The Oriental Orthodox Church

agrees with the Church of the

East on…
• Person
• Prosopon (Greek)
• Parsopa/Farsofa (Aramaic)
• Individual Existence/Subsistence
• Hypostasis (Greek)
• Qnoma (Aramaic)
• Substance/Essence
• Ousia (Greek)
• Ousia (Aramaic)
• Nature
• Physis (Greek)
• Kyana (Aramaic)

• Why is this important?

What did the Chalcedonian
Church do?

• Change the definition of the terms

• Prosopon = Hypostasis
• Physis = Ousia
• If Prosopon = Hypostasis…
 What did Nestorius teach?:
For we know not two Christs or Sons or only-begottens or Lords; nor one and another Son
nor an original and a new only-begotten nor a first and a second Christ, but one and the
same who is visible in the invisible and the visible nature. Can a man, when he hears
these things, say that something else was said by him and by those at Chalcedon and
by Leo? For openly he is bold and knows the same Christ who is visible in the invisible
and the visible nature nor has said two Christs and two sons and Lords. And the
Council of Chalcedon said: 'One and the same Christ, son, lord, only-begotten, in two
natures, not changeably, not confusedly, not divisibly.’

(Nestorius of Constantinople, Fragment 308)

For this reason the union is in the prosôpon and not in the nature, and we say not 'the
union of the prosopa' but 'of the natures'. But [there is only] one prosôpon in the union
but in the natures the one and the other, as from the common prosôpon it is known that he
took the flesh, the likeness of a servant, for his own prosôpon, and thereby he spoke in
teaching and working and acting; and he gave his own likeness to the likeness of a servant
and thereby he speaks as by his own prosôpon and by the divinity. For the prosôpon is
common, one and the same.

(Nestorius of Constantinople, Bazaar of Heracledes, Book II)

For harm was not done to the uniqueness of the Son by the diversity of the natures, But in
such wise as the corruptible body is one thing and further the immortal soul is another
thing, yet one man is constituted of them both, so from the mortal and the immortal, from
the corruptible and from the incorruptible, and from what is subject to beginning and from
the nature which has no beginning, that is of God the Word, I confess one prosopon of the
Son.

(Nestorius of Constantinople, Bazaar of Heracledes, Fragment 280)

 Are these terms identical?
Prosopon (Person) ≠ Hypostasis (Individual Existence)

• Therefore, while the nature of the Godhead is simple and uncomposed, it

would not be divided by our thoughts into the dyad of Father and Son, if not
some difference were posited, I mean, not according to substance, but
thought to be external [to the substance], through which the person
(πρόσω πον)ofeach ism ade (είσφέρεται)to lie in a peculiar(ίδιαζούση)
hypostasis, but is bound into unity of Godhead through natural identity.
(St. Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus)

• If then they describe the Persons as being without hypostasis, the

statement is per se absurd; but if they concede that the Persons exist in real
hypostasis, as they acknowledge, let them so reckon them that the principle
of the homoousion may be preserved in the unity of the Godhead, and that
the doctrine preached may be the recognition of true religion, of Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost, in the perfect and complete hypostasis of each of the
Persons named.
(St. Basil The Great, Letters, Letter 214)

• For merely to enumerate the differences of Persons is insufficient; we must

confess each Person to have a substantial existence in real hypostasis.
(St. Basil The Great, Letters, Letter 210)
 Relation between
Prosopon and Hypostasis
• Self-subsisting Hypostases
• When hypostases subsist by individual subsistence, as for instance,
those of Peter and of Paul, whom the authority of the apostleship
united, then there will be a union of persons and a brotherly
association, not a natural junction of one hypostasis made up out of
two that is free from confusion.

(St. Severus of Antioch, Letter 2)

• Non-Self Subsisting Hypostases
• But, when hypostases do not subsist in individual subsistence, as also
in the case of the man among us, I mean him who is composed of
soul and body, but are without confusion recognized in union and
composition, being distinguished by the intellect only and displaying
one hypostasis made out of two, such a union none will be so
uninstructed as to call one of persons. Though the hypostasis of God
the Word existed before, or rather was before all ages and times,
being eternally with God both the Father and the Holy Spirit, yet still
the flesh possessing an intelligent soul which he united to him did not
exist before the union with him, nor was a distinct person assigned to
it.

