Translation of hypostaseōs/ὑποστάσεως in Hebrews 1:3

[Jake]

The word hypostasis/ὑπόστασις is used in several of the ecuminical creeds and councils, such as in Chalcedon where each nature is described as being in one person and hypostasis. Hypostasis is generally translated to English as "subsistence," "being," or "reality" in the context of these later Christological conversations.

Hypostasis/ὑπόστασις appears in Hebrews 11:1, but I'm interested in the translation of the similar hypostaseōs/ὑποστάσεως that appears in Hebrews 1:3. Obviously this was before later Trinitarian/Christological discussions came about, but I am confused why we see nearly all the major terms distinguished between appear in major translations of this phrase: χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως in Hebrews 1:3.

• "express image of His person" (KJV)
• "very image of his substance" (ASV)
  
• "impress of His subsistence" (YLT)
• "exact imprint of his nature" (ESV) (nature used by CSB, NASB as well)
• "representation of his essence" (NET)
• "exact representation of his being" (NIV) (being used by NRSV as well)

Terms like nature (φύσεων), person (πρόσωπα), and essence (οὐσία) ended up having their own meanings that were distinct from hypostasis.

It seems to me that post-Chalcedon, the use of "being" is the best translation of this word, but it seems to be rendered so differently by different translations. Could anyone help me understand why there are so many translations and how we should translate this word in the context of Hebrews? Obviously the author of Hebrews was not writing in light of later discussions around these words, but seeing that this passage did come up in Christological discussions, it seems odd to me that we see so many different Christological terms being used to translate this one Greek word.

I may also be quite off the mark here, as I'm not skilled in Greek.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

It should be rendered in English in such a way--in any way, really--that conveys the most accurate representation of the author of Hebrews' intention for his words as first offered in Greek. There's scarcely any advantage to rendering the precise term in our translations of this document because specifically bearing in mind later theological technical appropriation. It could even be disadvantageous, as it might tempt the reader to import (eisegete) the full, late technical meaning into the text.

You could say, "I prefer the NIV," or another translation, because you believe that one does actually give you and most other readers the best sense intended by Hebrews' author. But, also knowing that other translations give substitute glosses at the same place goes to show that this decision is by no means simplistic, a mere plug-in; and it is not "decided" by a church or a council (or a bunch of translators) the one approved-for-all-time expression or interpretation.

Hebrews itself, embedded in Scripture as a whole, will continue to testify to the Holy Spirit's singular, timeless purpose.

 

[DTK]

It seems to me that post-Chalcedon, the use of "being" is the best translation of this word

Pastor Buchanan is right - you should not read later conciliar conclusions and/or early church writers' usage of terms back into the NT text.

As you've indicated, early church theologians (especially in the east) understood Greek terminology/words in different ways. The Christological controversies of the 5th century were complicated over the confusion of terms being used by differing conflicting parties. The use of the word physis (φύσις), rendered in today’s English as “nature,” was one such source of confusion and disagreement. Many of the Greek speakers of that day used the term physis in the sense of “personal nature,” and therefore viewed it in the same category as the words/terms hypostasis (ὑπόστασις) and prosopon (πρόσωπον), both of which were also terms used to denote the individual subsistence of Christ, what we would call “person” in English. Other Greek speakers used the word physis (φύσις) as a synonym for the Greek word ousia (οὐσία), the latter of which was used in reference to the innermost aspect of a being and is usually translated as “essence” in English. Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius both used the word physis (φύσις) in the sense of “personal nature,” which led to the charge against him, in his use of two physeis, that Christ was two persons (i.e., the assumed man and God the Son who indwelt him). In like manner, Cyril of Alexandria used the word physis (φύσις) normally in the sense of “personal nature,” which in turn meant that his famous slogan “one incarnate physis of God the Logos” (μίαν φύσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένην) referred to the one person of Christ, and therefore not to a single nature as we would use the word “nature” today.

Now, then, to our ears today “two physeis” (Nestorius) seems to sound correct, and “one physis” seems to sound problematic. This is because we are using the word physis to mean “nature” or “inner reality.” But bear in mind, in the 5th century, three of the most central figures (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius, and Cyril of Alexandria) were all using the word physis (nature) differently from the way we do today, which means that Nestorius’ use of two physeis (= two personal natures, or two persons) was the problematic expression, whereas Cyril’s “one incarnate physis” (= one person) was the more acceptable term to speak of Christ. Thus, the different ways of using the word physis made it difficult both for Christians of that day and for us today to understand what a particular Christological thinker actually meant. [Additional note: There are a number of present day scholars who question whether Nestorius was really guilty of what became to be known as the error of Nestorianism, namely the charge that he claimed Christ to be two persons].

