The Term ênupóstaton and its Theological Meaning

Hieromonk Methody (Zinkovsky), Hieromonk Kirill (Zinkovsky)

St. Petersburg Orthodox Theological Academy, Russia

Abstract
Modern theologians have expressed, and continue to suggest, different, sometimes con-
tradictory, opinions regarding the historical usage of the term ênupóstaton by various
Church Fathers and more recent theologians. Touching on the history of the research
works fulfilled in this field we concentrate on the main problem of the interpretation of
the meaning of the term ênupóstaton used by Leontius, John Grammaticus and St. John
Damascene. The article analyses in detail St. John’s definition of the term, his explana-
tion of the inequality of the notions ‘hypostasis’ and ‘enhypostatic’, the correlation of
the term ‘hypostasis’ with the notions of ‘individuated nature’ and próswpon. It will
be shown how the term ênupóstaton acquired its new meaning in the Christological
context. A qualitative difference between incarnation of the God the Word as a Person
and incarnation by grace is discussed. The main idea of this article is that the term
ênupóstaton enables the description of both the real subsistence of one or several
distinct natures in one hypostasis, and that of one nature in several hypostases. It is
suggested that the term ênupóstaton is fairly universal and can be applied efficiently
almost in all areas of theology. Meanwhile the primary meaning of the term (in the
sense of really existing, objective as opposed to illusory) retains its great value. It is
shown how this primary meaning stops one from manipulating the term arbitrarily. The
key characteristic of human likeness with God as hypostatic-natural unity is presented.
It’s argued that this unity of hypostasis and nature is defined most powerfully by the
term ênupóstaton.

ˆAll’ ênoúsion mén, t®n üpóstasin, ênupóstaton dé, t®n oûsían (PG 94, 1441)

The importance of accurate terminology in interpreting theology is well-acknowl-

edged and beyond dispute. The creative, theo-philological syntheses of the
­Cappodocian Fathers already clarified the precise definition and expression of
terms. Precise classification proved to be indispensable for the Christian mind,
first, in order to articulate God’s Revelation and secondly to protect Orthodox
theology from different kinds of heretical distortions. The first notable termi-
nological scrutiny of the ‘universal teachers’ was centred primarily on the core
of theology, namely Triadology. Over time, with the settling of the Trinitarian
disputes, the historical focus of theological attention shifted, as one might expect,
to the sphere of Christology.

Studia Patristica LIV, 1-00.

© Peeters Publishers, 2012.
2 H.M. Zinkovsky

This present discourse occupies a position connecting theology per se (that is,
Triadology) and various aspects of oikonomia, such as ecclesiology, sacramen-
tology and anthropology. Whereas the fundamental Trinitarian terminological
base had already been established, it took further significant effort and time to
secure the Christological terms. The settlement of all arguments and controver-
sies was, in the end, aided by a new, gradually crystallising meaning of the term
ênupóstaton within a familiar nomenclature but used in a different way.
Issues related to the historical usage and evolution of the term ênupóstaton
have increasingly been discussed by scholars over the last thirty years. More­
over, the term has been the focus of much close attention by researchers since
the end of the 19th century. Modern theologians have expressed, and continue
to propose, different, and occasionally contradictory, opinions about the his-
torical implementation of ênupóstaton by various Church Fathers and about
its meaning specifically in Christology as well as in theology in general.
The term ênupóstaton is Christian by its origin and is found in the works
of Fathers and Church theologians from the time of St. Irenaeus of Lyons and
Origen.1 Later it appears in the works of St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Epiphanius
of Cyprus, St. Basil the Great, Didymus the Blind, St. John Chrysostom and
St. Macarius of Egypt. At that time ênupóstaton was applied mostly to the
three Persons of the Holy Trinity but also to man’s nature.
One can translate ênupóstaton literally as ‘being in a hypostasis’, ‘being
in a hypostatic state’ or ‘possessing a hypostasis’.2 Clearly, the theological
meaning of the term directly depends on the content of the notion of üpóstasiv.
Throughout its history hypostasis could designate different notions but theo-
logically it could mean:
a) real existence (possessing certain constancy), b) individual existence (pos-
sessing certain wholeness) or existence in itself or c) personal existence (within
terminology equating hypostasis and prosopon).
Thus, ênupóstaton can be understood as a state of a) real being, b) individual
being or being ‘in itself’,3 and, finally c) personal being. These three levels of

