Coptica 15, 2016

Letter by Anba Yūsāb, Bishop of Jirjā and Akhmīm

5

Phil 2:7 but never as an element of union. 15F 16 Further on in the Letter, Leo says that “it does not belong to the same nature to weep in an emotion of pity for a dead friend, and to raise that same friend from the dead with a word of power.” 16F 17 He also says that after the Incarnation “the properties of both natures and substances were preserved and co-existed in one person.” 17F 18 These quotes from Leo clearly indicate that he used the terms form ( forma ), nature ( natura ), and substance ( substantia ) synonymously. 18F 19 This created a lot of confusion, in response to which Yūsāb starts his defense with a definition of terms. He writes that “form” is performance ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻡ( al-qyām ), particularity ( ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ al-khāṣah ) conveys the meaning of hypostasis, and there can be no form without a hypostasis. 19F 20 Yūsāb reasons that if Leo believes in two forms, as he says in the Letter, then he has to believe in two hypostases. Lampe, in his Patristic Greek Lexicon , asserts that the use of substantia as the Latin counterpart of hypostasis was influenced by the exegesis of Hebrews 1:3. 20F 21 Yūsāb disentangles the confusion of terms by analyzing the term hypostasis ( )ﺍﻗﻨﻮﻡ in Hebrews 1:3. The RSV of Hebrews 1:3 reads as follows: “He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature [χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτου], upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” 21F 22 Yūsāb poses the question using the exact term as the Greek text: How did the hypostasis purify our sins? The hypostasis purified us from our sins by his crucifixion, suffering, and death. If the hypostasis referred to in Hebrews 1:3 is the divine person, then Chalcedonians attribute suffering to the divinity and have equally denied the presence of a human hypostasis (person). He further asks, If every human being has a hypostasis, since human nature is personified in a hypostasis (person), then did the divinity unite with human nature or with a human hypostasis (person)? 22F 23 Yūsāb shows from its biblical use in Hebrews that the term “hypostasis” means “person.” This brings the discussion to the crucial point: How does one define “nature”? Yūsāb writes that nature is essence ( ﺟﻮﻫﺮ jawhar , οὐσία). 23F 24 He then poses 16 G.W.H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), 885 at μορφή. 17 Bindley, Oecumenical Documents , 227-228. 18 Ibid ., p. 226. 19 Ibid ., p.169-170 (for the Latin text). 20 Manuscript Theol. 5 , 170v. 21 Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon , 1458 at ὑπόστασις. 22 It is worth noting that the RSV translates ὑποστάσεως as “nature” rather than “person.” 23 Ms. Theol. 5 , 171v. 24 Cyril of Alexandria clearly differentiates between οὐσία and φύσις to establish that the Father and the Son are of the same nature. See Lois M. Farag, St. Cyril of Alexandria, A New Testament Exegete: His Commentary on the Gospel of John (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2007), p. 81.