostasis in God.” (LA, 48)
The Nicene Creed
“Considerable confusion existed about the use of the terms hypostasis and ousia at the period when the Arian Controversy broke out.” (RH, 181) “The ambiguous anathema in N (the Nicene Creed) against those who believe that the Son is ‘from another hypostasis or ousia than the Father’ … (is one example) of this unfortunate semantic misunderstanding.” (RH, 181) Hanson says that the Nicene Creed “apparently (but not quite certainly) identifies hypostasis and ousia.” (RH, 188)
Arians made a distinction.
It is often said that the first person to propose a difference in the meanings of hypostasis and ousía, and for using hypostasis as a synonym of Person, was Basil of Caesarea. (e.g., Johannes “Ousía and hypostasis from the philosophers to the councils”) However, R.P.C. Hanson, in his discussion of the two terms, stated that some ‘Arians’ had already made this distinction decades before Basil:
Concerning Arius, Hanson wrote: “It seems likely that he was one of the few during this period who did not confuse the two.” “Arius … spoke readily of the hypostases of Father, Son and Holy Spirit” but “no doubt he believed that the Father and the Son were of unlike substance.” (RH, 187)
Speaking of another prominent ‘Arian’, Hanson says: “Asterius certainly taught that the Father and the Son were distinct and different in their hypostases. … But he also described the Son as ‘the exact image of the ousia and counsel and glory and power’ of the Father. Once again we find a writer who clearly did not confuse ousia and hypostasis.”
Asterius is a so-called Arian but, as indicated by the quote above, “he thought that the resemblance of the Son to the Father was closer than Arius conceived.” (RH, 187)
The Cappadocians
The three ‘Cappadocian theologians’ are 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. (RH, 676)
“Basil’s most distinguished contribution towards the resolving of the dispute about the Christian doctrine of God was in his clarification of the vocabulary.” (RH, 690)
“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’.” (RH, 690-691)
Not One Undivided Substance
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. This can be shown as follows:
Unalterably like in respect of ousia
Basil began his career as theologian as a Homoiousian. He, therefore, believed, similar to other Homoiousians, that the Son’s substance is similar to the Father’s:
“He (Basil) came from what might be called an ‘Homoiousian’ background.” (RH, 699) Therefore, “the doctrine of ‘like in respect of ousia’ was one which they could accept, or at least take as a startingpoint, and which caused them no uneasiness.” (RH, 678)
This means that Basil believed in two distinct hypostases with similar substances. Later, he replaced the concept of ‘similar substance’ with ‘exactly the same substance’ but retained the idea of two distinct hypostases:
“He says that in his own view ‘like in respect of ousia‘ (the slogan of the party of Basil of Ancyra) was an acceptable formula, provided that the word ‘unalterably‘ 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.” (RH, 694)
But this also 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.
The General and the Particular
Basil of Caesarea explains 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.
He wrote: “That relation which the general has to the particular, such a relation has the ousia to the hypostasis.” (RH, 692)
“In the DSS he (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.” (RH, 698)
“Elsewhere 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.” (RH, 692)
“He (Basil) … argued that it (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.” (RH, 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.” (RH, 696)
Person
Since Basil thought of Father, Son, and Spirit as three independent Beings, the term “Person” would be appropriate for them:
“Basil can on occasion use the word prosopon (Person) as an alternative to hypostasis.” (RH, 692)
Conclusions
The Trinity doctrine uses terms that are basically synonyms to describe both what the Father, Son, and Spirit are individually and collectively.
When the Arian Controversy began, hypostasis and ousia were mostly used as synonyms but theologians were divided into ‘one hypostasis’ and ‘three hypostases’ camps. In contrast, the Trinity Doctrine describes God both as One and as Three. For that purpose, a distinction was made between the meanings of hypostasis and ousia.
In modern Trinitarian language, God is one Being existing as three Persons. Therefore, similar to what happened in the fourth century, modern Trinitarians take two words that are essentially synonyms (being, person) and give them contrasting meanings.
