HYPOSTATIC UNION

In order to understand Hypostatic Union, we have to discuss the difficult terms: “ousia”
(essence, substance), hypostasis (person, subsistence) and “physis” (nature). There is no
consensus even now about the exact meaning of these terms, but an example may give us an
approximation to these terms that were borrowed from philosophy.
Let us take man as example. The essence of man is humanity, something that all men
share in. Peter, John and Paul are each a hypostasis (person) that shares in the common
essence (humanity). They also share the human nature, which has the attributes of humanity,
like mortality, passibility, hunger, thirst etc. But each one also has his own personal attributes.
Now let us extrapolate this to the Holy Trinity, a dangerous proposition, but one used by the
Fathers especially St. Cyril. The essence of the Trinity is divinity, in which all three hypostases
(persons) share equally and completely. The three hypostases (persons) of the Trinity share
one nature, which has the attributes of the divinity, but each one of the three has his own
personal attributes. Here is how St. Severus explains this:

There is a Holy Trinity, divided and distinct in hypostases, but not divided in
one essence and Godhead, and kingship and glory and eternity and the other
attributes which God has by nature. For the Father has one thing hypostatically,
fatherhood, and the fact that he is unbegotten; and the Son again has one thing
hypostatically, sonship, and the fact that he was begotten by the Father; and the
Holy Spirit again has one thing, the fact that he was not begotten, but proceeds
eternally without beginning from the Father. We believe in one God, and in one
essence, and he exists and is made known in three hypostases.1

Now let us talk about Hypostatic union. The term was used by St. Cyril in his fight with
Nestorius. St. Cyril, like St. Athanasius before him, had a very deceptive opponent and he had
to pin him down to a certain expression. For St. Athanasius, it was “homo-ousion” (co-
essential), for St. Cyril, Hypostatic union was the catch word. Neither Arius, nor Nestorius
accepted the term proposed to them.
There is a misconception about what happened at Ephesus, that it was a quarrel
between two stubborn theologians, one insisting on calling the Virgin “Mother of God” and
the other insisting on calling her “Mother of Christ”. Any one who reads carefully St. Cyril’s
two letters to Nestorius (the second and the third) will be surprised that the word “Mother of
God was used once in each letter and once in the anathemas attached to the third. “Hypostatic
union”, on the other hand was mentioned ten times and “theopaschism” was discussed
numerous times, as well as the communication of properties. Nestorius rejected both
theopaschism and communication of properties, but he also opposed the doctrine that made
both possible: Hypostatic Union.

1
St. Severus of Antioch: Letter XXIII

1
Nestorius refused to call the holy virgin “mother of God” but for St. Cyril the real issue was:
if He who was born of the Virgin is not God, then He who died on the Cross is not God and
that means we have not been saved. So how did St. Cyril describe Hypostatic union?

We do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh, nor
that he was transformed into a perfect man of soul and body. We say, rather,
that the Word, in an ineffable and incomprehensible manner, ineffably united
to himself flesh animated with a rational soul, and thus became man and was
called the Son of Man.2

Here St. Cyril starts by affirming that the union between the Word and His Flesh was ineffable
(undescribable) and incomprehensible (ununderstandable) and that it was without change.

The Word did not subsequently descend upon an ordinary man previously born
of the holy virgin, but he is made one from his mother’s womb, and thus is said
to have undergone a fleshly birth in so far as he appropriated to himself the
birth of his own flesh.3

Here St. Cyril teaches that the Flesh had no independent existence before the incarnation, but
rather the creation of the flesh and the union with the Word were simultaneous.

So it is we say that he both suffered and rose again; not meaning that the Word
of God suffered in his own nature either the scourging, or the piercing of the
nails, or the other wounds, for the divinity is impassible because it is incorporeal.
But in so far as that which had become his own body suffered, then he himself
is said to suffer these things for our sake, because the Impassible One was in the
suffering body.4

Here St. Cyril comes to the real crux of the problem: theo-paschism, the suffering of God and
explains it to Nestorius, who remained defiant, rejecting this till he died.