1
  PG 7B, 1240C; PG 17, 28B; 185B; 309D. B. Gleede thinks that Origen even could have
‘coined’ the term himself. B. Gleede, The Development of the Term ênupóstatov from Origen to
John of Damascus (Leiden and Boston, 2012), 15.
2
  See, for example the entry for ‘ênupóstaton’ in G. MpampiniÉtj. Lezikò t®v Néav Ellj­
nik®v GlÉssav (Aqßna,1998). Some researchers claim, that there is no implication in early
Christian texts that the prefix ên can be assigned a meaning identical to the English and German
‘in’, which reflects the relative dynamics of movement towards something or someone. Never­
theless there are serious arguments in favor of the opposite point of view. For example, even in
Aristotle the prefix ên in ênupóstaton proves to have localizing meaning. See U.M. Lang, ‘Anhy-
postatos-Enhypostatos: Church Fathers, Protestant Orthodoxy and Karl Barth’, JTS 49 (1998),
630-57, 633, 654. See also B. Gleede, The Development of the Term ênupóstatov (2012), 11.
3
  See also ‘ênupóstaton’ in ˆAntilezikòn © ˆOnomastikón (Aqßna, 2004).
 The Term ênupóstaton and its Theological Meaning 3

understanding of the term’s meaning reflect the development of the theological

notion of hypostasis. At every new level the preceding meaning(s) is (are) in
some sense incorporated.
In earlier Fathers employment of the term had to do with the two first of its
possible meanings. For example, a text ascribed to Basil the Great,4 has ênu­
póstaton as opposed to ânupóstaton, just as ênoúsioˇ is the opposite of
ânoúsioˇ.5 In this passage words beginning with the prefix ên denote natures
‘possessing real existence’ as opposed to ‘illusory’,6 while those beginning with
the negative prefix ân denote non-existing natures.7 In St. Gregory of Nyssa,
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Epiphanius of Cyprus we find that ênupóstaton is
more often used in the second meaning; i.e., possessing characteristics of indi-
vidual existence, in order to describe the Logos and Holy Spirit as possessing
self-activity alongside with His Father.8
Notwithstanding its pedigree, it is possible to say that, in the pre-Christolog-
ical period, the term ênupóstaton was employed either rarely or not often.
When it was used it was precisely according to ‘a’ and ‘b’ of the above. But one
should take note that when used to account for the compound human nature,
the term did have an additional meaning of being ‘included into’. Thus, St.
Gregory of Nyssa speaks of the soul’s parts as of ênupostátwn pragmátwn
being an image of Trinity in us and St. Epiphanius of ênupóstatov cux® kaì
tò s¬ma9 constituting one human hypostasis.
It can be said that after the emergence of Christological disputes the term
can be understood to have acquired new theological sense corresponding to its
third possible meaning. Already in the teaching of John Grammaticus,10 the
concept ênupóstaton can be interpreted as ‘having Hypostasis of the Logos’
or even ‘existing in Hypostasis of the Logos’. Grammaticus did apply the term
to both natures of Christ and, despite philological intricacies of the literal mean-
ing of ênupóstaton itself, the two natures of Christ are perceived by him to

4
  The author of books IV and V from Against Eunomius is now accepted to be Didymus the
Blind; see, however, F.-X. Risch, Pseudo-Basilius, Adversus Eunomium IV-V. Einleitung, Überset-
zung und Kommentar (Leiden, New York and Cologne, 1992) who suggests Apolinarius of Laodicea.
5
 PG 29, 749: ˆAnoúsion, kaì ânupóstaton, t®n m® üpárxousan mßte oŒsan ºlwv
sjmaínei fúsin. Tò dè ênoúsion kaì ênupóstaton légwn tiv, t®n ênupárxousan oûsían
êdßlwse.
6
  S. Govorun, ‘On the History of the Term ênupóstaton “Enhypostatic”’, in Leontius of
Byzantium. A Collection of Research, (Govorun Sergiî, diakon. K istorii termina
ênupóstaton «voipostasnoe»), ed. A.R. Fokin (Moscow, 2006), 656.
7
  See also, for example, the expression of St. John Chrysostom: âljq± kaì ênupóstaton
ânástasin, PG 51, 107 and St. Epiphanius: o∆te ênupóstaton tò kakòn êstin, PG 41, 316.
8
  PG 33, 464, 976: âll’ ênupóstaton, laloÕn aûtò kaì ênergoÕn; PG 45, 1321: Basileía
dè h¬sa kaì oûsiÉdjv kaì ênupóstatov tò PneÕma tò †gion, PG 43, 25; PG 42, 21D, 28Cff.
9
  PG 44, 1340; PG 43, 161.
10
  John Grammaticus – the Orthodox opponent of Severus of Antioch, first quarter of the
6th century (not to be confused with John VII Grammaticus, 9th-century Patriarch of Constantinople).
4 H.M. Zinkovsky

be ‘enhypostatic essences’ co-existing in one hypostasis.11 In his Apologia Con-

silii Chalcedonsesis Grammaticus employs an anthropological analogy saying
that as man has two natures (oûsíav) of soul and body contemplated in one
hypostasis, in the same way we confess two natures in Christ and one particular
Hypostasis. For, he argues, Divinity is His own and humanity through ênupos­
táton ∏nwsin became his own.12 According to Grammaticus:
In one of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, that is the Person of God the Word, He through
union implements the salvation of all people. Incarnate, God the Word is comprehended
in two natures or in two essences: because He has the essence of God, and also has
now the essence of humanity.

Both natures (essences), therefore, are directly related to the Person of the
Logos.13 Having in mind the previously mentioned meaning of the term as
‘being in a hypostasis’ and Christological development of the term ‘hypostasis’
(IV Ecumenical Counsel) we can affirm that in Grammaticus ênupóstaton can
be said to imply natures existing in the Hypostasis of the Logos.
One of the key figures in the early Christological polemics and disputes was
Leontius of Byzantium (6th century), whose identity and theological legacy is still
subject to debate. There are several historically important figures from that period
with the name Leontius: Leontius of Byzantium, Leontius the Scholastic (or
Pseudo-Leontius), Leontius the monk of Jerusalem, Leontius presbyter of Con-
stantinople and Leontius presbyter of Jerusalem.14A number of scholars focus
particular attention on Leontius of Jerusalem whom they identify as separate from
Leontius of Byzantium (for example, M. Rishar, 1944, as well as a number of
contemporary patrologists, such as A. Grillmeier, M.J. Dowling and others).
Leontius of Byzantium is sometimes considered to be a follower of the Origenist
party or even a crypto-Origenist. Leontius of Jerusalem is credited with the inno-
vation of the theological term ênupóstaton. Other theologians assume that all
of the writings attributed to the 6th-century Leontius are those of one person –
Leontius of Byzantium (F. Loofs, 1887, V. Sokolov, 1916, I. Fracha, 1982). A
number of western writers, including W. Rugamer, Junglas, and V. Grumel hold
this view, following F. Loof. Others consider that ‘it is impossible to determine
conclusively the sameness or to draw a distinction between the two Leontiuses’.15

11
  Iohannis Caesariensis presbyteri et grammatici opera quae supersunt, ed. M. Richard,
CChr.SG (Turnhout, 1977), 55; see also O. Davydenkov, ‘Enhypostatic Essence in the Theology
of John Grammaticus’, Special Bulletin of PSTGU. Theology. Philosophy (Davxdenkov O., prot.
Voipostasnaq SuÏnostà v Bogoslovii Ioanna Grammatika), 2, 22 (2008),12.; U.M. Lang,
‘Anhypostatos-Enhypostatos’ (1998), 639-40.
12
  Iohannis Caesariensis presbyteri et grammatici opera quae supersunt (1977), 55.
13
  Severus Antiochenus, Oratio 2. 26 in Severi Antiocheni liber contra impium Grammaticum,
ed. I. Lebon, CSCO 112 (Louvain, 1938), 169.
14
  Ed. A. Fokin, Leontius of Byzantium (2006), 6.
15
  S. Govorun, On the History of the Term ênupóstaton‘Enhypostatic’ in Leontius of Byzan-
tium, ed. A. Fokin (2006), 662.
 The Term ênupóstaton and its Theological Meaning 5

The main issue here, however, is the interpretation of the term ênupóstaton
as used by Leontius. According to F. Loofs,16 entrenched for a long time among
Western researchers (Harnack, Junglas, H. Relton, P. Schoonenberg, Lampe,
S. Otto), Leontius introduced a new Christological semantic element to the term
and this assisted in the interpretation and affirmation of the Chalcedonian oros
with theological accuracy. Other contemporary western researchers (B. Daley,
1978, M. Dowling, 1982, F. Schultz, 1996, and others)17 observed philological
and theo-philosophical errors in assigning this innovative Christological term
to Leontius. Nevertheless many of them were ready to accept, albeit with some
reservations, the possibility of using ênupóstaton in a new, positive, theological
sense. Among Russian thinkers there have been quite a few radical advocates
who opposed classifying the term as synonymous with ‘existing in a hyposta-
sis’, reasoning philologically that the prefix ên does not include a semantic
element of inclusion in the being of some hypostasis but only emphasizes the
uniqueness of the subject.18
Recent scholars, including A. Grillmeier, M. Dowling, R. Cross, K. Govorun,
I. Fracha, and others all agree that while Leontius probably did not ascribe a
brand new meaning to ênupóstaton, he and other patristic writers (including
the pre-Chalcedonian St. Cyril of Alexandria19), especially those of the 6th century
(for example, John Grammaticus), gradually prepared the ground for formulat-
ing a new Christological understanding of the relationship between hypostasis
and nature in Christology.20
And even if the literal meaning of the term ênupóstaton is disputed till
now, its theological application to describing the natures of Christ having
or possessing their own being in the Hypostasis of the Logos is fully adequate.