(St. Severus of Antioch, Letter 2)

• Nature ≠ Ousia (Essence)
• Nature = Hypostasis or Ousia
• Enough has, I think, been said about essence and hypostasis. But the name
'nature' is sometimes taken in place of essence', sometimes in place of
hypostasis. For even the whole of mankind we call comprehensively 'nature',
as it is indeed written: «For all natures of beasts and of birds, and of reptiles
and of things that are in the water are subjected and are made subject to
human nature»: and again we speak of one nature in reference to a single
man, Paul for example or Peter, or maybe James. Where therefore we name
all mankind one nature, we use the name 'nature' generically in place of
'essence'; but, where we say that there is one nature of Paul, the name
'nature' is employed in place of 'individual hypostasis'. So also we call the
Holy Trinity one nature, employing the term 'nature' in place of the general
designation 'essence'; as Gregory the Theologian the bishop of Nazianzus
also said in the sermon on the Holy Pentecost: «Confess the Trinity to be of
one Godhead, my friends; or, if you like, of one nature; and we will ask for
you from the Spirit the expression 'God’».

(St. Severus of Antioch, Letter 6)

• So they err: for if a mind is the spirit and the spirit a
mind, as they also believe, but the soul is another
hypostasis along with the mind and along with the spirit,
no longer are two hypostaseis being combined into a
man into one hypostasis, no longer is the soul alone
enhypostatic and the body enhypostatic, but we find
then four: the mind is one hypostasis, the soul another
hypostasis, the spirit another hypostasis, the body
another hypostasis.

(St. Epiphanius of Salamis, Ancoratus, Chapter 77,

Section 4-7)
What is
Miaphysitism?
• Union of Two Natures into One Incarnate (Composite) Nature
• What are these Natures?

• It is precisely because Nestorius constantly denied that God the Word’s

birth happened according to flesh, and instead introduced a mere unity of
dignities, and it is because he said that a man, honored by sharing the title
of Sonship, was connected to God, that we were forced to battle against
these notions of his and to assert instead that the union was “at the level
of hypostasis,” meaning by this simply that the Word’s nature, that is, his
hypostasis, which is the Word himself, was genuinely united to a human
nature, quite apart from any change or confusion, as we have said often
enough. He is reckoned to be, and actually is, a single Christ; the same
individual is both God and man.
(St. Cyril of Alexandria, Defense of The Twelve Chapters against Theodoret,
Defense 2)
If anyone shall after the [hypostatic] union divide the hypostases in
the one Christ, joining them by that connexion alone, which
happens according to worthiness, or even authority and power, and
not rather by a coming together, which is made by natural union: let
him be anathema.
(St. Cyril of Alexandria, Third Anathema of the Twelve Chapters)

Since he points out that God’s form took upon himself the form of a
servant, let him go on and explain whether it was just these “forms”
that came together by themselves, quite apart from their
hypostases. Well, I reckon that even he would shrink from saying
that, for it was not mere resemblances and forms, things with no
hypostasis, that conjoined together to bring about the saving union;
rather, it was a convergence of the very things themselves, of two
hypostases. Then we can really have faith that a genuine incarnation
took place.
(St. Cyril of Alexandria, Defense of the Twelve Chapters against
Theodoret of Cyrus, Defense 1)

Accordingly we say that from it and the hypostasis of God the Word
the ineffable union was made: for the whole of the Godhead and the
whole of humanity in general were not joined in a natural union,
but special hypostases.
(St. Severus of Antioch, Letter 2)
Are the two natures completely gone?
The inquisitive as to the mode of his incarnation and becoming man may contemplate
God the Word of God who, as Scripture has it, 'took the form of a slave and was made
in the likeness of men". By this very fact alone the difference between the natures or
hypostases will be appreciated; for Godhead and manhood are not the same thing in
quality of nature. Otherwise what is the point of the Word's becoming empty, though
being God) and abasing himself among inferiors that is to say us men? Accordingly
when the mode of the incarnation is the object of curiosity the human mind is
bound to observe two things joined together in union with each other mysteriously
and without merger, yet it in no way divides what are united but believes and firmly
accepts that the product of both elements is one God, Son, Christ and Lord.
(St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letter to St. Acacius of Melitene, Ch. 14)