Furthermore, in the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, the Nicene Creed uses the term homoousios to say that the Father and Son are one single ousia (substance). But that would be unlikely if the Cappadocians taught two distinct substances.
Other Articles in this Series
Church Fathers
-
- Did the church fathers describe Jesus as “god” or “God?” 2The pre-Nicene fathers described the Son as “our God” but the Father as “the only true God,” implying that the Son is not “true” God. This confusion is caused by the translations.
- What did Sabellius (fl. c. 217-220) believe? 3Sabellius taught that Father, Son, and Spirit are three portions of one single Being.
Arian Controversy
-
- The ‘orthodox’ view when the Controversy began 4RPC Hanson states that no ‘orthodoxy’ existed but that is not entirely true. This article shows that subordination was indeed ‘orthodox’ at that time.
Arius
-
- Who was Arius and why was he important? 5The term “Arianism” implies that Arius’ theology dominated the fourth-century church. But Arius was not regarded in his time as a significant writer. He left no school of disciples.
- Did Arius corrupt theology with pagan philosophy? 6Over the centuries, Arius was always accused of this. This article explains why that is a false accusation.
- Was Origen the source of Arius’ theology? 7There are significant differences between Origen and Arius.
- Did Arius say there was time when the Son was not? 8Arius wrote that the Son was begotten timelessly by the Father before everything. But Arius also said that the Son did not always exist. Did Arius contradict himself?
- An overview of Arius’ theology 9New research has shown that Arius is a thinker and exegete of resourcefulness, sharpness, and originality.
- How did Arius interpret John 1:1? 10The word theos, which is translated as “God” in John 1:1 is not equivalent to the modern English word “God.”
The Nicene Creed
-
- Eusebius’ explanation of the Creed 11Eusebius of Caesarea, the most respected theologian at the Council, immediately afterward wrote to his church in Caesarea to explain why he accepted the Creed and how he understood the controversial phrases.
- Should a Protestant accept the Nicene Creed? 12The Creed not only uses non-Biblical words; the concept of homoousios (that the Son is of the same substance as the Father) is not in the Bible.
- Is Homoousios the main word in the Nicene Creed? 13The term homoousios was not mentioned by anybody during the first 30 years after Nicaea. It only became part of that controversy in the 350s.
- The origin of the word Homoousios 14The word is not found in the Bible or in any orthodox Christian confession before Nicaea.
- Hypostasis and Ousia – Change in Meaning 15The Trinity doctrine uses two terms that are basically synonyms to describe both what the Father, Son, and Spirit are individually and collectively.
- Eusebius’ explanation of the Creed 11Eusebius of Caesarea, the most respected theologian at the Council, immediately afterward wrote to his church in Caesarea to explain why he accepted the Creed and how he understood the controversial phrases.
Arianism
-
- Athanasius invented Arianism. 16The only reason we today refer to ‘Arians’ is that Athanasius invented the term to falsely label his opponents with a theology that was already formally rejected by the church.
- Did Arians describe the Son as a creature? 17‘Arians’ described Christ as originating from beyond our universe, the only being ever brought forth directly by the Father, and as the only being able to endure direct contact with God.
- Homoian theology 18In the 350s, Athanasius began to use homoousios to attack the church majority. Homoian theology developed in response.
- Homoi-ousian theology 19This was one of the ‘strands’ of ‘Arianism’. It proposed that the Son’s substance is similar to the Father’s, but not the same.
- How did Arians interpret Colossians 2:9? 20Forget about Arius. He was an isolated extremist. This article quotes the mainstream anti-Nicenes to show how they understood that verse.
The Pro-Nicenes
-
- The Sabellians of the Fourth Century 21Eustathius and Marcellus played a major role in the formulation of the Creed but were soon deposed for Sabellianism.
- Was Athanasius a Sabellian? 22Athanasius presents himself as the preserver of Biblical orthodoxy but this article argues that he was a Sabellian.
Authors on the Arian Controversy
Extracts from the writings of scholars who have studied the ancient documents for themselves:
-
- Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy 23A summary of this book, which provides an overview of the fourth-century Arian Controversy. Lewis Ayres is a Catholic theologian and Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology.
- RPC (Richard) Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381.
- Lecture by RPC Hanson 24A very informative lecture on the Arian Controversy by RPC Hanson, a famous fourth-century scholar
- Fortman, Edmund J. The Triune God – Nicene Creed
- Erickson, Millard J. God in Three Persons
- Boyd, William Union of Church and State in the Late Roman Empire
Trinity Doctrine – General
-
- Elohim 25Elohim (often translated as God) is plural in form. Does this mean that the Old Testament writers thought of God as a multi-personal Being?
- The Eternal Generation of the Son 26The Son has been begotten by the Father, meaning that the Son is dependent on the Father. Eternal Generation explains “begotten” in such a way that the Son is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.
- 1Ramelli, Ilaria (2012). “Origen, Greek Philosophy, and the Birth of the Trinitarian Meaning of Hypostasis”. The Harvard Theological Review. 105 (3): 302–350. doi:10.1017/S0017816012000120. JSTOR 23327679. S2CID 170203381.
- 2The pre-Nicene fathers described the Son as “our God” but the Father as “the only true God,” implying that the Son is not “true” God. This confusion is caused by the translations.
- 3Sabellius taught that Father, Son, and Spirit are three portions of one single Being.
- 4RPC Hanson states that no ‘orthodoxy’ existed but that is not entirely true. This article shows that subordination was indeed ‘orthodox’ at that time.
- 5The term “Arianism” implies that Arius’ theology dominated the fourth-century church. But Arius was not regarded in his time as a significant writer. He left no school of disciples.
- 6Over the centuries, Arius was always accused of this. This article explains why that is a false accusation.
- 7There are significant differences between Origen and Arius.
- 8Arius wrote that the Son was begotten timelessly by the Father before everything. But Arius also said that the Son did not always exist. Did Arius contradict himself?
- 9New research has shown that Arius is a thinker and exegete of resourcefulness, sharpness, and originality.
- 10The word theos, which is translated as “God” in John 1:1 is not equivalent to the modern English word “God.”
- 11Eusebius of Caesarea, the most respected theologian at the Council, immediately afterward wrote to his church in Caesarea to explain why he accepted the Creed and how he understood the controversial phrases.
- 12The Creed not only uses non-Biblical words; the concept of homoousios (that the Son is of the same substance as the Father) is not in the Bible.
- 13The term homoousios was not mentioned by anybody during the first 30 years after Nicaea. It only became part of that controversy in the 350s.
- 14The word is not found in the Bible or in any orthodox Christian confession before Nicaea.
- 15The Trinity doctrine uses two terms that are basically synonyms to describe both what the Father, Son, and Spirit are individually and collectively.
- 16The only reason we today refer to ‘Arians’ is that Athanasius invented the term to falsely label his opponents with a theology that was already formally rejected by the church.
- 17‘Arians’ described Christ as originating from beyond our universe, the only being ever brought forth directly by the Father, and as the only being able to endure direct contact with God.
- 18In the 350s, Athanasius began to use homoousios to attack the church majority. Homoian theology developed in response.
- 19This was one of the ‘strands’ of ‘Arianism’. It proposed that the Son’s substance is similar to the Father’s, but not the same.
- 20Forget about Arius. He was an isolated extremist. This article quotes the mainstream anti-Nicenes to show how they understood that verse.
- 21Eustathius and Marcellus played a major role in the formulation of the Creed but were soon deposed for Sabellianism.
- 22Athanasius presents himself as the preserver of Biblical orthodoxy but this article argues that he was a Sabellian.
- 23A summary of this book, which provides an overview of the fourth-century Arian Controversy. Lewis Ayres is a Catholic theologian and Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology.
- 24A very informative lecture on the Arian Controversy by RPC Hanson, a famous fourth-century scholar
- 25Elohim (often translated as God) is plural in form. Does this mean that the Old Testament writers thought of God as a multi-personal Being?
- 26The Son has been begotten by the Father, meaning that the Son is dependent on the Father. Eternal Generation explains “begotten” in such a way that the Son is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.