Hypostasis (plural: hypostases), from the Greek (hypóstasis), is the underlying, fundamental state or substance that supports all of reality. It is not the same as the concept of a substance. In Neoplatonism, the hypostasis of the soul, the intellect (nous) and "the one" was addressed by Plotinus. In Christian theology, the Holy Trinity consists of three hypostases: that of the Father, that of the Son, and that of the Holy Spirit.

Ancient Greek philosophy

Pseudo-Aristotle used "hypostasis" in the sense of material substance.Pseudo-Aristotle, De mundo, 4.19.

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. The originator of this metaphysical 'system of three hypostases' was the third century Platonist philosopher Plotinus, who based it upon his understanding of the writings of Plato. According to Plotinus, these three "hypostases" are the Soul, the Intellect, and the One.Neoplatonism (Ancient Philosophies) by Pauliina Remes (2008), University of California Press , pp. 48–52.

Christian theology

The term hypostasis has particular significance in Christian theology; particularly in Christian triadologythe study of the Christian doctrine of the trinityas well as Christology (study of Jesus as Christ).

Triadology In Christian triadology, three specific theological concepts have emerged throughout history in reference to the number and interrelationship of the hypostases:

Monohypostatic The Monohypostatic concept advocates that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one single hypostasis in a single ousiameaning that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Person. Historically, there were variations of this view:

The second-century Monarchians believed that "Father" and "Son" are two names for the same God. In the third century, Sabellius taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three co-existent persons (prosopa) of one hypostasis.

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'."

Sabellius would sympathize with that same logic, stressing the idea that God was one hypostasis. According to scholar Johann Lorenz von Mosheim, Sabellius taught three co-existent divine things in the one divine Person. Johann Lorenz von Mosheim says “It appears from these comparisons [the sun and the man] that Sabellius did not believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were three names for the same thing... but rather three distinct things which exist together in the one Divine Person.”

St. Basil would explain “According to Sabellius, there is in God only one hypostasis but three prosopa...” The Greeks would eventually move to saying “three hypostases” [paraphrased summary of his Homily 24 by sch. Mosheim] whilst the Latins remained professing Una substantia, tres personae. This would cause tensions as the West continued to use the language which today would be translated as “one substance, three persons” whilst the Greeks under Cappadocian rectification would say "three hypostases" which many note would be accused of tritheism.

Opponents of Sabellius such as Hippolytus of Rome would use the same language as Sabellius. “While I will not say that there are two gods—but rather one—I will say there are two persons (prosopa); and that a third economy is the grace of the Holy Spirit. For though the Father is one, there are two persons (prosopa)—because there is the Son as well: and the third too—the Holy Spirit.”

As a result, the heresy of Sabellianism would be attributed to the West following the controversy, with the Greeks fearing the term 'prosopon' (or the plural 'prosopa') which in Greek meant 'face' or 'mask', would imply Sabellianism. And the West fearing referring to the persons as 'hypostases' would imply three essences and beings (tritheism).

In the fourth century, Sabellians (such as Eustathius“It seems most likely that Eustathius was primarily deposed for the heresy of Sabellianism.” (Hanson, p. 211) and Marcellus,“Marcellus of Ancyra had produced a theology … which could quite properly be called Sabellian.” (Hanson, p. ix)“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 - a rock is not a hypostasis in any sense

The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987, p. 235), Alexander,"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) Athanasius,The “clear inference from his (Athanasius') usage” is that “there is only one hypostasis in God.” (Ayres, Nicaea and its legacy, 2004, p. 48) and the Western Church“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) taught a single hypostasis in God. The "clear inference from [Athanasius'] usage" is that "there is only one hypostasis in God."Lewis Ayres, p. 48 Some leading scholars claim that even the Nicene Creed professes a 'one hypostasis' theology.

Dyohypostatic The Dyohypostatic concept advocates that God has two hypostases (Father and Son); When the fourth-century Controversy began, the focus was only on the Son, not on the Holy Spirit.“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) Later in that century, some groups, such as the Macedonians, accepted the Son as fully divine but not the Holy Spirit.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) This is why in AD 381, during the First Council of Constantinople, the Nicene Creed was revised to be explicit, the final word, on the deity of the Holy Spirit.

Trihypostatic The Trihypostatic concept advocates that God has three of these spaces (Father, Son and the Holy Spirit), each having the same ousia—that is, one Divine nature or true being, substance, being, existence. After Sabellianism was condemned in the third century, Origen's three-hypostases view dominated."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) The Eusebians (traditionally but erroneously called 'Arians')“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) believed in three hypostases.Arius had a “strong commitment to belief in three distinct divine hypostases.” (Williams, Rowan, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987, p. 97)“Asterius (a leading Eusebian) insists also that Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases.” (Ayres, p. 54) 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 Dedication Creed says, "They are three in hypostasis but one in agreement." (Hanson, p. 286) "Agreement" implies distinct minds.

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.“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)“Athanasius’ decision to make Nicaea and homoousios central to his theology has its origins in the shifting climate of the 350s.” (Ayres, p. 144) 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 Homoians).

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."Basil in his treatise, "De Spiritu Sancto"

This dispute about the number of hypostases in God was at 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.

Hypostasis and ousia 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.

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.

Greek philosophy These terms originate from Greek philosophy,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) 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.

The Bible