But observe how the whole ark was overlaid with pure gold within and without. For
God the Word was united to the holy Flesh, and this (I deem) is it that the ark was
overlaid without. But that He made His own the reasonable Soul also that was within
the Body, will this shew, viz., that He bade that it should be overlaid within also. And
that the Natures or Hypostases have remained unconfused, shall we see hence. For
the gold that was spread upon the wood, remained what it was, and the wood was
rich in the glory of the gold; yet it ceased not from being wood.
(St. Cyril of Alexandria, Scholia on the Incarnation of of the Only-begotten)
We do not say "one nature and one
qnumo (hypostasis) for the divine
and the human." We say that the
composite Christ is one nature and
one composite qnumo (hypostasis).

(St. Michael the Great, Chronicle,

Book 8, Chapter 11)
The term ‘one’ can be properly applied not just to those things which are
naturally simple, but also to things which are compounded in a synthesis.
Such is the case with a human being who comprises soul and body. These
are quite different things and they are not consubstantial with each other,
yet when they are united they constitute the single nature of man, even
though the difference in nature of the things that are brought into unity is
still present within the system of the composition. So, those who say that if
there is one incarnate nature of God the Word, then it necessarily follows
that there must have been a mixture or confusion with the human nature
being diminished or ‘stolen away’, are talking rubbish.

(St. Cyril of Alexandria, Second Letter to Succensus)

What do we say the human being is? Both [body and soul]
together, or only one of them? It is clear, surely that the
joining of the two of them is characteristic of the living
being— it makes no sense to spin out a discussion of what
is undisputed and well known! And since this is so, let us
consider another point in addition: shall we say of human
acts such as adultery, murder, theft, and whatever is in that
category— or, on the other hand, of sobriety, continence,
and every activity opposed to vice— that they are the
achievements of both [parts], or do we define these
actions as restricted to the soul by itself? Is not the truth
obvious here, as well? For the soul is never separated
from the body when it undertakes theft or carries out a
burglary, nor is it, indeed, alone, when it gives bread to
the hungry or drink the thirsty or when it makes eager
haste to the prison to care for the one distressed by
imprisonment; but in every one of these acts, each part is
united with the other and performs it jointly.

(St. Gregory of Nyssa, Oration on the Holy Pascha, Section

19)
• So truly it is our way also, when we talk of man, to
speak things both high and low. For when we say that
“man is nothing”, “man is earth,” “man is ashes,” we
name the whole man from the inferior part. But when
we say that “man is an immortal animal” and that “man
is rational and related to the higher (beings),” we again
name the whole man from the superior part. So also
with Christ: sometimes Paul speaks of Him from the
inferior part, and sometimes from the superior part.

(St. John Chrysostom, Homily 1 on Hebrews)

For there is one who acts, that is the Word of God incarnate; and there
is one active movement which is activity, but the things which are done
are diverse, that is (the things) accomplished by activity. For example,
bodily to walk on the earth and to make a journey is something
human, but to raise up and order to run those who are lame in the
feet, and unable to use their soles, but who are prostrate and crawl
like reptiles, is most proper to God. But there is one Word which is
incarnate, and one activity of his, which is an active movement, which
performed the one and the other. And it is not the case that, because
these things which were done were of different kinds, we say that
consequently there were two natures which were effecting those
things, for as we have said, a single God the Word incarnate performed
both of them. And just as no one divides the Word from the flesh, so
also it is impossible to divide or separate these activities.

(St. Severus of Antioch, Letter I to Sergius the Monophysite)

The Word's nature took humanity to itself for sure,
but he was not "merely" human. Instead, because
his own glory overshadowed he element that he
assumed, the Word permanently preserved his
divine transcendence without confusing it with the
humanity. This is what the disciples had realized
when they worshiped him with the words, "Truly
you are the Son of God," even though they could
see him walking around in a human body; in
reality, he was walking miraculously, as God.