We understand his death in the same manner. By nature the Word of God is
immortal and incorruptible, and Life, and Life-giver, and yet since his own body
“tasted death by the grace of God on behalf of all”, as Paul says (Heb.2.9) then
he himself is said to have suffered death for our sake. This does not mean he

2
St. Cyril: Second Letter to Nestorius in Fr. John McGouken: St. Cyril of Alexandria
and the Christological Controversy. p 263
3
Ibid p 264
4
Ibid

2
 underwent the experience of death in terms of his [own] nature ... rather, as I
have said, it means that his flesh tasted death. Similarly when his flesh was
raised up, once again we say that the resurrection is his.5

Here St. Cyril extends the explanation to the death and resurrection of our Saviour, in the
same manner.

And so we confess One Christ and Lord. This does not mean we worship a man
alongside the Word, in case the shadow of a division might creep in through
using the words “along with”; rather that we worship one and the same because
the body of the Word, with which he shares the Father’s throne, was not alien
to him. Again this does not mean two sons were sharing the throne, but one,
because of the union with the flesh. But if we reject this hypostatic union as
either impossible or unfitting, then we fall into saying there are two sons.6

Here St. Cyril asserts two points: First that the union between the Word and the Flesh resulted
in one Christ, to be worshipped as Word incarnate, without a shadow of division. The second
point is that our Lord sits at the right hand of the Father with the body that he united to
himself in the Virginal womb. Here he introduces Nestorius to communication of properties,
since the Word here is shown to have communicated to the Flesh His divine immortality and
His glory that He had before the incarnation. This is why our Lord prayed to the Father
saying: “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had
with thee before the world was.” (John 17:5) In the incarnation The Word. “Who, being in the
form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But emptied himself, and took
upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in
fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the
cross.” (Phil 2:6-8) This self emptying “kenosis” is part of the economy of salvation (God’s
plan to save us) in which the Word left behind His glory and accepted the limitations of
humanity but only so that he might give the glory he had before the incarnation to the Flesh
that he united to himself hypostatically (personally) and by extension to all of humanity.

We shall also find that the holy Fathers thought like this, and this is why they
called the holy virgin “Mother of God”. This does not mean that the nature of
the Word or his divinity took the beginning of its existence from the holy virgin,
rather that he is said to have been born according to the flesh in so far as the
Word was hypostatically united to that holy body which was born from her,

5
St. Cyril: Second Letter to Nestorius in Fr. John McGouken: St. Cyril of Alexandria
and the Christological Controversy. p 264
6
Ibid

3
 endowed with a rational soul.7

Only at the end of the second letter does St. Cyril touch on the “Mother of God”. St. Cyril
realized that Nestorius refusal of the term was a symptom of a much more serious
soteriological problem that he wanted to correct. In his Third letter to Nestorius he reiterates
the teaching about the hypostatic union:

We declare that the Only Begotten Word of God himself, who was begotten of
the very essence of the Father, the true God of true God, the light of light, he
through whom all things in heaven or on earth were made, himself came down
for the sake of our salvation and lowered himself into a self-emptying, and was
incarnated and made man. That is, taking flesh from the holy virgin and making
it his very own from his mother, he underwent a human birth and came forth as
man from a woman. This did not mean he abandoned what he was, for even
when he came as man in the assumption of flesh and blood even so he remained
what he was, that is God in nature and in truth. We do not say that the flesh
was changed into the nature of Godhead, nor indeed that the ineffable nature
of God the Word was converted into the nature of flesh, for he is entirely
unchangeable and immutable, and in accordance with the scriptures he abides
ever the same (Heb.13.8; Mal.3.6).8

Repeating what the 318 fathers of Nicea decreed, St. Cyril tells Nestorius that the ever existing
Word, the creator of all things, who was begotten of the very essence Father, himself came
down for the sake of our salvation and lowered himself into a self-emptying. He took flesh from
the holy virgin making it His very own. This ownership of the Word of His own flesh is
repeated many times in St. Cyril’s writings. He also affirms that he remained what He was (true
God of true God), even in His incarnation. Once again he reaffirms that neither did the Flesh
become Godhead nor was the Word converted into the nature of flesh. This means the union
happened without change.

We do not conceive the manner of the conjunction in terms of juxtaposition (for

this is not enough for a natural union), nor indeed in terms of a relational
participation in the way that “being joined to the Lord we are one spirit with
him,” as it is written (1 Cor. 6.17). In fact we reject the term “conjunction” as

7
St. Cyril: Second Letter to Nestorius in Fr. John McGouken: St. Cyril of Alexandria
and the Christological Controversy. p 265
8
St. Cyril: Third Letter to Nestorius in Fr. John McGouken: St. Cyril of Alexandria
and the Christological Controversy. p 268

4
 being insufficient to signify the union.9

Nestorius rejected the word “union” altogether and devised other words like “conjunction”,
which St. Cyril rejected as inadequate to describe the hypostatic union, a union so personal and
intimate between the flesh and the eternal hypostasis of the Word, that Nestorius could not
accept because he could not accept the doctrines of theopaschism and communication of
properties.

He did say that the Father is his God (Jn.20.17) even though he himself is God
by nature and from his essence but we do not overlook the fact that as well as
being God he also became man and as such was subject to God according to the
law which befits human nature. ... It is, therefore, as man and in so far as
pertains to what is fitting to the limitations of the self emptying, that he says that
he is subject to God alongside us.10

Once again St. Cyril goes back to the self emptying (kenosis) to explain how the Word
incarnate being God by nature called the Father His God.

We understand that there is One Christ Jesus, the Only begotten Son, honoured
together with his flesh in a single worship, and we confess that the same Son and
Only Begotten God, born from God the Father, suffered in the flesh for our
sake, in accordance with the scripture (cf. 1 Pet. 4.1) even though he is
impassible in his own nature. In the crucified body he impassibly appropriated
the suffering of his own flesh and “by the grace of God he tasted death on
behalf of all” (Heb.2.9).11

Once again St. Cyril comes back to theopaschism (the root of the problem) to tell Nestorius
that the One who died on the Cross is the Only begotten Son.

We proclaim the death according to the flesh of the Only begotten Son of God,
and confess the return to life from the dead of Jesus Christ, and his ascension
into heaven, and thus we perform in the churches an unbloody worship, and in
this way approach mystical blessings and are sanctified, becoming participants
in the holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Saviour of us all. We do
not receive this as ordinary flesh, God forbid, or as the flesh of a man sanctified

9
St. Cyril: Third Letter to Nestorius in Fr. John McGouken: St. Cyril of Alexandria
and the Christological Controversy. p 269
10
Ibid
11
Ibid p 270

5
 and conjoined to the Word in a unity of dignity, or as the flesh of someone who
enjoys a divine indwelling. No, we receive it as truly the life-giving and
very-flesh of the Word himself. As God he is by nature life and since he became
the Word of God became one with his own flesh he revealed it as life-giving.12

Here St. Cyril brilliantly connects the death and resurrection of the Lord with the Eucharist.
First he recites for Nestorius the “anamnesis” “Thy death O Lord we proclaim, Thine holy
resurrection and ascention to the heaven we confess” Then he tells him that we receive it as
truly the lifegiving and very-flesh of the Word himself. The doctrine that the flesh of the Word we
receive in the Eucharist is life giving originated with St. Cyril himself. Our church repeats his
words in the “profession” that the priest says before communion:

I believe, I believe, I believe and confess to the last breath, that this is the
life-giving Flesh that Thine Only-Begotten Son, our Lord, God and Saviour,
Jesus Christ, took from our Lady, the lady of us all, the holy Mother of God,
Saint Mary. He made It one with His Divinity without mingling, without
confusion, and without alteration. He witnessed the good confession before
Pontius Pilate. He gave It up for us upon the holy wood of the Cross, of His own
will, for us all. Truly I believe that His Divinity parted not from His Humanity
for a single moment, nor a twinkling of an eye.