In the year 451, the Council of Chalcedon affirmed that Christ is to be acknowledged in two physeis and that the properties of both physeis come together in a single hypostasis (ὑπόστασις) and a single prosopon (πρόσωπον). By this language, Chalcedon was affirming that hypostasis (ὑπόστασις) and prosopon (πρόσωπον) both refer to the one person of Christ, which was in accordance with early 5th century usage of those words. Chalcedon was therefore declaring that physis (nature) is to be used describe the two natures of Christ, what we know as the hypostatic union of the divine and human natures of Christ. So, in a sense, Chalcedon was forging a relatively new use of the word physis, which had a different meaning from that to which Cyril meant by the term.

To be sure, Cyril of Alexandria had died in the year 444, but this pronouncement by Chalcedon ignited the passions, if not the fury, of Cyril’s most devoted defenders in Egypt and Syria. These defenders of Cyril viewed Chalcedon as using the term physis (nature) to mean “personal nature” and were thus convinced that Chalcedon’s affirmation of two physeis within the one Christ implied that the Logos and the man Jesus were two distinct persons. These defenders of Cyril believed Chalcedon to be rejecting Cyril and affirming a Nestorian view that Christ was two rather than one person.

This also caused problems on the political front as well, because many in the East and the West resented the rising preeminence of Constantinople as a patriarchal see, as differing proponents (or should I say opponents) jousted over the supremacy of one see or another (Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Constantinple, etc.).

The term ὑπόστασις has been translated in different ways as you've shown in the different translations you cited, and used differently in Heb. 11:1 and 1:3. As for how we are to understand the term in Hebrews 1:3, I suggest the meaning is best exegeted by Jesus own words in John 14:9 in order to gather/understand the import of the writer to the Hebrews in chapter 1, "He who has seen me has seen the Father."

 

[RamistThomist]

To echo the above good advice:

1. Not only should we not read later conciliar definitions back into the NT (which is the word = concept fallacy), we should also be careful of reading later definitions back into earlier definitions from within the conciliar position.

2. The development of hypostasis as a term is something of a historical nightmare. I know of no other way of saying it. St Basil might have sacrificed something of profundity in clearing up that issue, but we are all grateful for the result.

 

[RamistThomist]

this walks through some of the terms
https://puritanboard.com/threads/cyril-of-alexandria-on-hypostasis-and-essence.94790/#post-1156732

 

[DTK]

If I might add an additional note on the christological controversy of the 5th century per our discussions above . . .

Even today among Greek Orthodox writers/theologians there are differing views of "what was a correction of what." To be sure, McGuckin views Cyril of Alexandria as *the* theologian par excellence on the person of Christ, and thus views Chalcedon as corrective of Leo's tome, whereas Meyendorff views Chalcedon (with the aid of Leo's tome) as corrective of Cyril's language (μίαν φύσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένην), which he mistakenly attributed to Athanasius. Note: The language "μίαν φύσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένην" actually originated with Apollinarius. At any rate, notice how McGuckin and Meyendorff are at odds - Not a big deal in my opinion, but interesting nonetheless to see opposing views from two Greek Orthodox scholars...

John A. McGuckin: But this, nothing else, is what the Chalcedonian text teaches, at least when it is read apart from the Leonine Tome, which has too often been taken as its exegetical commentary, but rather should be taken out of the interpretive picture since the Chalcedonian symbol was more in the manner of a corrective of Leo than a substantiation of him. This can be seen nowhere more clearly than in the verbal form which drives that whole central clause containing the four adverbs qualifying ‘in two natures’. It is none other than ‘Gnorizomenon’: ‘made known to the intellect.’ Chalcedon, therefore, teaches that Christ is ‘made known (to the intellect) in two natures’. It does not simply teach that ‘Christ is in two natures’ as the Antiochene system had suggested. Those who do not recognize or understand the importance of the difference are those who have not followed the whole fifth century Christological debate, but this certainly did not include the bishops present at Chalcedon. And so, the Chalcedonian decree, at this critical juncture, is clearly and deliberately, a profession of Cyril’s understanding of the union and, again, largely on his terms. The ‘made known’ of Chalcedon is substantially the ‘notional scrutiny’ (oson men heken eis ennoian) of Cyril’s First Letter to Succensus. Even when Cyril’s terminology was felt to be in need of correction, or clarification, whether to placate the West, or to exclude a Eutyches or a Dioscorus, it was instinctively to Cyril that they turned to supply the correction. John A. McGuckin, St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy, Its History, Theology and Texts (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994 ), p. 240.

Meyendorff: The Chalcedonian definition of 451—two natures united in one hypostasis, yet retaining in full their respective characteristics—was therefore a necessary correction of Cyril’s vocabulary. Permanent credit should be given to the Antiochians—especially to Theodoret—and to Leo of Rome for having shown the necessity of this correction, without which Cyrillian Christology could easily be, and actually was, interpreted in a Monophysite sense by Eutyches and his followers. John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983), p. 33.

Meyendorff: The theory, associated with the name of Apollinarius of Laodicea, and according to which the Logos, in Jesus, had taken the place of the human soul, was systematically rejected by Byzantine theologians since it implied that the humanity of Christ was not complete. Cyril’s celebrated formula—wrongly attributed to Athanasius and, in fact, uttered by Apollinarius—“one nature incarnate of God the Word” was accepted only in a Chalcedonian context. Divine nature and human nature could never merge, or be confused, or become complementary to each other, but, in Christ, they were united in the single, divine hypostasis of the Logos: the divine model matched the human image. John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983), p. 154.

It's interesting to see how these two EO theologians view the western influence of Leo's tome differently.

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

The word hypostasis/ὑπόστασις is used in several of the ecuminical creeds and councils, such as in Chalcedon where each nature is described as being in one person and hypostasis. Hypostasis is generally translated to English as "subsistence," "being," or "reality" in the context of these later Christological conversations.

Hypostasis/ὑπόστασις appears in Hebrews 11:1, but I'm interested in the translation of the similar hypostaseōs/ὑποστάσεως that appears in Hebrews 1:3. Obviously this was before later Trinitarian/Christological discussions came about, but I am confused why we see nearly all the major terms distinguished between appear in major translations of this phrase: χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως in Hebrews 1:3.

• "express image of His person" (KJV)
• "very image of his substance" (ASV)
  
• "impress of His subsistence" (YLT)
• "exact imprint of his nature" (ESV) (nature used by CSB, NASB as well)
• "representation of his essence" (NET)
• "exact representation of his being" (NIV) (being used by NRSV as well)

Terms like nature (φύσεων), person (πρόσωπα), and essence (οὐσία) ended up having their own meanings that were distinct from hypostasis.

It seems to me that post-Chalcedon, the use of "being" is the best translation of this word, but it seems to be rendered so differently by different translations. Could anyone help me understand why there are so many translations and how we should translate this word in the context of Hebrews? Obviously the author of Hebrews was not writing in light of later discussions around these words, but seeing that this passage did come up in Christological discussions, it seems odd to me that we see so many different Christological terms being used to translate this one Greek word.

I may also be quite off the mark here, as I'm not skilled in Greek.

I know there is controversy around Peter T. O'Brian, but he writes, "Here it refers to the being of God. The Son is the exact representation, the embodiment of God, as He really is. His being is made manifest in Christ, so that to see the Son is to see what the Father is like. The two complimentary statements about the Son being 'the radiance of God's glory' and 'the exact representation of His being' have been understood as ontological assertions, indicating who the Son is in His eternal relationship with God. The emphasis is on the mystery of the person of the Son, it is said, not on His role in revealing the Father. But the choice of terms to describe the Son's relationship to the divine nature - He is the 'radiance' and the 'exact representation' - and the specific function of the centre (vv. 3a-b) of the chiastic structure demonstrate clearly that the Son is uniquely qualified to be the final manifestation of God."

Forgive me if it is inappropriate to post something from his commentary.

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

Speaking of Cyril of Alexandria, I highly recommend his two volume "Commentary on John" in IVP's "Ancient Christian Texts." Besides the content, they are beautiful volumes to have on one's bookshelf. He also discusses the "hypostasis" of Christ quite a bit. When I have time, I'll share some quotes from it.