16
  V. Sokolov, Leontius of Byzantium: His Life and Literary Works, in ibid. 307-8.
17
  In our opinion, the article by F.LeRon. Shults is of particular interest: ‘A Dubious Christo-
logical Formula: From Leontius of Byzantium to Karl Barth’, Theological Studies 57 (1996),
431-46. In this article the author analyses in detail one of the key texts by Leontius devoted to
the meaning of the terms ‘hypostasis’ and ênupóstaton, and draws a number of theologically
important conclusions with regard to historical and theoretically possible meanings of the term.
18
  See, for example Materials of the Annual Theological Conference of the St. Tikhon’s Orthodox
University. Moscow. 2008 http://pstgu.ru/scientific/periodicals/conference/archives/.
19
 Thus, Marcel Richard, in ‘L’introduction du mot ‘hypostase’ dans la théologie de l’incar­
nation’, MSR 21 (1945), 5-32, 243-270, 252, argues that expression of St. Cyril ‘union according to
hypostasis’ presented an anticipation of the Chalcedonean doctrine, although it was officially
adopted into theological vocabulary much later, at the II Constantinople council.
20
  See, for example C. Dell’Osso, ‘Still on the Concept of Enhypostaton’ Augustinianum 43 (2003),
53-80, 69, where the author criticizes the position of F. LeRon Shults expressed in ‘A Dubious
Christological Formula’ (1996) and argues that the term ênupóstaton meant for Leontius of
Byzantium not just ‘real’ or ‘that which subsists’ but also ‘possessing essential qualities’. Besides,
in Contra Nestorianos II 13, it is articulated that ênupóstaton nature can subsist not just in its
own hypostasis. B. Gleede argues that it was Leontius who ‘issued’ a new tradition of our term
usage, ‘according to which a translation as “enhypostasized” would be preferable’. B. Gleede,
The Development of the Term ênupóstatov (2012), 185.
6 H.M. Zinkovsky

In due course such derivatives of the term as ‘enhypostasize’ and ‘enhyposta-

sizing’ should be seen as its natural off-shoots. In spite of the fact that slight
tautology can be seen as intrinsic to this terminology,21 we should note that by
repeating the root of the word ‘hypostasis’ in the verb ‘enhypostasize’ we empha-
size hypostatic ontological ‘action’ or ‘initiative’ when we speak about the Logos
consciously having adopted human nature.
St. Anastasios of Sinai in his turn speaks about two possible meanings of the
term ênupóstaton. He says that firstly it means true existence (tò kat’
âlßqeian üpárxon), but secondly it stands for the hypostatic properties (tò
ên t±Ç üpostásei îdíwma) and gives a very clear example, considering the
hypostatic properties of the three Persons of the Trinity as being ênupóstaton
to them.22 Thus, the term designates here personal properties belonging to each
of the Hypostases of the Trinity.
The meaning of the term ênupóstaton in Christology of St. Maximus
­Confessor falls into the same theological path. St. Maximus speaks of the two
natures as being ênupóstaton to God the Word and being His own via His
hypostasis.23 One can say that according to Maximus ‘the enhypostasization
proper to the Incarnation comprises a unity of being between Creator and crea-
ture in the sense that we find there one subsisting thing’24 – the Logos. Within
the framework of the notion of the ‘composite hypostasis’ of Christ, proceeding
from ênupóstaton mode of being of His human nature, Maximus speaks of
an assumption of this nature by the divine hypostasis of Logos.25
The meaning of the term ênupóstaton in St. John Damascene, the principle
formulator of Orthodox theological thought, is multiple and covering all of the above
considered variants. St. John applies the term in Triadology, Christology and anthro-
pology. He transmits in his writings, inter alia, a definition for the term ênupósta­
ton and foremost, he repeatedly emphasises the inequality between the notions
hypostasis and enhypostatic. See, for example, his treatise ‘Against the Jacobites’:
ênupóstaton is not üpóstasiv, but being considered within üpóstasiv26 […] we do
not equate ênupóstaton and üpóstasiv, in the same way as we do not equate ênoú­
siov and oûsía, but we understand their relationship in such a way that to be ênoúsiov
belongs to üpóstasiv and to be ênupóstaton belongs to oûsía.27

21
  Hypostasis gives foundation of being to natures it possesses. If we say that ‘a hypostasis
enhypostasizes a nature’ we imply the same idea. Maybe it would be philologically more correct
to say that ‘a hypostasis gives a nature its being’ or ‘it realizes nature in itself’.
22
  tò ênupóstaton, katà dúo trópouv légetai· Æ tò kat’ âlßqeian üpárxon, Æ tò ên t±Ç
üpostásei îdíwma, Üv ên t¬ç Qe¬ç, kaì Patrí, tò âgénnjton. ˆEn dè t¬ç Uí¬ç, tò gennjtón.
ˆEn dè t¬ç ägíwç Pneúmati, tò êkporeutón, PG 89, 61 B.
23
  Ep. 15, PG 91, 557D, 560B-C.
24
  N. Madden, ‘Composite Hypostasis in Maximus Confessor’, SP 27 (1991), 175-97, 190.
25
  C. Dell’Osso, ‘Still on the Concept of Enhypostaton’ (2003), 73.
26
  PG 94, 1441.
27
  Ibid.
 The Term ênupóstaton and its Theological Meaning 7

According to the Damascene, the notion ênupóstaton is universal and

sometimes means essence contemplated within hypostasis and existing in its
own right, sometimes elements contained within one hypostasis as in case of
soul and body. Therefore, the divinity and humanity of Christ are ‘enhypo-
static’ – for both have one common hypostasis. The Deity has it pre-eternally
and everlastingly, while the animate and sentient flesh taken on by Him in
latter days, attains existence in Him and acquires Him as Hypostasis.28
St. John refers to the notion of ênupóstaton in its Christological context
several times, as in his famous An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith when
he affirms that ‘the flesh of God the Word … became ênupóstatov to the
üpóstasiv of God the Word’.29
Meanwhile, the term ênupóstaton in St. John can be understood sometimes
simply in the sense of possessing ‘real’ or ‘individual’ existence. From the
definition of this term in Philosophical Chapters,30 according to the two pos-
sible meanings of the term hypostasis, tò ênupóstaton means either ‘simply
real essence’ or ‘real essence with its predicates’, i.e. ‘individual essence’.
According to this vision Damascene speaks, for example, that evil has no real
essence31 and that soul and body, being ‘ênupóstata’ to human hypostasis,
comprise single ‘synthetic hypostasis’.32
St. John also frequently applies ênupóstatov and ênupóstaton to charac-
terise Persons of the Holy Trinity. In such cases the term can be understood
either as ‘possessing being in itself’ or as ‘possessing personal being’.33
It is also important to emphasise that the convergence of the notions üpósta­
siv and próswpon, first introduced by the Cappodocian Fathers in their Tri-
adology, continued in Christology during the disputes over the manner of union
of Christ’s two natures. St. John more than once points out the differences in
the meaning of üpóstasiv in the corpus of the Church Fathers, noting that
‘many of our men without distinction say that [in Christ] the union of natures
or the union of hypostases occurred’.34 St. John explains further that in using

28
  Concerning the Composite Nature, Against the Acephalites, PG 95, 120.
29
  toÕ qeoÕ Lógou sárz … ên aût±Ç üpost¢sa, ênupóstatov, PG 94, 1017; ênupóstaton
e˝naí famen t®n fúsin êkeínjn, PG 94, 752; proselábeto êk t±v ägíav Parqénou sárka
ênupóstaton, PG 95, 189.
30
  Chapter 29. On Hypostasis, Enhypostaton and Anhypostaton, PG 94, 589.
31
  o∆te ênupóstaton fúsei tò kakón, PG 96, 460.
32
  PG 94, 616AB.
33
 ‘God as everlasting and perfect, will also possess the Word perfect and hypostatic
(ênupóstatov)’, see PG 94, 804; ‘Son of God, hypostatic Wisdom and Power of God Almighty’
ibid. 985; ‘…we believe in one Holy Spirit… hypostatic ênupóstaton, subsisting in His Own
Hypostasis’ ibid. 821; Pat®r ö âljqinòv ênupóstatov, kaì Uïòv âljqinòv ênupóstatov,
kaì PneÕma âljqinòn ênupóstaton, tría ∫nta mía qeótjv, mía oûsía, Sacra Parallela, PG 95,
1076. See also on Trinitarian employment of the term by St. John: U.M. Lang, ‘Anhypostatos-
Enhypostatos’ (1998), 653.
34
  On One Hundred Heresies in Brief, PG 94, 749.
8 H.M. Zinkovsky

