ΟΜΟΟΥΣΙΟΣ HMIN

Author(s): Maurice Wiles

Source: The Journal of Theological Studies, NEW SERIES, Vol. 16, No. 2 (OCTOBER 1965),
pp. 454-461
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23959045
Accessed: 04-03-2019 10:50 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23959045?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Journal of Theological Studies

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Mon, 04 Mar 2019 10:50:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
454 NOTES AND STUDIES
version is the Diatessaron. We have only Syr
Greek one, the Pseudo-Macarius, being proba
Syriac. If the variant did exist in the Greek orig
granted that there was one—it would perhaps e
the Old Latin lavatis. Finally, we can say th
τετϊϊειωε in the Gospel of Thomas concurs with
Syriac versions of the Diatessaron. This is a poi
in the task of discovering the source and locatio
and we hope that it will help to explore the
Quispel1 on the many peculiarities in the Gos
common with the Diatessaron. Aelred Baker
Aelred Baker

ομοούσιος η min

'Ομοούσιος is the most famous word in the whole history o

doctrine. Much has been written about how it came to fin
the Creed of Nicaea and about what it was intended to
Alexander of Alexandria and his deacon Athanasius, Hosius
with his roots in the Western tradition of una substan
Emperor Constantine himself have each been painted at so
another as the key figure responsible for the introduction
into the Creed of Nicaea. It is highly probable in fact that t
significant part to play in securing its adoption in the new
Equally varied and equally numerous are the differing
which have been given of its intended meaning. In recent
Stead has stressed the vagueness and imprecision implicit in
word 'same' and has emphasised the difficulties involved i
claim a very precise or technical meaning for the term ομ
There is much in the immediate historical situation at the time of
Nicaea to support this emphasis on the term being imprecise in mean
ing. Such imprecision would have suited well the Emperor's desire
for comprehension. Certainly it is clear from the letter of Eusebius of
Caesarea, in which he explains his own reasons for accepting the formula,
that the Emperor was ready to allow the greatest latitude in its in
terpretation.3 Indeed it has been argued recently that even the two

1 G. Quispel, 'L'Evangile selon Thomas et le Diatessaron', in Vigiliae

Christianae, xiii (1959), p. 94 (in the table).
2 'The
1 'TheSignificance
Significance of ομοούσιος',
of ομοούσιο; , Studia Studia Patristica,
Patristica, iii, pt.
iii, pt. ι (Texte u. 1 (Texte u. Unt
Unt.,
lxxviii), pp. 397-412.
3 H. G. Opitz, Urkunden zur Geschichte des Arianischen Streites (Athanasius
Werke, Bd. III, Teil 1), document xxii.

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Mon, 04 Mar 2019 10:50:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 NOTES AND STUDIES 455
dissenters who finally refused to sign were motiva
theological than by theological factors in their per
But we are bound to ask why, if deliberate vaguene
should so novel a term have been introduced into th
Surely some at least of the framers of the Creed mu
it was capable of fulfilling a significant anti-Arian r
often been described as masters of equivocation, an
somewhat harsh description it is clear enough that
skilled at giving their own interpretation to phras
nents had thought sufficiently precise to exclud
should anyone have thought them likely to baulk at
as ομοούσιος would now appear to be ? The most lik
an expectation would seem to be that Arius and
associated with him were thoroughly committed
advance. This would certainly account for what wo
very puzzling phenomenon. Moreover, there is som
evidence to support the conjecture. Arius had d
chaean in his letter to Alexander2 and Eusebius of Ni
to have used the term as a kind of reductio ad absur
the relation of the Son to the Father in a letter prod
Council of Nicaea itself. The person ultimately r
introduction of the word into the Christian creed sh
ably be regarded as Arius himself.
There is nothing very new either in this discussio
sion. It is indeed the conclusion which Ambrose himself draws from
the story of Eusebius of Nicomedia's letter: 'The Fathers put this word
in their exposition of the faith because they saw it daunted their adver
saries.'3 The issue is after all one, as we said at the beginning, that has
been both frequently and thoroughly investigated. I refer to it here
primarily by way of introduction to a parallel issue which seems to have
received far less frequent or thorough discussion. For even if this be
the most famous use of the word ομοούσιος in the official formularies
of the Christian church, it is not its only use. In the Formulary of
Reunion and in the Chalcedonian Definition Christ is described not
only as ομοούσιος τω πατρι κατά την θεότητα but also as ομοούσιος ήμΐν
κατά την ανθρωπότητα. It seems equally important to ask questions
about the origins and significance of this second ομοούσιος.
The description of Christ as ομοούσιος τω πατρί was not merely
given formal ratification at Nicaea; rather it was there for the first time

1 Η. Chadwick, 'Faith and Order at the Council of Nicaea', H.T.R. liii (July
i960), pp. 171-95. 2 Opitz, op. cit., document vi.
3 Ambrose, De Fide, iii. 15 (Opitz, op. cit., document xxi).

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Mon, 04 Mar 2019 10:50:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 456 NOTES AND STUDIES
effectively introduced into the language of orthodo
Athanasius at a later date was keen to claim earlier
use, but it is clear enough that he was hard put to i
case. Its somewhat reluctant and qualified acceptance
Alexandria is all that he can really cite.1 The orthodo
grew out of the needs of the Arian controversy and
very start enshrined in an official conciliar formul
affirmation of Christ as ομοούσιος ήμΐν is to be foun
of Reunion at the close of the first fierce onslaugh
controversy. But the earliest evidence for the use of
in relation to Christ's human nature belongs to the t
more than half a century earlier.
Apollinarius was always renowned as a staunch
Nicaean affirmation that the Son is ομοούσιος τω πα
a vigorous protagonist for the unity of Christ's pers
language played its part. For Apollinarius insists tha
of the flesh to the godhead is in no sense advent
συνουσιωμένη καϊ σύμφυτος.2 Such language was op
objection. If the Son is ομοούσιος with the Father an
divinity in Christ constitute a single ουσία, then it i
assume that Christ's flesh is being regarded as heave
ομοούσιος with the Father. This possible implication
linarius vigorously repudiates; he firmly anathemat
says that the flesh is ομοούσιος τω θεω και ού τ-rj 'η
repudiating all suggestion that Christ's flesh is ομοού
very naturally introduces the correlative notion that it
with ours. If this was a satisfactory answer to the a
taught the heavenly nature of Christ's flesh, it was
more fundamental charge that he did not teach Chris
Apollinarius speaks regularly of Christ's flesh as ομοο
But it is evident that he was using flesh in its literal
not simply as a synonym for human nature. He was
speak of Christ as ομοούσιος with man as such with
qualification. In one of the most famous of the fragme
άνθρωπος αλλ' ώς άνθρωπος, διότι ούχ ομοούσιος τω
κυριώτατον,5
In using the term ομοούσιος of the relation of Christ's flesh to ours,

1 De Synodis, 43-45.
2 Η. Lietzmann, Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule, frag. 36.
3 Frag. 163 (L., p. 255).
4 De Unione 8; frag. 161; Tomus Synodalis (L., pp. 188, 254, 262-3).
5 Frag. 45 (L., p. 214).

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Mon, 04 Mar 2019 10:50:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 NOTES AND STUDIES 457
Apollinarius may have been innovating as regard
employed; he was not innovating as regards the cont
the early days of anti-Gnostic polemic, Tertullian ha
Christ existed in the corporeal substance of a man a
that substance from the womb of his mother.1 It is n
fore that this emphasis on Christ's being of one
according to his manhood should be related in the f
sharing our physical substance and should be promi
time in the writings of one who saw Christ's one
sively in terms of the flesh.
If we go on to ask where the term is to be found in
before its incorporation into the Formulary of Reu
is not easily answered. The difficulty arises primar
mentary nature of the surviving writings of the co
chene scholars and the doubt surrounding the correct
of the fragments. Occurrences of the idea in fragm
Migne to Eustathius and Diodore prove in fact to be
attribution of fragments which properly belong to
fragments of Diodore, however, do incorporate the i
similar to that already met with in the much earlier
lian. Diodore customarily speaks of Christ's hum
which is of the seed of David'. This emphasis on the
human nature is of the substance of David and of t
mother makes it natural for him (as on other groun
linarius) to stress Christ's unity with us in primari
So in the course of arguing that Mary cannot be mo
Word he writes θνητοί γαρ θνητονγεννά κατάφύσιν και σ
The evidence provided by the writings of Theodore i
idea of Christ's consubstantiality with us occurs tw
fragments. On one occasion the context is very remi

1 De Came Christi, 9, 20 and 21.

2 For Eustathius, see P.G. xviii. 685D (frag, on Ps. xv) and
of its proper attribution, see M. Spanneut, Recherches sur
d'Antioche (1948), p. 28. For Diodore, see P.G. xxxiii, 161
23). E. Weigl, Christologie vom Tode des Athanasius bis
Nestorianischen Streites (1925), p. 101, n. 3, speaks of Didy
Diodore's commentary on the Psalms. But in fact it is c
wrong attribution (see L. Maries, 'Un commentaire de D
nom de Diodore', R.S.R. ν (1914), pp. 73-78).
3 Cf. the fragment of Diodore in C.S.C.O., Scriptores S
Severus, Contra Grammaticum (ed. J. Lebon), ii. 7, which
Dei substantia, qui ex semine David? Nonne Deus Verbum ex substantia
Patris est et is, qui ex semine David, ex substantia David?'
4 Contra Synousiastas, fragment, P.G. xxxiii. 1560-1.