This profession is a wonderful liturgical recital of what St. Cyril meant by the Hypostatic union.
He made it one with His divinity without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration,
summarizes St. Cyril’s teaching about the One Incarnate Nature of the Word (next article)
together with Truly I believe that His Divinity parted not from His Humanity for a single
moment, nor a twinkling of an eye. “He gave It up for us upon the holy wood of the Cross, of His
own will, for us all.” reiterates our belief in theopaschism since we are declaring that it was the
same Flesh of the Only Begotten Son, which he took from the holy Mother of God, Saint Mary
and which He made one with His divinity, that He gave up for us upon the holy wood of the
Cross, of His own will. By saying His own will we affirm the dogma of myathelitea (one will) and
by calling the Virgin “Mother of God” we are honouring the tradition we received from our
holy father Abba Cyril.
Finally at the end of the letter St Cyril ads: “Since the holy virgin gave birth in the flesh
to God hypostatically united to flesh, for this reason we say that she is the Mother of God.”13
This reaffirms what we said at the beginning that it was not an argument about the term
“Mother of God” but about the whole economy of the incarnation and salvation.

12
St. Cyril: Third Letter to Nestorius in Fr. John McGouken: St. Cyril of Alexandria
and the Christological Controversy. p 270-271
13
Ibid p 273

6
Parallels between Ephesus and Chalcedon:
There are two misconceptions about the disagreement that arose after Chalcedon. One
view would have us believe that the whole matter was a misunderstanding, that both sides
meant the same thing but expressed it differently. The other view is that those who opposed
Chalcedon are heretic monophysites who believed that Christ had one divine nature and no
humanity! Both views are wrong as Father Meyendorff tells us:

If one reads certain Chalcedonian texts relative to this controversy, one finds,
against theopaschism in all its forms, objections current in the anti-Cyrillian
circles of Antioch before and after the Council of Ephesus.14

The Chalcedonism of the Acoemetae, the main adversaries of Monophysitism

in Constantinople during the first years of the sixth century, was also an
Antiochene Chalcedonism. ... they refused to accept the doctrine of
communicatio idiomatum (communication of properties) They fought against
theopaschite formulas, and, furthermore, it did not appear to them that the
term “theotocos”; had to be taken literally.15

The problem was not the language of one or two natures, since even St. Cyril himself in trying
to reconcile with John of Antioch allowed the use of the two nature language but “in thought
only”. St. Athanasius did the same in reconciling the semi Arians, who refused to use the word
“homo-ousion” (co-essential) but believed in the full divinity of our Lord.
What was at stake here was a soteriological problem. If the One who died on the Cross
was not the Word Incarnate then we have not been saved! And if the Word had not
communicated His divine attributes of immortality, incorruptibility and impassibility to His
own flesh, and by extension to the whole humanity then St. Paul lied to us when he told us that
God has “raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.”
(Eph 2:6)
You see the connection between what happened at Ephesus and what happened at
Chalcedon? It was not a quarrel about words: one or two natures or whether the Virgin is
mother of God or mother of Christ. It was about theopaschism, communication of properties
and Hypostatic union. Nestorius never accepted either of these doctrines, neither did the
Chalcedonians for a whole century after Chalcedon. Theopaschism was accepted in the 5th
“ecumenical” council but the sixth council cancelled that and returned to what the non-
Chalcedonians considered blatant Nestorianism.

14
John Meyendorff: Christ in Eastern Christian thought p. 35
15
Ibid pp 35,36