The word hupostasis is derived from the Greek prefix hupo (under) combined with the verb histemi (to stand). The etymological meaning is ‘that which stands under’ or ‘that which remains.’ It was a word developed in the classical Greek era ( circa 500 to 300 BC) as a specific technical or scientific term for ‘sediment’ in the sense that sediment is ‘that which remains’ after the process of erosion or evaporation is complete. Hupostasis encompasses both the sediment itself and the process that created it as two parts of the same whole in that the existence of the sediment manifests and confirms the process. Thus in its classical usage the word could be defined as: ‘sediment viewed as the underlying manifestation of an unseen process carried out in time, a process with a definite beginning and end.’ As such it is ‘that which remains or stands under.’
All future developments in usage are rooted in this basic scientific application and, with the exception of late post-biblical philosophical applications, all have attached to them a time element, typically a beginning and an ending. For this reason any biblical definition that equates hupostasis with abstract concepts such as ‘being’ or ‘essence,’ which typically remove the matter entirely from the concrete world of time and space, must be viewed as untenable chronological inconsistencies. These abstract meanings were not attached to the word until long after the New Testament had been written. The KJV choice of ‘person’ as a rendering of hupostasis in Hebrews 1:3 is a prominent example. It was not until the 4th century AD that the concept of ‘person’ in the sense of ‘being’ became associated with hupostasis.
Established as it was in the classical realm of Greek scientific terms, the word hupostasis was appropriated into general Greek usage in the 2nd and 3rd centuries BC as a term for ‘plan, process, purpose, or undertaking.’ As such, hupostasis was viewed as the ‘total plan or purpose in accordance with which concrete acts are to be appraised.’ The building plans for a temple, for instance, would be the hupostasis of the temple in the sense that they outlined the entire building process from the laying of the first stone to the finishing details that concluded the project. The existence of a plan provided not only a construction timeline but also allowed for an appraisal to be made regarding the success or failure of the project. Ultimately, regardless of whether the project succeeded or failed, the plan ‘standing beneath’ the project was ‘that which remained’ and therefore provided confirmation of the intent and purpose.
While it would seem to be unrelated to the scientific usage, this general or common application of hupostasis as a ‘plan’ or ‘purpose’ still retains the original ‘sediment’ idea in that it describes the underlying reality of a process or project to be carried out and completed in time and space. There is, however, one important difference. The time context has now shifted from the perspective of ‘sediment’ as the end result of a past process to the perspective of ‘purpose’ as the underlying foundation of a current or as yet incomplete process. ‘Sediment’ viewed the process as a past completed act. ‘Plan’ or ‘purpose’ views the process as ongoing, in its entirety, and with a specific intent in view. This time-frame element is lost in post-biblical usage but is evident in all five New Testament examples.
An example of the general usage of the word that can be confusing at first glance is found in papyri documents where the word hupostasis is applied to archived documents that validate property ownership. The basis for this usage rests on the concept of land documents as the concrete reality of the entire process of land ownership from past acquisition to current possession to future disposition in the event of death or divorce. These papyri examples are cited by those who prefer to translate hupostasis as ‘title-deed’ in Hebrews 11:1 – ‘faith is the title-deed of things hoped for.’ The flaw in this word choice is that the single compound word ‘title-deed’ does not carry with it a time element, nor does it contain the idea of an underlying process, plan, or purpose. The absence of those two components makes for an inaccurate understanding of the passage.
Perhaps because of its technical and scientific roots, hupostasis was never a word that was tossed about with a large variety of differently shaded meanings, though the Septuagint applications may, on the surface, give that appearance. While its meaning evolved over time as the word transitioned from science to general to philosophical use, the manner of its usage at any given point in time demanded precision. The Septuagint translators, for example, used hupostasis to translate 12 different Hebrew words but in all instances the meaning precisely reflected the general Greek usage of the word as an expression of the underlying reality, plan, or purpose of something played out in real time. Often it was used with regard to an enduring purpose and therefore called upon to translate words that represented the plan, purpose, or general council of God.