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Mon, 04 Mar 2019 10:50:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
458 NOTES AND STUDIES
and speaks of 'that which is of the seed of David and of t
Virgin'.1 The other is couched in more general terms. 'H
consubstantialis est, Deus autem Deo consubstantialis est
which Theodore is making in the passage containing
simply the utter impossibility of any mixing of the tw
does not argue explicitly for an extension of the idea o
tiality to include not only the body but the whole hum
well.
But the Antiochenes were not the only anti-Apol
Alexandrian Didymus is every bit as clear on that is
his writings that the idea of Christ's consubstantiality w
its fullest application. In his commentary on the Psalm
following expression of the classic anti-Apollinarian argum
λυτροϋται λογικήν, τοιαύτην υπέρ αυτής παρασχών, ώς κα
όμοούσιον σώμα.3 The argument indeed is a good deal o
anti-Apollinarian debate, for Origen had said much t
nearly two centuries before: 'the whole man would not h
unless he had taken upon him the whole man'.4 But what
for our immediate purpose is Didymus' use of the word
making his point. In this instance he still uses it only o
in the way that we have already seen to be characterist
But the logic of his argument makes it almost inevitable
should be extended to refer to Christ's soul also. We can
actually taking place in another passage of the same
Didymus is discussing the nature of Christ's soul and con
άρα και ταΐς φυχαΐς των ανθρώπων ομοούσιος, ώσπερ κ
ούσιος τή των ανθρώπων σαρκι τυγχάνει, εκ της Μαρίας π
use of ομοούσιος with reference to Christ's flesh is still i
the primary and most natural usage of the term in refe
manity. But the whole logic of the anti-Apollinarian ca
extension of the idea which Didymus here makes. It is
surprise to find the idea of Christ's soul as ομοούσιος ταΐς ά
1 Contra Apollinarem, 3 (Η. Β. Swete, Theodore of Mopsuestia
on the Minor Epistles of St. Paul, appendix to vol. ii, p. 313).
2 De Incarnatione, 2 (ibid., p. 292).
3 In Ps. lxx. 23 (P.G. xxxix. 1465A). The point is still more cle
in a fuller version of the same saying preserved in the tradition w
to Diodore ([P.G. xxxiii. i6iia): Λυτροΰται ή λογική ψυχή, λύτρο
Ίησου υπ€ρ αυτής τήν eaντου ψυχή ν, και αυτήν δηλονότι λογικήν
τρόπον λυτρουμζνος τά οώματα των ανθρώπων, σώμα όμοοόσιον αυτό
δωκ€ν, ούτως λυτρόυμΐνος λογικός ψυχας, λογικήν ψυχήν υπόρ αυτώ
* Dialogue with Herakleides, p. 136 (ed. Scherer).
5 In Ps. xv. 9 (P.G. xxxix. 1233c). It is this passage which
ascribed to Eustathius (P.G. xviii. 685D).

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Mon, 04 Mar 2019 10:50:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 NOTES AND STUDIES 459
in the commentary on the Psalms discovered at Tur
probability to be ascribed also to Didymus.1
So by the time of the Nestorian controversy the c
as consubstantial with us in our human nature was,
least well established in the thought both of Antioch
Nestorius uses the idea in a way natural to his Antio
As with Diodore before him the term fitted naturall
of his insistence that that which was born of the vir
human nature which was consubstantial with hers.2
wish to repudiate the phrase; he was not an Apollina
He is concerned to insist that the term is not, as Ne
might suggest, the description of a second distinct en
an account of what the divine word became at the incarnation while
remaining ομοούσιο? with the Father—namely fully man. ομοούσιο? ήμΐν
was therefore a phrase which Cyril was perfectly ready to accept as
giving proper expression to Christ's full humanity.3 The concept was
thus well suited to fulfil the role which it did in fact fulfil by its presence
in the compromise Formulary of Reunion. It was a forceful expression
of Christ's full humanity acceptable alike to Antioch and to Alexandria.
My purpose in this note is a limited one. It has been to trace the
origins of the description of Christ as ομοούσιο? ήμΐν in the period before
its first incorporation in an official statement of Church doctrine in the
Formulary of Reunion of 432-3. In the course of that search certain
similarities have emerged between the early history of our phrase and
that of the more famous ομοούσιος τφ πατρί. In both cases the earliest
close parallels to the concept are to be found in the same Western
writer, Tertullian. Again in both cases the influence of heresy is marked.
There is nothing surprising in that fact as a general statement. The pur
poses of the two phrases are patently anti-Arian and anti-Apollinarian
respectively. The parallel is only noteworthy in that it may have been
Arius who first introduced the idea of ομοούσιος into the debate about
the Son's divinity and that it is in the writings of Apollinarius that we
first find ομοούσιος used in connexion with Christ's humanity. But
beyond that the parallel does not go. For Arius ομοούσιος was a totally
impossible term to use of Christ's divinity and it was this that gave it
its polemic attractiveness to his opponents. For Apollinarius ομοούσιος
was a very necessary term to use with reference to Christ's flesh, and his
Antiochene opponents seem to have used it in essentially the same

