HOMOOUSIOS

This article considers the history of the term (1) before Nicaea I, (2) at Nicaea I and afterward, and (3) in Christology.

Before Nicaea I. The word homoousios (ὁμοούσιος), traditionally translated into English by "consubstantial," (one in being) was an everyday word in the Greek language with the meaning "of the same kind of stuff as." It had been used technically, however, in the vocabulary of Gnosticism. Thus, in the system of valentinus, Truth emanates from the substance of Mind and is consubstantial with it. Christian writers at Alexandria adopted the word to express the eternal origin of the Son from the Father. In explaining Heb 1.3 Origen wrote:

Light without brightness is unthinkable. If that is true, there was never a time when the Son was not the Son. He will be …, as it were, the splendor of the unbegotten light….

Thus Wisdom, too, since it proceeds from God, is generated out of the divine substance itself. Under the figure of a bodily outflow, nevertheless, it, too, is thus called "a sort of clean and pure outflow of omnipotent glory" (Wisd. 7, 25). Both these similes manifestly show the community of substance between Son and Father. For an outflow seems homoousios, i.e., of one substance with that body of which it is the outflow or exhalation. [Fr. in Heb. 24.359; J. Quasten, Patrology 2:78]

Homoousios had become so common a theological term by the middle of the 3rd century that one of the accusations made against St. Dionysius the Great, Bishop of Alexandria, when he was denounced to the pope was that he refused to use the word homoousios. On the other hand, in Antioch a synod held in the year 267 to anathematize paul of samosata expressly condemned the use of the word. This almost forgotten fact was made much of a century later by the enemies of Nicaea I. Since no writings of Paul of Samosata are extant, it can only be surmised what he meant by the term. Probably he was asserting what would be termed today a unity of Person or hypostasis between Father and Son. This hypothesis is consonant with Paul's known monarchianism. Another possibility is that in calling Father and Son consubstantial he was asserting their common origin from a third, preexisting substance. According to arius this latter is what the Manichees meant by homoousios, and it was for this reason that Arius rejected the term.

In the West the equivalent term consubstantialis was already in use in the 3rd century. Tertullian spoke of the Trinity as a unity of substance (Adv. Prax. 12).

At Nicaea I and Afterward. The Council of nicaea I (a.d. 325) in using homoousios intended (1) to exclude any imperfection from the Word and (2) to assert His full equality with the Father. Whether the Council intended to affirm the numerical identity of the substance of Father and Son is doubtful, since this question had not been raised by the Arians. Both before and after the Council homoousios was used of beings that are numerically distinct, as parents and children. athanasius spoke of Esau and Jacob as ὁμοούσιοι.

After Nicaea I homoousios became the touchstone of orthodoxy. Only after a long and bitter struggle did the formula of the Council find acceptance. At times during this period the term was abandoned, as in the third formula of the Synod of Sirmium, which was subscribed to by Pope liberius in 358. This did not always mean a compromise of principle with the Semi-Arians, however, because many churchmen, including Cyril of Jerusalem, adhered to the faith of Nicaea I but avoided using homoousios because of its Sabellian associations (see sa bellianism). Even Athanasius admitted:

Those who accept everything else that was defined at Nicaea and doubt only about the "consubstantial" must not be treated as enemies …, but we discuss the matter with them as brothers who mean what we mean and dispute only about the word. [De syn. 41]

It is interesting that 60 years after Nicaea I the Council of Constantinople I avoided homoousios in its definition of the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

In Christology. In the Christological conflict of the early 5th century the term homoousios was of secondary importance. On the one hand, nestorius denied that the consubstantial Word was born, suffered, or rose from the dead. On the other hand, eutyches was reluctant to admit that Christ is consubstantial with mankind. When interrogated, he replied:

I confess that the holy Virgin is consubstantial with us and that of her our God was incarnate.

Since the Mother is consubstantial with us, then surely the Son is also?

If you wish me to add that He who is of the Virgin is consubstantial with us, I will do so…. But Itake the word consubstantial in such a way as not to deny that He is the Son of God. [Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum 2.1.1:135]

The Council of Chalcedon in its definition repeated the phrase of Nicaea I, "consubstantial with the Father," and added "consubstantial with us in his humanity" (H. Denziger, Enchiridion symbolorum 148).

See Also: arianism; consubstantiality; generation of the word; logos; trinity, holy, articles on; word, the.

Bibliography: a. grillmeier, Lexicon für Theologie und Kirche (Freiburg 1957–66) 5:467–468. i. ortiz de urbina, Nicée et Constantinople (Paris 1963) 82–87. g. l. prestige, God in Patristic Thought (Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; 1935; repr. 1959).

[j. m. carmody]