Hupostasis is only used five times in the New Testament – twice by Paul in II Corinthians, and three times by the author of Hebrews in 1:3, 3:14, and 11:1. Paul used the word in exactly the same way that it was used both in the Septuagint and in the common Greek of his day. In II Corinthians 9:4 he applied it to the year-long giving program that the Corinthian church had been engaged in for the benefit of the saints in Jerusalem. Paul wanted to make sure that the project was brought successfully to its planned conclusion otherwise he and the Corinthians would be ‘put to shame in this hupostasis.’ Here hupostasis refers to a plan which has been undertaken and is near completion. Two chapters later, in II Corinthians 11:17, Paul used hupostasis to refer to his intended purpose or plan behind the extended discourse which he was about to embark upon in defense of his ministry.
Although the word “confidence” is commonly used to translate hupostasis in both of these Pauline passages, it must be soundly rejected as having no historical or linguistic basis. That translation arose during the early years of the Reformation when, based on the doctrine of justification by faith, reformers insisted that “confidence” be used in the translation of Hebrews 11:1. The definition stuck, so to speak. However, both Pauline occurrences of hupostasis make perfect sense when translated using the common 1st century Greek meaning of the word – the plan or purpose standing behind an activity carried out in time. The difficulty with this position is that every major English translation of the New Testament, almost without exception, follows the Reformed party-line and translates both Pauline usages with the word ‘confidence.’ The single exception that I have found is the New Revised Standard Version which translates the first occurrence adequately with the word ‘undertaking’ and then inexplicably retreats from its position and uses ‘confidence’ a few paragraphs later for the second occurrence. Nevertheless, the linguistic evidence supporting the common Greek meaning in both Corinthian passages is overwhelming, whereas a rendering of hupostasis as ‘confidence’ is untenable in any context as there are absolutely no examples to support it.
In the Hebrew epistle hupostasis retains the general Greek meaning while taking on an additional dimension that is unknown in either Pauline (unless Paul had a hand in the authorship of Hebrews) or common Greek usage though it is foreshadowed to a degree in some of the Septuagint usages regarding the counsel of God. Common Greek usage allowed for the possibility that the hupostasis could fail, fall short, or just plain ‘go sideways’ resulting in unintended results. Even Paul’s usage in II Corinthians 9:4 allows for the possibility that the Corinthian’s charitable hupostasis could become a source of humiliation if it failed to meet the completion deadline. Failure is not an option with regard to hupostasis in the Hebrew epistle, primarily due to the influence Philo of Alexandria had on the evolution of the term’s meaning.
Philo Judaeus (20 BC to 50 AD) was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who lived in Alexandria, Egypt. Many expositors point to similarities between Hebrews and the works of Philo as an indicator that the Hebrews author was also an Alexandrian Jew. While that position is open to debate it does seem evident that the Hebrew epistle was written to Hellenistic Jews for whom the Greek Septuagint served as the primary text of the Holy Scriptures. Philo adopted the word hupostasis to denote the actuality of a reality beyond the range of human experience. He retained the primary idea of a ‘plan or purpose played out in time’ but he added to it a dimension that viewed the process from beginning to end as the confirmation or validation of an unseen transcendent reality existent outside of time. By viewing a plan or purpose as the confirmation of a result rather than the means to a result, Philo removed the possibility of failure. The intended end result had now become a certain end result. In general Greek usage the ‘plan’ signified ‘that which remained’ regardless of the result. In Philo the result is the whole point. The existence of the plan simply validates the transcendent reality of that which the plan intended to accomplish.
Perhaps in simpler terms, Philo added to the hupostasis frame of reference the perspective of a second observer apart from man, that observer being an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God. From a human point of view a purpose, plan, or undertaking can only be viewed from a particular point in time and space. God, subsisting outside of time and space, knows beginning, end and all things in between.
By shifting the perspective from which the hupostasis is viewed from man to God, Philo provided the author of Hebrews with a made-to-order word for communicating the concept of divine purpose to his Greek speaking Jewish readers. In Hebrews hupostasis is used to represent a plan or purpose played out in time with an end result that is certain and immutable. Because the end is certain, the purpose must be of God; and because the purpose is of God, it can be viewed as a blueprint to the attainment of the promised end. One could say that in Hebrews hupostasis means ‘divine blueprint.’ Man can only see what has transpired in the plan’s outworking up to the present moment in time. God, not beset by limitations of time and space, sees the outworking as accomplished and the results as sure. Thus the hupostasis of Hebrews, while it is a validating process with a certain result from the God-ward side, can be viewed from the man-ward side as an if/then proposition simply because the future, from man’s perspective, is not yet realized. This aspect is particularly evident in the hupostasis of Hebrews 3:14.
In Hebrews 3:14 the writer seeks to encourage his readers by stating the fact that they have indeed become partners of Christ if they hold firm to the hupostasis, the ‘divine blueprint’ of faith as demonstrated by Moses and Jesus, from beginning to end. This encouragement comes on the heels of a warning in verse 12: “Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief…” Adherence to the hupostasis is viewed in this passage as confirming evidence that one’s faith is true and salvation is sure, but it is also a warning that those who do not follow the ‘blueprint’ will face an end equally as certain, just as the Hebrews who fell in the wilderness “because of unbelief” Hebrews 3:19. In effect, the Hebrews author is defining a true Christian as one who, by faith, perseveres to the end.
In Hebrews 11:1 faith, or better faithfulness (the word can be translated either way), is the hupostasis or ‘divine blueprint’ whose end is the realization of those things for which we now only hope. The divine plan for believers is a life characterized by a walk of faith. Because this plan, or hupostasis, emanates from God, its mere existence guarantees the promised result, which in this case is called the ‘things hoped for.’ The remainder of chapter 11 cites multiple examples of individual saints, a ‘great cloud of witnesses,’ who adhered to the divine blueprint of faithfulness to God and to His Word.
Most English translations read ‘confidence’ or ‘assurance’ for hupostasis in this passage. But, while assurance of the end result – the things hoped for – is certainly an aspect of the hupostasis, it is not the definition. What is in view here is the life that is lived out in faith to the end. We can certainly have confidence that the result of such a life is fixed, but the point of emphasis here is the fact that one must persevere through the tests and trials of life and not fall away. In other words, you have to stick with the blueprint. In doing so the life of faith validates the certainty of the promises.
Thus the great mass of witnesses who persevered through the trials of their faith provides validation beyond any reasonable doubt that the promises of God are sure. It is the author’s use of hupostasis – a divine purpose – at the very beginning of this section that fuels his passionate presentation of one witness after another, after another, after another, until the weight of evidence is undeniable. The veracity of such a great cloud of witnesses can not be impugned. For all who ask the question, “What is God’s will for my life?” here is the answer. God has given us the blueprint.
In regard to the use of hupostasis in Hebrews 1:3, here is a link to the main article for which this appendix serves simply as an additional resource: https://unassailablegospel.com/?p=4726
Philo shifted the hupostasis frame of reference to a place where it included both the transcendent and the immanent. While the plan, purpose, or project remained a concrete time event, the reality that it manifested was not. As usage of the term developed further, the transcendent nature of the hupostasis became the dominant aspect of the word while the immanent, or time/space aspect, became a margin note. By the 3rd century AD the frame of reference had been drawn fully into the transcendent realm. Words such as ‘being’, ‘essence’, ‘person’, and ‘substance’ came into vogue as appropriate English translations. Christian theologians adopted the term as they began to form and articulate a doctrine of the trinity. ‘Hypostatic union’, for instance, is the theological term for the union of Christ’s humanity and divinity in one ‘hupostasis’ or individual existence. However, none of these later meanings were in use at the time Hebrews was written.
Unassailable Gospel 