the term in such a way the fathers equated üpóstasiv with individuated nature.
The same meaning can also be found in the Philosophical Chapters.35
During the polemics with Nestorius and his followers, a different Christological
understanding of the term üpóstasiv had already crystallised. Specifically, it
was identified with the term próswpon: ‘We say that the Person of Christ is
one’ using the word próswpon interchangeably with üpóstasiv ‘as when we
speak of the hypostasis of a man, for example, of Peter or Paul’.36
Considering the gradual development of the notion of hypostasis in Chris-
tology and anthropology and the preceding consideration of possible employ-
ments of ênupóstaton, we can underline that the term can be and was used to
describe the relationship between the person and nature in Trinitarian and
Christological discourses as well as for anthropology.37
The unique event of God’s incarnation, described in the Church as ‘the mystery
of Godliness’ (1Tim. 3:16) and understood by the Fathers as the ‘deification of
our nature’38 is defended by them as being exceptional and soteriologically
inimitable in its essence and importance. It is the unparalleled hypostatic union
of divine and human natures in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ that became
the foundation for our salvation. It is not accidental that in his polemic St. John
makes the God-revealed fact that human flesh became ênupóstatov for God
the Word the condition for the completion of God’s economy, namely, the
salvation of mankind. According to the Damascene, had this not occurred, ‘we
boast in vain, that through the incarnation of God the Word the deification of our
nature was effected, because if incarnation meant the residence of one nature
in another, then God experienced multiple incarnations’.39 He continues: ‘incar-
nation by grace’ is not true and cannot be the foundation of the salvation of
man.
On the Christological and terminological problems under discussion, the
opinions of Russian émigré theologians of the 20th century, such as V. Lossky
and Fr. G. Florovsky were highly influential. V. Lossky, in his outstanding
work, The Theological Notion of the Human Person, is able to apply the
term ‘enhypostasize’ very accurately and precisely to describe the relationship
(a) between the Hypostasis of God the Word and the human nature assumed
by Him at the Incarnation, and (b) between the human hypostasis and the cor-
responding human nature it possesses. In turn, G. Florovsky suggests that the
new theological meaning of ênupóstaton had been anticipated long before it

35
  ‘The word üpóstasiv has two meanings. Taken in a general sense, it means substance.
Properly, üpóstasiv means an individual, as well as any distinct person’, ibid. 589.
36
  Ibid. 752.
37
  oûsían t±v ägíav qeótjtov ênupóstaton ÷smen· ên ta÷v trisì gár êstin üpostásesi,
PG 94, 1441 D; ˆEnupóstaton dé famen… ên t±Ç toÕ Lógou üpostásei üpárzasan, ibid.
1476 C.
38
  Against the Jacobites, ibid. 1477.
39
  Ibid.
 The Term ênupóstaton and its Theological Meaning 9

was actually formulated in the theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria.40 In fact,

this should have been expected in compliance with the principle of the Tradi-
tion of the Church, so long as the term ênupóstaton was actually within its
framework. Here is when we can speak of a natural development of a theo-
logical interpretation of a term, rather than forced theological constructs.
We can affirm that the term ênupóstaton enables one to describe both the
real subsistence of one or several distinct natures in one hypostasis, and that of
one nature in several hypostases. There is good reason to assume that the term
ênupóstaton is quite universal and can be applied efficiently in almost all
areas of theology.41 First, the term is applicable to the description of subsistence
in the Hypostasis of the Logos, of the individual human nature assumed by
Him at the Incarnation, and also for a theological analysis of the interaction of
the properties in the two natures in Christ (including, especially, the matter of
Theopaschism). Secondly, the term can be applied to describe the existence of
two and more natures in a hypostasis deemed to be ‘natural’ for them. For
example, the coexistence of soul and body in one human hypostasis. This opens
up the possibility of using the term to describe the deification of human nature
by God’s uncreated energies. Thirdly, the term ênupóstaton is capable of
describing the Triadological mystery of Three Persons existing in One Essence.
In other words, the mystery of the ‘enhypostatic’ possession of one Essence by
the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity.
However, the possibility of using the term ênupóstaton widely does not
permit theologians to manipulate it arbitrarily. For instance, in some modern
theological periodicals an attempt has been made to use the term to describe
the ‘enhypostasizing’ of the Eucharistic bread and wine by the Hypostasis of
God the Son in the sacrament of Communion, which, it is alleged, occurs with-
out actual transubstantiation of the nature of the elements into Christ’s Flesh
and Blood. The opinion that there is no transformation of the nature of the
Eucharistic Gifts has been already expressed. The novelty we now face is to
employ the term ênupóstaton and its derivatives in order to prove the declared
‘orthodox’ nature of such a view. Within the framework of analyzing the con-
ceptual meaning of ênupóstaton, pursued in this article, we find it both pos-
sible and necessary to refute not only similar inadequate usages of the term and
its derivatives in Eucharistology, but also to expose to criticism the theological
opinion itself on the intransmutability of the nature of the Eucharistic bread and
wine.

40
  For example, St. Cyril’s expression ên prosÉpw XristoÕ, where próswpon corresponds
to the ontological notion of person, can be considered as a forerunner of the final usage of the
term ênupóstaton. See, for example, Hans von Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of
Alexandria (Leiden, 2009), 277-8.
41
  For example, it can be said that St. Maximus feels ‘free to develop a coherent Trinitarian-
Christological terminological system attributing to the term ênupóstatov the same function in
both theological contexts’, B. Gleede, The Development of the Term ênupóstatov (2012), 155.
10 H.M. Zinkovsky

In truth, the term ênupóstaton cannot be artificially applied to any arbitrar-

ily selected combinations of pairs of hypostasis with nature, but only to those
which possess ‘real existence’. Otherwise, we will reach such obvious nonsense
as a human hypostasis ‘enhypostisizing’ the very essence of the divine nature!
Such an absurd pairing cannot be permitted by informed theological thought
for it is impossible for a human hypostasis to ‘enhypostasize’ not only the non-
created energies of God in the process of deification, but more so, the Divine
Essence itself.
The usage is more subtle in the case of the aforementioned Eucharistic pair:
the Hypostasis of God the Word truly ‘enhypostasizes’ the Eucharistic Gifts.
In this mysterious process, however, their natures inevitably become the human
nature of Christ because, out of all created nature, it is man alone who was
created in the image of God. Only human nature allows for the possibility of a
hypostatic union either with a human hypostasis created in the image of the
Divine Hypostasis, or with the Divine Hypostasis Itself; of which the latter
transpired at the Incarnation of God and is actualised in every Eucharist.
­Conversely, it is not possible to say anything of this sort about the bread and
wine, even if they are somehow specifically sanctified. Even in the context of
the deification of all creation when, according to the Apostle Paul, God will be
tà pánta ên p¢sin (1Cor. 15:28; Eph. 1:23), we should distinguish between
deification by grace through the energies of God, and deification by means of
hypostatic union. Otherwise, we will arrive at false conclusions about the final
hypostatic union of the Logos and creation (including animate and inanimate
nature: snails, worms, stones, sand and the like!). Obviously, true Christian
theology, holding fast on the one hand to the distinction without division of the
Three Hypostases and the One Essence in God, and on the other between the
One Essence and the uncreated Energies, should also distinguish between cre-
ated nature that can be, and was, taken into a hypostatic being and nature that
principally cannot exist in a divine or human hypostasis.
Inanimate nature, such as stones, earth and other elements, will never intrin-
sically be included in the hypostatic beings either of human persons or, even more
so, of the Divine Persons. Accepting such a speculation would, from a Christian
perspective, mean a deviation towards pantheism. It is precisely this kind of
pantheistic thinking (the deification of all creation) that led modern proponents
to make improper use of ênupóstaton. Despite their acknowledgement of
recognized Orthodox theologians, who used the term ‘enhypostasize’ (a deriv-
ative of ênupóstaton) in the context of Eucharistology,42 their understanding

42
  Consider the classic formulation: ‘The Bread of the Eucharist, available for man as food,
is the flesh of Christ transubstantiated, however still coessential with human flesh, enhypostasized
in the Logos and permeated by the Divine Energies’. St. Nicephorus of Constantinople, Against
Eusebius and Epiphanius/Contra Eusebium, ed. J.B. Pitra, Spicilegium Solesmense 1 (Paris, 1928),
440.
 The Term ênupóstaton and its Theological Meaning 11

of it is idiosyncratic. We find the following statements in their writings: ‘The

flesh of God the Word multiplies, encompassing gradually all creation’.43 It is
obvious that this conclusion can only be drawn from a consistent theological
reflection that strayed when it accepted the possibility of literal ‘enhypostasiz-
ing’ – ‘receiving of bread and wine into the Hypostasis of God the Word’ –
without a transformation of their nature. In accordance with the adherents of
this new Eucharistological direction of thought, the ‘Eucharistic Bread, being
united with God, does not lose its nature, but acquires a new beginning of its
existence, becoming Heavenly Bread, the Flesh of God Himself’44 and, also:
‘Holy Gifts, that, according to the Chalcedonean doctrine, are received by God
the Word into the same unity with Himself as the flesh of the Virgin Mary, do
not change their material nature but the mode of their existence in this world’.45
The author can in this passage only be referring to what he conceives as a literal
‘enhypostasizing’ of the nature of bread and wine by God the Word.
But the truth is that ‘enhypostasizing’ is not possible for any nature, but
solely for a nature that is capable, in accordance with the Creator’s lógov, of
forming a pair together with a personal being. At this point it is worth remem-
bering the first46 of the above mentioned meanings of ênupóstaton – ‘pos-
sessing real existence’. The Church Fathers, understanding that hypostasis and
nature comprise one living reality, distinguishing between them while not
dividing them. They ‘rooted personality in being and personalised ontology’47
when they described in theological terms the personal being of God and of man
created in His image and likeness. Consequently, it is evident that the term
ênupóstaton does not suggest artificial, unreal structures – paired hypostases
and natures – such as: the hypostasis of the Son of God paired with the nature
of bread, or the hypostasis of man paired with the Essence of God. Such purely
speculative constructs can in theory be construed in our mind, but they have
never possessed and will never possess real being, and consequently cannot
actually describe existing phenomena and objects.
Equally inadequate is the argument, also in the contest of this polemic, that
since man is often referred to as a microcosm in patristic literature, and because
his nature includes almost all of the elements in the universe, it follows that

