though it may include only a few features of the object. It is so far a primary and not a secondary source of knowledge. Carakthvr conveys representative traits only, and therefore it is distinguished from eijkwvn (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15; 1 Cor. 11:7; Col. 3:10) which gives a complete representation under the condition of earth of that which it figures; and from morfhv (Phil. 2:6 f.) which marks the essential form.
There is no word in English which exactly renders it. If there were a sense of express (
i.e.
expressed image) answering to impress, this would be the best equivalent.
uJpovstasi"
] The word properly means that which stands beneath as a sediment (Arist.
de hist. an.
v. 19 and often), or foundation (Ezek. 43:11,
LXX.), or ground of support (Ps. 68:2 (69:2); Jer. 23:22, LXX.). From this general sense come the special senses of firmness, confidence (compare Heb. 3:14 note; 2 Cor. 9:4; 11:17); reality ([Arist.]
de mundo
4
ta; me;n katj e[mfasin, ta; de; kaqj uJpovstasin, katj e[mfasin me;n i[ride"
...
kaqj uJpovstasin dev
...
komh'tai
...), that in virtue of which a thing is what it is, the essence of any being (Ps. 38:6 (39:6); Ps. 88:48 (89:48); Wisd. 16:21: compare Jer. 10:17; Ezek. 26:11).
When this meaning of essence was applied to the Divine Being two distinct usages arose in the course of debate. If men looked at the Holy Trinity under the aspect of the one Godhead there was only one uJpovstasi" , one divine essence. If, on the other hand, they looked at each Person in the Holy Trinity, then that by which each Person is what He is, His uJpovstasi" , was necessarily regarded as distinct, and there were three uJpostavsei" . In the first case uJpovstasi" as applied to the One Godhead was treated as equivalent to oujsiva : in the other case it was treated as equivalent to provswpon .
As a general rule the Eastern (Alexandrine) Fathers adopted the second mode of speech affirming the existence of three uJpostavsei" (real Persons) in the Godhead; while the Western Fathers affirmed the unity of one uJpovstasi" (essence) in the Holy Trinity (compare the letter of Dionysius of Alexandria to Dionysius of Rome, Routh, Rell. sacrae , 3.390ff. and notes). Hence many mediaeval and modern writers have taken uJpovstasi" in the sense of person here. But this use of the word is much later than the apostolic age; and it is distinctly inappropriate in this connexion. The Son is not the image, the expression of the Person of God. On the other hand, He is the expression of the essence of God. He brings the Divine before us at once perfectly and definitely according to the measure of our powers.
The exact form of the expression,
ajpauvg. th'" d. kai; car. th'" uJpost.
and not
to; ajpauvg. t. d. kai; oJ car. th'" uJpost.
or
ajpauvg. d. kai; car. uJpost.
, will be noticed (comp. Heb. 1:2
ejn uiJw'/
).
fevrwn te
]
and so bearing
...We now pass from the thought of the absolute Being of the Son to His action in the finite creation under the conditions of time and space. The particle
te
indicates the new relation of the statement which it introduces. It is obvious that the familiar distinction holds true here:
kaiv
conjungit,
te
adjungit. The providential action of the Son is a special manifestation of His Nature and is not described in a coordinate statement: what He does flows from what He is.
The particle te is rarely used as an independent conjunction in the N.T.