(St. Cyril of Alexandria, On Orthodoxy to

Theodosius, 31)
How is it possible, then, on the one hand, for body to be united to soul without
losing corporeity, or, on the other hand, how is it possible for soul, being incorporeal
and self-subsistent, to be joined to body, and become part of a living creature, still
keeping distinct and uncorrupted its own entity?
([St?] Nemesius of Emesa, On the Nature of Man, Of the Union of Soul with Body)
However, Ammonius, the master of Plotinus, solved the problem thus. He said that
it is in the nature of intelligibles both to be capable of union with things adapted
to receive them, just as much as if they were things that would perish with them,
and to remain, nevertheless, unconfused with them while in union, and
imperishable, just as though they were merely juxtaposed. For, the union of bodies
always involves some alteration in them as they enter into union, even, possibly, a
being transformed into other bodies, as in the case of elements entering into
compounds, food turning into blood, or blood turning into flesh or into other parts
of the body. In the case of intelligibles, on the other hand, union takes place, and
yet no change in them results. For an intelligible being is essentially such as not to
suffer alteration. The alternatives are for it to withdraw from the union, or to
suffer annihilation. An intelligible will not suffer transformation.

([St?] Nemesius of Emesa, On the Nature of Man, Of the Union of Soul with Body)
Gregory the Theologian also in the letter to Cledonius wrote words which agree with
him as follows: «As the natures are mingled, so also are the appellations; and they
run into one another on the principle of coalescence». Do not let the term 'mingle'
disturb you: for he used it very clearly and without danger with the intention of
denoting the primary union: for, where there is a union of something incorporeal
with a body, no danger anywhere arises from mingling. For this is manifestly a
quality of fluid bodies, to be confounded together by intertwining, and, so to speak,
come out of their nature.
(St. Severus of Antioch, Letter 1)
For the Jews did not crucify a mere
man, neither did they nail the visible
nature only, but they brought (their)
daring to the God (who was) in it, who
had appropriated the sufferings of the
united nature.

(St. Theodotus of Ancyra, Homily II at

Ephesus)
Believe, therefore, in accordance with what Scripture says, that he
came in the flesh, not that flesh came; that he grew weary in the
flesh, not that flesh grew weary; that he suffered in the flesh, not that
flesh suffered; that he died in the flesh, not that flesh died; that he
was crucified in the flesh, not that flesh was crucified; that he rose in
the flesh, not that flesh arose; that he was taken into heaven in the
flesh, not that flesh was taken into heaven; that he healed in the flesh,
not that flesh healed; that he was seated at the right hand of God in
the flesh, not that flesh was seated. And, in general, whenever Holy
Scripture speaks about him bodily, you cannot show that it is
speaking about the flesh as one part of the whole, but rather united:
he made the deeds of the flesh his own. For Scripture says: Christ was
begotten, Christ healed, Christ ate, Christ slept; Christ's body thirsts
blood, Christ's feet, Christ's wounds. The soldier slapped Christ on the
face, Christ grew weary, Christ suffered, Christ died for is Christ was
crucified, Christ arose, Christ was taken into heaven, Christ was seated
at the right hand of God, Christ will come to judge the living and the
dead, Christ is the Son of God, Christ is God over all things. Nowhere
does it say, "his humanity suffered something" or "God the Word did
something." It says everywhere in Scripture, rather, that he claimed
the deeds of the flesh as his own, not only on earth in the here and
now, but also in heaven for ever.

(St. Mark the Ascetic, On the Incarnation)

In the same way the passion did the
divine nature no harm but was suffered in
the human nature, and yet not only as
the human nature’s; otherwise the
scripture, “Cursed be everyone whose
hope is in man” might be applicable to
the work of salvation. It was also counted
as the Godhead’s though the Godhead
does not suffer, so that the salvation of
the passion might be credited to God’s
holy church in the Godhead.

(St. Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion,

Against Apollinarians)
• We confess that he is the Son of God and God in the
Spirit, and man in the flesh. We do not confess that this
single Son is two natures, one to be worshiped and one
not to be worshiped. He is rather one incarnate nature
of the Word, and is to be worshiped, with his flesh,
with a single worship. There are not two sons, one the
true Son of God who is worshiped, and the other a man
from Mary who is not worshiped, but who has become a
son of God by grace in the way that men do.

(St. Athanasius of Alexandria, quoted by St. Cyril of

Alexandria, A Defense of the Twelve Anathemas against
the Bishops of the Diocese of Oriens, Defense 8)