1 Α. GeschO, La Christologie du 'Commentaire sur les Psaumes' decouvert ά

Toura (1962), pp. 136-8.
2 Loofs, Nestoriana, pp. 192, 340. Cf. also p. 235.
3 Cyril, Adv. Nest, iii (P.G. lxxvi. 141B-D); Homily xv (P.G. lxxvii. 1093B-D).

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Mon, 04 Mar 2019 10:50:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
460 NOTES AND STUDIES
manner. Despite his denial of Christ's being όμοοΰσι,ο
τό κυριωτατον, it seems to have been only gradually
Christ's full consubstantiality with us was developed
to the deep-seated anti-Apollinarian feelings of the
Church. Moreover, the admittedly scanty evidence s
Didymus rather than any of the Antiochenes as the
responsible for this development.
One important question remains to be asked. If wit
of Reunion and the Chalcedonian Definition we s
ομοούσιος τω πατρι κατά την θεότητα and ομοούσιο
ανθρωπότητα, are we using ομοούσιος in the same sense
In commenting upon Didymus' description of Christ'
with ours, A. Gesche writes: Ί1 ne s'agit evidemm
ici ä ομοούσιος le sens de la theologie trinitaire: ident
substance concrete'.1 This sounds reasonable enough
a discussion of the phrase in question in the exeg
Didymus. But the position is much more difficult if w
same principle of interpretation to the Formulary of
two phrases, ομοούσιος τω πατρί and ομοούσιος ημΐν,
juxtaposition to one another. The logical structure
being raised here can perhaps be brought out more
aid of a brief digression concerning the teaching of E
The substance of the Eutychian controversy was c
the question of the admissibility of describing Christ
But we are not here concerned with the history of th
first official appearance in the Formulary of Reunion
fore is not with the substance of Eutyches' position
logical form of his statement of that position. This
the famous watchword εκ δύο φύσεων προ της ενώσεως,
ενωσιν. Φύσις was certainly used in contemporary th
both a concrete and a conceptual sense. The word φύσ
of the phrase could hardly be intended in a concrete s
certainly did not intend to affirm the pre-existence
nature as a separate entity. On the other hand, the
second half of the phrase must have the concrete se
existent if it is to be compatible with Eutyches' rea
Christ was not only God but τέλειος άνθρωπος. If, th
is to carry a meaning consistent with the other utter
it would seem that the word φύσις is to be under
senses in its two halves. It would be widely agreed t

Op. cit., p. 137, η. i.

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Mon, 04 Mar 2019 10:50:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 NOTES AND STUDIES 461
if seriously maintained would have to be regarde
absurdum of theological argumentation. Its occurren
Eutyches can be explained on the ground that the phr
ance of an elderly, obstinate monk when cornere
questioning. But the Formulary of Reunion and t
Definition are theological statements of a somewhat d
It is a serious question therefore to ask whether the
same kind of charge as the affirmation of Eutyches.
used in them in different senses in the two halves of
There would seem to be only two ways out of th
which we are faced. If one were a sufficiently radical
be possible to assert that there is ultimately only one si
that to speak of many men is a loose and inaccurate
This is the line of argument followed by Gregory of N
to Ablabius On Not Three Gods'. To speak of Christ a
with God and with us would then imply that Christ
the single entity God and to the single entity Huma
feeling a certain attraction to this highly sophisticated
nevertheless I don't think that very many of us are s
Platonists to take it very seriously for very long. Nor
bishops assembled at Chalcedon were either.
The more reasonable alternative therefore is to admi
phrases simply mean that Christ is both fully God an
is wholly in line with their anti-Arian and anti-Apolli
which this note has been concerned. In that case w
that the term ομοούσιος as used in the Nicene creed doe
at all about the relationship of the Son to the Father
that the Son is fully God. In itself it would be just a
Sabellianism, tritheism, or polytheism as with orthod
It is simply asserting that Christ is a full member o
just as he is also a full member of the man-class. It i
and distinct fact that the former class has only one
the latter has many. If this argument be sound, it m
difference to the substance of orthodox theology. It
we have often been guilty of trying to find too much
packed into the one word ομοούσιος. If this seems to
ment of the Fathers at Nicaea, it at least saves us from
their successors at Chalcedon as guilty of the inanitie
Maurice Wiles

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Mon, 04 Mar 2019 10:50:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms