From: johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson)
Subject: Re: Christology 101
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, UW-Madison
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 15:57:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.224700.7459@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>  
> In article <1992Sep10.182404.24739@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu>,  
johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson) writes:
> >      Sean, you are confusing essence/nature/substance (ousia) with  
person  
> > (hypostasis/parsopa).
> 
> Oooops! You're right! *blush* The Greek words are even glossed right  
here in
> my text. I guess the point remains, though, that Jesus was not just a  
human
> being like you and me. I only have one ousia in my hypostasis. How about
> you? :)

     I think that I am one ousia in one hypostasis (Calcedonian  
definition), but it might be useful to take a closer look at Nestorius'  
Christology (see below).
 
> Charles Hedrick's point (I think) was that Jesus was a human being with 
> God presence within him. Or those are the words he used, anyway, more or  
less.
> 
> > The Council of Chalcedon is directed primarily, not  
> > against the opinions of Apollinarius, but against the opinions of  
> > Nestorius, who stated that Jesus is a union of two ousia _and_ two  
> > hypostases. The Chalcedonian view of the Incarnation is that Jesus is  
two  
> > ousia in one hypostatis.
> 
> This would make Mr. Hedrick more of a Nestorian than a Apollinarian,  
then?
> This kind of conversation sure brings history to life. :)

     Yes it does. This shouldn't be surprising, since Charles said in his  
latest reply that he basically follows Theodore of Mopsuestia wrt the  
Incarnation. Theodore was Nestorius' tutor. Among the Nestorians, Theodore  
is held in very high esteem, being given the titles "Theologian", "Doctor  
of doctors", and "Pillar of Orthodoxy". This is not a serious problem for  
me, because I don't think Nestorius was as much of a heretic as he is made  
out to be. You'll see why in a moment.
  
     Time to look at Nestorius' Christology. In your original post, you   
pretty much quoted the relevant part of the Calcedonian canons wrt the  
Incarnation:

     "We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one
      consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son,
      our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhood
      and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man,
      of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial [homoousion]
      with the Father according to the Godhood, and 
      consubstantial [homoousion] with us according to the
      manhood...; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, 
      Only-begotten, in two natures, unconfusedly, unchangeably,
      indivisibly, inseparably, the distinction of natures
      being by no means taken away by the union, but rather
      the property of each nature being preserved, and
      concurring in one person [prosopon] and one substance
      [hypostasis]..." (The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy,
      Alex Schmemann, p. 185).

To understand Nestorius' position, one needs to look at the words  
"prosopon" and "hypostasis". The Council of Chalcedon considered these two  
words to be synonyms, i.e. both mean "person". Nestorius, however,  
considered these words to mean two different things. The best speculation  
that I've heard about why this is is that Nestorius was from Antioch, and  
did a lot of his theological work in Syriac, which (according to Jaroslav  
Pelikan) is more capable of making fine distinctions than either Greek or  
Arabic is. So, the Nestorian Christological position is that Christ is two  
ousia (divine and human) and two hypostases (divine and human) united in  
one prosopon (person), while the Calcedonian position is that Christ is  
two ousia united in one hypostasis and one prosopon. Both agree that  
"ousia" (nature) is the set of those attributes common to all members of a  
species. For the Nestorians, the "hypostasis" is the concrete realization  
or actualization of the ousia as a singular substance, and which possesses  
the ousia. For example, human nature (ousia) is the set of those  
attributes shared by all humans. A human hypostasis is the reification of  
human nature, in the form of a body, soul, and spirit united together. A  
nature (ousia) is by itself abstract; it cannot exist apart from a  
hypostasis. Each nature (ousia) is manifested in reality as a multiplicity  
of hypostases. The "prosopon" (person) is that part of the hypostasis that  
makes the hypostasis unique, i.e. distinguishes one hypostasis from  
another hypostasis of the same species. It is the set of attributes that,  
when taken _together_, makes a particular hypostasis unique. So prosopon  
(person) is a quality of hypostasis. Therefore, within the Trinity, it is  
the prosopon of the hypostasis called the Father to be "unbegotten", and  
it is the prosopon of the hypostasis called the Logos to be "begotten" or  
"Son". Chalcedon did not make this distinction. Instead, hypostasis  was  
taken to be identical to prosopon, i.e. hypostasis is a set of attributes,  
rather than a reification of ousia, and eventually prosopon was dropped  
and only the word "hypostasis" was used when "person" was what was meant.  
So, when the Calcedonians say "hypostasis", what they mean by that is what  
the Nestorians mean when they say "prosopon".

     Now comes the interesting part. Nestorians also say that the  
hypostasis is fixed but can't be assumed. This means (1) no hypostasis can  
abandon its nature and become consubstantial with a hypostasis of a  
different nature, e.g. a human hypostasis can't abandon its nature and  
become of the same nature as a flower; (2) no hypostasis can take on  
additional natures, e.g. a human hypostasis can't both have a human nature  
and a flower nature; (3) no hypostasis can unite with another hypostasis  
of the same nature to form a new, "composite" hypostasis, e.g. two humans  
cannot unite hypostatically. The prosopon, however, while also fixed,  
_can_ be assumed. So, according to the Nestorians, one hypostasis with two  
natures, or two hypostases combining to form a new hypostasis, is  
impossible. Now, Christ is both true God and true human. So, since the  
Logos has both an ousia and a hypostasis, and a human (if s/he is a _true_  
human, and not just an animated body (as Apollinarius held)) also has both  
an ousia and a hypostasis, then Christ must have two ousia (divine and  
human) _and_ two hypostases (divine and human). So where's the union?  In  
Christ's prosopon (person), which results from God the Logos assuming our  
humanity by uniting His prosopon (Son) to the prosopon of Jesus.

     Well, that was kind of long. So what's my point? I forget. Oh yeah,  
my point is that I think that Nestorians and Calcedonians are actually  
saying the same thing about the Incarnation, once one gets all the  
terminology straightened out, and if one keeps the context in mind.  
Nestorius described the Incarnation from an Antiochene perspective, while  
the Calcedonians described the Incarnation from what is basically an  
Alexandrean perspective. But both end up saying that Christ is a duality  
of natures in a unity of person. And the Calcedonians also say that Jesus  
Christ possesses a "reasonable [or rational] soul and body"; which is  
really what the Nestorians term "hypostasis", even though the Calcedonians  
don't use the term in this manner. Unfortunately, at the time, neither  
side stopped to think about the perspective of the other, and in precisely  
what sense the other side was using terms like "ousia", "hypostasis", and  
"prosopon".

     I believe I made an error in my last reply. I wrote that the Council  
of Chalcedon was primarily directed against Nestorius. Actually, the  
Council was originally called to deal with the opinions of Eutyches and  
the Monophysites, who taught that Christ is one ousia and one hypostasis.  
In the end, the Council condemned both Eutyches and Nestorius (who had  
been condemned at a previous Council). As I recall, Nestorius believed  
himself to have been (more or less) vindicated by Calcedon, since Calcedon  
agreed with his contention that Christ is a duality of natures in a unity  
of person.          
  
> Sean Hartigan
> hartigan@ac.dal.ca
>    
> "...a person should live in God as comfortably as 
> they live in their living room or kitchen."

Arthur Johnson
johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu

"O Lord and Master of my life, take from me the spirit of sloth, despair,  
lust of power, and idle talk. But give rather the spirit of chastity,  
humility, patience, and love to Your servant. Yea, O Lord and King, grant  
me to see my own sins, and not to judge my brother, for You are blessed  
unto ages of ages. Amen" -- Lenten Prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian