Enhypostasis/Anhypostasis

 

Enhypostasis/Anhypostasis 

michael jensen Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Classical Christology has described the relationship of the two natures of Christ by using the rather arcane-sounding terms anhypostasis and enhypostasis. What does this mean? Well, firstly, the human nature of Jesus has no hypostasis, or “person”, of its own, but subsists only as the human nature of the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity. His human nature is anhypostatic in that it has no personhood, or independent reality of its own (the word ‘subsists’ is used rather than ‘exists’ to indicate this dependence): rather it is hypostatized in union with, in (so, enhypostasis), the person of the Logos. This is how Chalcedon is explained: we have in Jesus one person in two natures. The subject of this human nature is divine.

Now, all of this seems impossibly abstract. Also, how can it be possible to have a true human nature that is not personal, or whose person is not human? Is the human nature of Jesus then merely an outer shell, or a disguise perhaps? These are good questions to which I do not have an immediate answer. But in fact something rather important is being said here: that Jesus is not a man who merely fulfilled the potential of human beings better than others have done; he is real man only as the Son of God (so Ivor Davidson). Barth says: “God and Man are so related in Jesus Christ that He exists in Man so far and only so far as He exists as God, i.e., in the mode of existence of the eternal Word of God.” (CD I.2.163) In other words, Jesus’ humanity is the humanity of God.

Why does this matter? I want to inquire as to how Jesus’ humanity relates to, and so identifies or prescribes, the humanity of the rest of us. This description of J’s human nature may actually compromise this as a possibility, because it sounds like his humanity is only the generalized humanity of the human species and not that of an individual: in which case is it real humanity? Real humanity is only ever instanced as individual. In addition, it sounds like this formulation makes J’s human flesh only a passive recipient or instrument of divine power. Perhaps we need to think of it the other way round… Any suggestions?