43
  A.R. Fokin, Transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts in the Sacrament of the Eucharist accord-
ing to the teaching of St. John Chrysostom, in Patristics. New Translations, Articles (Fokin
A. R. Preloçenie Svqtxh Darov v tainstve Evharistii po uweniù svqtitelq Ioanna
Zlatousta / Patristika. Novxe perevodx, statài) (Nizhny Novgorod, 2001).
44
  A.A. Zaytsev, Eucharistic Transubstantiation, http://www.mpda.ru/site_pub/82304.html,
note 44.
45
  A.I. Osipov, Eucharist and Priesthood, http://www.orthtexts.narod.ru/17 Evhar svyasch.
htm.
46
  C. Dell’Osso, ‘Still on the Concept of Enhypostaton’ (2003), 68.
47
  V.N. Lossky, Dogmatic Theology (Losskiî V. N. Dogmatiweskoe Bogoslovie) The
Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. Dogmatic Theology (Moscow, 1991), 213.
12 H.M. Zinkovsky

man’s deification provides for an equivalent theosis of all elements in the cre-
ated world, both in character and extent. From this premise, it is derived that
the ‘enhypostasizing’ of the Eucharistic bread and wine in the Hypostasis of
the Son of God is only the initiation of the process of an ‘enhypostasizing’ by
the Logos of all created elements: ‘In the incarnation, God the Word forms a
union not merely with a particular human nature, but through it and in it with
any creature, with the entire creation as a whole, […] with all creation that is
concentrated in a human nature from its inception’.48
This theological error is once more rooted in the failure of its supporters to
discern two types of deification: (a) through energy (by grace); and (b) through
hypostatic union. As such, the correct theological understanding of the term
ênupóstaton (and its derivatives) must become the foundation for theological
reasoning within an anthropological context. Man, as a hypostatic-natural unity
and profoundly distinct from all creation in that he was created in the image of
God, can never in his compound nature be equated to the elements comprising
his nature. Insofar as the human hypostasis is not comprehended outside of
human nature, neither is human nature comprehended independently: in other
words, outside or without the corresponding hypostasis. The elements of human
nature, even in their entirety, do not constitute man as an individual, as a hypo-
static being. In other words, our nature is not the sum of the elements that it
comprises; it cannot be reduced to such a sum. The human hypostasis, ‘enhy-
postasizing’ its nature, gives it a special mode of existence, different from a
‘non-enhypostasized’ existence of the elements comprising it. This distinction
of the mode of being of created nature received into the hypostatic being of
man and the one that was never received will never be overcome just as the
distance between God and His creation will never be overcome. This is why it
is necessary from the theological viewpoint to draw a clear distinction between
the deification of nature ‘enhypostasized’ in the human hypostatic being and
the deification of the rest of creation through energies or by grace.
The uniqueness of God and the uniqueness of man as the sole image of God
in the universe form the foundation of the Christian worldview. A pantheistic
dissolution of the boundary between God the Creator and the created universe
has never been asserted in Christian theology. Conversely, the incarnation of
God the Word and His ‘enhypostasizing’ of human nature, so to speak, eternal-
ized human uniqueness. In the patristic legacy there are various interpretations
and levels of comprehension of the ‘image of God’ concept. According to Holy
Scripture and Holy Tradition the uniqueness of the image of God in man is
obvious in relation to the rest of the created universe. However, we would like
to emphasize that the key characteristic of human common likeness with God

48
  A.A. Zaytsev, The Body of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Paper read at a seminar
for the academic corps of the Moscow Spiritual Academy and Seminary entitled ‘Holy Gifts in
the Eucharistic Sacrament’, mpda.ru: www.psevdo.net/index.php?go=Pages&in=view&id=44.
 The Term ênupóstaton and its Theological Meaning 13

is the hypostatic-natural unity of the being of man. This unity of hypostasis and
nature, which can be expressed by the words of St. Maximus that ‘the state of
being is contemplated in the essence and hypostasis’,49 is defined most power-
fully by the term ênupóstaton, according to which a hypostasis reveals itself
via an ‘enhypostaized’ nature, while the same nature subsists in the hypostasis
hypostasizing it.

49
  t¬n ∫ntwn sústasiv ên oûsía kaì üpostásei qewre⁄tai, PG 91, 272B.