_A Summary of the Christian Faith by Henry Eyster Jacobs, D.D., LL.D Copyright, 1905, BY THE BOARD OF PUBLICATION OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN NORTH AMERICA. Chapter XI. Pages 122-140 -------------------- CHAPTER XI. THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 1. _In what relation is the Son of God considered at this place_? Not in His inner Trinitarian relations, but in His Mediatorial Office. 1 Tim. 2:5--"There is one God, one mediator between God and man, himself man, Christ Jesus." Acts 4:12--"In none other is there salvation; neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, whereby we might be saved." 2. _What is His name with reference to this office_? Christ. Jesus was the personal name, which, in com- mon with many others, He bore because of His human nature, even though elevated above the sense in which others possessed it (Matt. 1:21). It designated Him as a man among other men. But Christ, or Messiah, is His official name. We would speak more accurately of "Jesus the Christ," than of Jesus Christ. Christ is the official name of the incarnate Son of God, promised in the Old Testament, and actually sent as taught in the New Testament. 3. _What is the meaning of "Christ" or "Messiah"_? The Anointed One. In the Old Testament, prophets, priests and kings were solemnly set apart by being anointed, as an attestation of official position, and a means of conferring grace for the discharge of official duties. Prophets (1 Kings 19:16; Is. 61:1); Priest (Lev. 4); Kings (1 Sam. 10:1;16:13;2 Sam. 2:4). This exter- nal anointment with oil was a figure of an inner or spir- itual anointing, or designation for office accompanied by the necessary gifts for its exercise, as of all believers in 1 John 2:27, and pre-eminently Jesus of Nazareth, anointed above all others (Is. 61:1, as interpreted by --------------------End of Page 122-------------------- Luke 4:18; Matt. 12:18), as our Prophet, Priest and King, and, therefore, known as Messiah or Christ. John 1:41--"We have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, the Christ." 4. _What other ideas are included in the name "Christ"_? The unity of the Old and New Testaments, the fulfil- ment of prophecy, and the historical foundations for Christianity in the religion of Israel. 5. _What, therefore, is a prominent subject of argu- ment in the New Testament, and how is it proved_? That Jesus is the Christ. Old Testament prophecies are constantly quoted that are found fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. Luke 24:27--"Beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he inter- preted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." 45, 46-- "Then opened he their minds that they might understand the Scriptures; and he said unto them, Thus it is written that the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day." Luke 18:31-33; Acts 3:18; 10:43; 26:22,23; Rom. 1:2. 6. _Is this, however, the exclusive line of argument by which the claims of Jesus are enforced_? No. In addressing Gentiles, the argument was from the Ascension and Resurrection of Jesus to His Lordship over all, and, thence to the truth of the Scriptures to which He appealed and the fulfilment in Him of all their prophecies. This may be seen, e.g., in the sermon of Peter to Cornelius in Acts 10; first, the Lordship of Jesus, as attested by the Resurrection (vs. 35-42); secondly, the fulfilment in Him of prophecy (v. 43), and His messiah- ship. 7. _What topics are included in Christology, or that portion of Theology treating of the Mediatorial Office_? The Person, the States and the Offices of Christ. 8. _How has the Church Summarized its faith on this subject_? Most comprehensively in the symbol of Chalcedon: --------------------End of Page 123-------------------- "We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one con- sent teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father, according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us, according to the Manhood; in all things, except sin, like unto us; be- gotten before all ages of the Father, according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our sal- vation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, ac- cording to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, '_inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably'_; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved and concurring in One Person and One Sub- sistence, not parted or divided into two person, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the Fathers has handed down to us." In its simplest form, this truth is stated in the Small Catechism, Creed, Article II. 9. _What is the first thing to be considered in treating of the Person of Christ_? That He is true God, consubstantial, coequal and co- eternal with the Father. The proof for this is given above, Chap. III, Sec. 17-23. For "consubstantial," see same chapter, Q. 48. The divinity of Christ does not consist in divine gifts, but in His entire and complete oneness in all His attri- butes with God. 10. _What is the second_? That He is true man, consubstantial with us. The proof for this is found in that He has: --------------------End of Page 124-------------------- (a) The names of man, as 1 Tim. 2:5; John 8:40; Acts 17:31. His favorite designation of Himself is "Son of man." He is called "flesh" (John 1:14), "a child" (Acts 4:27), "Son of Abraham, David," etc., especially in the genealogical tables of Matthew and Luke. (b) The parts of a man, body and soul or spirit, and various parts of His body are mentioned. (c) The experiences of men. He was conceived, was born, grew, hungered, thirsted, was fatigued, grieved, wept, exulted, died. (d) The acts of men. He went about, conversed, etc. 11. _Thy did the early Church lay such emphasis upon the word "true"_? Particularly against the Docetists who maintained it was not a true body which Christ had, but only the ap- pearance of a body. 12. _Upon what arguments did they base their error_? They said that angels repeatedly appeared in human bodies, and yet were not true men; that the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove without being a true dove. They quoted Rom. 8:3, "God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh," laying especial emphasis upon "likeness." 13. _How were they answered_? Angels assumed human bodies only temporarily, and for some transient purpose. Christ Himself declares the difference in Luke 24:39. "Handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having>" The union of the Spirit with the dove was symbolical; that of the Son of God with man, personal. The former was temporary; the latter permanent. The emphasis in Rom. 8:3 is not on "likeness," but on "sinful." The meaning is the same as in Phil. 2:7, "He was found in fashion as a man," i.e., to all outward appearances, He --------------------End of Page 125-------------------- was nothing more than any other man--a child like other children, a Galilean peasant among Galilean peasants. This is not opposed to the truth of His humanity, but is contrasted simply with His State of Glory. 14. _What is implied in His true manhood_? Its completeness or perfection. 15. _Who attacked this_? Apollinaris, in the Fourth Century, who sought to ex- plain the personal union by teaching that the Divine Na- ture replaced a part of Christ's humanity, viz., the rational soul; and the Monothelites of the Seventh Century, who taught that the Divine Nature took the place of a truly human will. 16. _What is meant by saying that there is but one Person_? That "there is one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures: (Chalcedon). "Who although He be God and man; yet He is not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God; one altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person" (Athanasian Creed). The differ- ance between "me" and "thee" is never applied to the divine and human natures. There is but one "I" acting and speaking, thinking and feeling and willing through both natures. There is but one "Thou" whom the Father addresses with one "He" to whom the Spirit bears witness. 17. _What proof have you of this unity_? In Rom. 1:3, the same person is said to be "made of the seed of David according to the flesh," and declared to be "the Son of God." In Luke 1:3, that which is born of the Virgin Mary is called "the Son of God." In John 1:14, "the Word," who is declared in v. 1, to be God, is said to have become "flesh." In Gal. 2:20, "the Son of God" is said to have given Himself for sinful man. --------------------End of Page 126-------------------- 18. _Is the person related in the same way to each nature_? The person, with the divine nature, has existed from all eternity. The human nature began in time. The person, therefore, was once without a human nature. But the human nature could not exist without a person. The person of the human nature, therefore, came not from that nature, but from the divine. Since the human nature entered into the world, i.e., was conceived and born and lived by the divine person uniting Himself with our race in the womb of the Virgin Mary, we say that the human nature has no personality of its own, but that the per- sonality of the human nature if that which it has derived from the divine. The Greek theologians called this the doctrine of the _anhypostasia_ of the human nature, which our theologians accept, although stating that _enhypos- tasia_ is preferable. The unity of the person requires that we must hold to the want of personality on the part of the human nature. 19. _If we were to affirm that the human nature had a personality of its own, what would follow_? The doctrine that in Christ, there are two persons, as as well as two natures. Unity of personality could be taught, then, only by finding place for the destruction at some time of the human personality, and its being re- placed by the divine. 20. _Since there are two natures, can we say there are two Sons, viz., a Son of God and a Son of Man_? No. There is but one Son, at one and the same time Son of God and Son of Man. That through which, He is the Son of God, is His eternal generation of the Father, "true God begotten of the Father from all eternity" (Small Catechism). See Chapter III, 51-53. That through which He is the Son of Man is His conception by the Holy Ghost and birth of the Virgin Mary (Luke --------------------End of Page 127-------------------- 1:35; Gal. 4:4). We speak, therefore, of a double gen- eration of Christ: one, eternal; the other, temporal; one, according to the divine; the other, according to the hu- man nature. 21. _By what term is the act of the Son of God in as- suing human nature known_? Incarnation. John 1:14--"And the Word became flesh." Heb. 2:14--"Since the chil- dren are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner par- took of the same." Heb. 2:16; 1 Tim. 3:16; Rom. 9:5; 1:3. 22. _Was this peculiar to the Second Person of the Trinity_? Only the Son of God assumed human nature. But the Father who sent the Son into the world, and the Holy Spirit who appears in the conception of Christ (Luke 1:35), just as in creation (Gen. 1:2), were also active. There was a special intervention of God in and beyond the order of nature established at the creation. God, who at creation established an order, in virtue of which men came into the world through certain means, can, at His will, dispense with such means, and provide for a virgin birth. To deny the possibility of this, is to question the existence and almighty power of God. To admit its reality is to admit the possibility of everything else mys- terious and supernatural in Christianity. 23. _The conception of Jesus being so unlike that of others, was the human nature that resulted also unlike that of other men_? "He was consubstantial with us according to the man- hood; in all things, except sin, like unto us" (Chalcedon). Heb. 4:15--"He hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Christ, therefore, experienced all the infirmities that are common to the race, as hunger, thirst, sleep, fatigue, tears, sorrow, pain; but no individual infirmities are ascribed to Him, as particular diseases which attack some, but do not affect all. --------------------End of Page 128-------------------- 24. _How do you prove the sinlessness of Jesus_? (a) From distinct passages of Scripture as Heb. 4:15, quoted under 23; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 7:26; John 8:46; 1 Peter 1:19; 2:22. (b) From His divinity. Sin is a personal matter. It is always a person who sins. But the person of Christ is God. (c) From the definition of sin. "Sin is the want of conformity with God's Law." But the Law is the decla- ration of God's will. God cannot will what is contrary to His will, i.e., Jesus could not sin. He was, therefore, not only sinless, but impeccable. Admit peccability, and the divinity of Christ is practically denied. 25. _But if Christ were impeccable, how do you ex- plain His temptation? Is temptation possible, where a fall is impossible_? Temptation properly is only testing or proving. When gold is brought to the touch-stone or submitted to the blow-pipe or treated with various chemical reagents, there is no possibility of any other result than that it will stand the test and be proved to be gold. We inevitably asso- ciate the thought of temptation with that of the possibility of a fall, from the fact that man's nature is corrupt, and that even the regenerate are only partially renewed, and, therefore fallible, and likely, under the test, to show its worst features. The agony of our Lord's temptation came not from the necessity of a great struggle in order that He might prove Himself victor, but from the fact that it was a part of His passion. That He, the manifestation of the absolute holiness of God, should endure the presence and be sub- jected to the humiliation of the conversation and sug- gestions of the lowest and vilest of all creatures, the source and head of all the crime in the universe, was an indig- --------------------End of Page 129-------------------- nity that called forth all His repugnance to the great enemy. 26. _Was there any other particular in which the hu- manity of Christ was distinguished from that of others_? All the excellences and perfections of human nature He had in the highest degree. These He possessed as the sin- less man, and as the one within whose body the Godhead dwelt in a peculiar way. Whatever physical attractive- ness He may have had, and for which the old teachers cite Ps. 45:2, came from His holy character as it was ex- pressed in His outward form. While the bodies of others contain the seeds of mortality (Rom. 6:23), that of Christ was by its own nature immortal, His death occur- ring by an act of His will (John 10:18), and not from inner weakness or external force, and His body, after death, being incorruptible (Acts 2:31). 27. _What was the purpose of the Incarnation_? The Redemption of the human race. Matt. 20:28--"The Son of man came..to give his life a ransom for many." Heb. 2:14--"He partook of the flesh and blood, that, through death, he might bring to nought him that had the power of death." 28. _Would the Son of God not have become incarnate if Adam had not sinned_? The doctrine that He would have come only for the completion of humanity, or to furnish a model of a holy life, or for any other purpose than to rescue men from sin, is without any authority from Scripture. God's will or de- cree to send His Son into the world everywhere presup- poses God's foreknowledge of sin, and His determina- tion to provide a remedy for it. 29. _In what two senses is the expression, Personal Union, used_? On the one hand, it designates an act (_unitio_), and is synonymous with Incarnation. On the other hand, it refers to a state, resulting from the act (_unio_). --------------------End of Page 130-------------------- 30. _In what does the state of union consist_? In that henceforth both natures have but one person-- the personal communion; and, as a result, the intimate and perpetual personal presence of each nature in and with the other. 31. _How has the Church guarded the statement of this doctrine_? The Chalcedon Symbol (see above,8) had defined this union negatively as: (a) _Unconfused_ (_asungchutos_) There is no mingling of natures. Although there is a communion, they remain distinct. (b) _Unchanged_ (_atreiptos_) One is not changed into the other. (c) _Indivisible_ (_adiairetos_) i.e., with respect to place, "Nowhere is the human nature unsustained by the Logos, or the Logos not sustaining the human nature. The human nature is not outside of the Logos, nor is the Logos without the human nature." (d) _Inseparable_ (_achoristos_) i.e., with respect to time. The union is never dissolved, but is perpetual. (a) and (b) are in opposition to the Eutychians; (c) and (d) in opposition to the Nestorians. The Eutychians confused the natures; the Nestorians divided the person. 32. _How has the Athanasian Creed defined it_? "Who although He be God and man: yet He is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by taking the manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ." 33. _What follows from this communion of the Person with both natures_? --------------------End of Page 131-------------------- The communion of natures with each other. There is a _perichoresis_ or pervasion or penetration of one nature by the other, or existence of one nature within the other. "The divine nature is said actually to penetrate or perfect the human, and the human to be passively penetrated or perfected by the divine; but not in such way that the divine _successively_ occupies one part of the human after the other, and _extensively_ diffuses itself, through it; but, since it is spiritual and indivisible, it at the same time _as a whole_ perfects and energizes each part of the human nature and that nature as a whole, and remains entire in the entire human nature, and entire in every part" (Baier). Co. 2:9--"In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." John 1:14; Heb. 2:14. 34. _What analogy is there to this communion of natures_? The impartation of the Divine nature by the Mystical Union of Christ with the believer. The Personal Union being closer, more intimate and more exalted implies a more complete communion of natures. 2 Peter 1:4--"He hath granted unto us his precious and exceeding great promises; that through these ye might become partakers of the divine nature." 35. _Because of this Personal Union and the Commun- ion of Natures, is it proper to say, "God is man," and "man if God"_? These are known as "Personal Propositions." The person may be designated from either nature; and as there is always only one and the same person, this when desig- nated from the divine nature as God is the same as the person designated from the human nature as man. So also we say, "The Son of man" is "the Son of God." The doctrine of the Personal Propositions, therefore, is that the concrete of the one nature is rightly predicated of the concrete of the other. An example of this occurs in Jer. 23:6, where the descendant of David is called "The --------------------End of Page 132-------------------- Lord our Righteousness," as also in Matt. 16:16, where Jesus is called "the Son of the Living God." But the same is not proper with respect to the abstract of the natures. We cannot say, "Divinity is humanity" or the reverse. For the concrete always designates the per- son, while the abstract refers only to the natures. Neither can we say that the "Divine Nature has become incar- nate," or "the human has been deified," for here that which is proper in the concrete is improper in the abstract. Terms also are found expressing at the same time the concrete of both natures. "Christ" is such a term. We may say, "Christ is God" or "Christ is man," or "Christ is the God-man." So our Catechism, "Jesus Christ, true God begotten of Father, is true man, born of the Virgin Mary." 36. _What other results of the Communion of Natures is there_? The impartation of attributes known among theologians as the _Communicatio Idiomatum_. For since the personal union it is impossible to ascribe an attribute to either of the natures which does not belong to the person, desig- nated from either nature; neither can there be an act pro- ceeding from either nature in which the other does not participate. There is a communication from both natures to the person, and of the natures of each other. 37. _Classify or give the various kinds or genera of the Communicatio Idiomatum_. First, from one nature to the person, _Genus Idiomati- cum_; secondly, from one nature to the other, _Genus Majestaticum_; thirdly, from both natures to the person, _Genus Apotelesmaticum. 38. _Define more fully the first genus_. The Genus Idiomaticum is when the properties of either nature are ascribed to the concrete of the person. It is a matter of indifference from which nature this con- --------------------End of Page 133-------------------- crete be derived. Take for example the human nature, and state one of its properties. Suppose it be "to die." Death then belongs to the person. But since it is a mat- ter of indifference from which nature the name of the per- son be derived, we may say either "man died" or "God died"; for God and man are one and the same person. Or we may take a property of the divine as "Almighty," and predicating it of the person known from the human nature, may say, "Man is Almighty." 30. _What stress has been laid by the Lutheran Church on this point_? The Formula of Concord quotes Luther approvingly: "If I believe that only the human nature has suffered for me, I have a Saviour of little worth.... It is the person that suffers and dies. Now the person is true God; there- fore it is rightly said: 'The Son of God suffers.' For al- though the divinity does not suffer, yet the person which is God suffers in His humanity. For the person, the per- son, I say, was crucified in His humanity.... In His own nature, God cannot die; but now God and man are united in one person, so that the expression 'God's death' is correct, when the man dies who is one thing or one person with God" (pp. 631,632). 40. _Show how this thought of the first genus of the Communicatio Idomatum underlies the entire theology of the Church and the religious experience of Christians_. The Augsburg Confession (Art. III) says: "One Christ, true God and true man, was born of the Virgin Mary, truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried." Our Catechism says: "I believe that Jesus Christ, true God begotten of the Father from all eternity ... has de- livered me... wth(sic) His innocent sufferings and death." So Passion hymns coming from the pens of those who theoretically may criticise the position above confession- ally stated, nevertheless, in the glow of devotion do not --------------------End of Page 134-------------------- hesitate to present it with full force, as e.g., in the words of Isaac Watts: "Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast, Save in the death of Christ, my God." and "When Christ, the mighty Maker died, For man the creature's sin." 41. _What controversy of the early Church entered about the genus of the Communicatio_? The Nestorian. The precise point at issue was whether it were correct to call the Virgin Mary, _theotokos_, i.e., "the mother of God." Nestorius who denied this was condemned, and the formula established that she was "the mother of God, according to His human nature." A mother of nature without personality she could not be, for "mother" and "son" are personal relations. But the person of the human nature she brought forth was none other than the Son of God. Nevertheless we must em- phasize "according to His human nature," for she was not mother of God, "according to His divine nature." The Decree of Ephesus says, "She brought forth, accord- ing to the flesh, the Word of God made flesh." 42. _Upon what Scriptural proofs does this rest_? (a) Human attributes are ascribed to the concrete of the Divine nature. Acts 3:15--"Ye killed the Prince of Life." Acts 20:28--"The Church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood." 1 Cor. 2:8--"Had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." Gal. 2:20--"The Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me." Rom. 8:32--"He spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all." (b) Divine attributes are ascribed to the concrete of the human nature. John 6:62--"The Son of man ascending where he was before." John 8:48--"Before Abraham was born, I am." (c) Both divine and human attributes and activities are ascribed to the concrete of the person designated from either or from both natures. --------------------End of Page 135-------------------- 1 Peter 3:18--"Christ was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit." Rom. 9:5--"Whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all God blessed forever." Rom. 1:3--"His Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power." 43. _Define the second genus_. As stated above (37), this has reference to a communi- cation from one nature to the other. Since, however, the human nature can communicate nothing to the divine-- for the divine cannot be increased or diminished--the communication is entirely from the divine to the human. The divine is alway active, and the human passive. The second genus, therefore, is that according to which the Second Person of the Trinity communicates properties of His divine nature to His human nature for its posses- sion and use. 44. _Does this mean that the properties of the divine become those of the human nature_? No. For as seen above (8,31,32), the natures remain unchanged, but the properties of the divine nature per- vade and exercise themselves in and through the human. The properties of fire never become those of iron, but when a bar is drawn from the furnace, the properties of the fire are active through the iron which it pervades. There cannot be a perichoristic (33) union of one nature with another, without an impartation of qualities. Elec- tricity imparts its properties to the wire which conducts it. The soul acts in and through the body which it ani- mates. The eye sees, the ear hears, because the soul per- vades and energizes the body and renders it receptive to external objects in a manner in which they make no im- pression when the soul has departed. These illustrations are necessarily imperfect and liable to criticism. For as our theologians repeatedly have said: "The union is won- derfully unique and uniquely wonderful." When we rise form the natural to the supernatural, all illustrations offer --------------------End of Page 136-------------------- more points of divergence than of agreement. They prove nothing; but only suggest certain analogies. 45. _How has this doctrine been confessionally stated_? "We hold and teach, with the ancient orthodox church, as it explained this doctrine from the Scriptures, that the human nature in Christ has received this majesty ac- cording to the manner of the personal union, viz., because the entire fulness of the divinity dwells in Christ, not as in other holy men and angels, but bodily, as in its own body, so that, with all its majesty, power, glory and effi- cacy, it shines forth in the assumed human nature of Christ, when and as He wills, and in, with and through it, exerts its divine power, glory and efficacy, as the soul does in the body and fire in glowing iron" (Formula of Con- cord, 636). 46. _Upon what Scriptural grounds does it rest_? "There is a unanimously received rule of the entire ancient orthodox Church, that whatever Holy Scripture testifies that Christ receive in time, He received not ac- cording to the divine nature--for, according to this na- ture, he has everything from eternity--but the person has received it in time, by reason of, and with respect to the assumed human nature" (Formula of Concord, 639). Such passages are: Matt. 11:27--"All things have been delivered unto me of my Father." Matt. 28:18--"All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and upon earth." John 5:27--"And hath given him authority to execute judgment, because he is a Son of man." 47. _Do the Holy Scriptures particularize any divine at- tributes which are especially conspicuous in and through the assumed humanity_? Yes. (1) _Omnipotence_, Matt. 28:18; Heb. 2:8; (2) _Omniscience_, Col. 2:3; (3) _Power to quicken_, John 6:51; 1 Cor. 15:45; (4) _Power to forgive sins_, Matt. 9:6; (5) _Power to judge_, John 5:27; (6) _Worship_, --------------------End of Page 137-------------------- Phil. 2:9,10; Heb. 1:8; (7) _Omnipresence_, Matt. 18:20; 28:20; Eph. 1:23; 4:10. 48. _Are all the divine attributes imparted to the human nature of Christ_? Here we must recall the end of the incarnation and of the _Communicatio Idiomatum_, viz., the execution of the Mediatorial Office. There is therefore the complete im- partation of all such attributes as are needed for this end. We must also recall the distinction between the Absolute and the Relative Attributes of God (Chap. II, Sec. 23 sqq.). The Relative or Operative Attributes are im- mediately communicated; but the Absolute, as eternity, infinity, immensity, only mediately, or as they character- ize a relative attribute, or belong to the person. "The soul perichoristically united with the body, imparts to the body its life and sensitive faculties, so that the body can be said to be living and sentient; but for this reason, the body cannot be said to be spiritual, immortal and invisible as the soul; neither can the calorific and illuminating qualities of fire imparted to iron give to it the lightness and simplicity of fire" (Hollazius). The relative attributes, however, belong, according to the genus Idiomaticum, to the person designated from the human nature, and we can say Jesus is eternal, etc. 49. _Were the imparted attributes always used_? As we shall learn under the States of Christ, during the State of Humiliation, Christ refrained from their full use. 50. _What is the third kind of genus of the Communi- catio Idiomatum_? This is known as the Genus Apotelesmaticum, from the Greek _Apotelesma_, an official act. According to it in all the acts of the Mediatorial Office, the person acts not through one nature alone, but through both natures, each contributing that which is peculiar to itself with participation of the other. --------------------End of Page 138-------------------- 51. _How has this been confessionally expressed_? "The distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each being preserved and concurring in One Person and One Sub- sistence" (Chalcedon Symbol). 52. _Are the natures then separate_? No. Never separate, but distinct. Distinct, but always concurring, each nature according to its peculiar endow- ment. When Christ suffered and died, this was according to the human nature, for the divine could not suffer or die. But the divine sustained the human nature beneath the infinite burden of the worlds guilt, and imparted to the human satisfaction infinite divine efficacy and merit. In the prophetical office, it was the mouth and the tongue of the human nature that spoke, but the revelation of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God and the speaking with authority came from the divine nature. 53. _What Scriptural proofs are there for this Genus_? The work of redemption is referred sometimes to the concrete of the Divine nature. 1 John 3:8--"The Son of God was manifested that he might destroy the works of the devil." Sometimes to the concrete of the human nature. Luke 19:10--"The Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost." Sometimes to the concrete of both (Heb. 7:21-26; 1 Tim. 2:5; 1 John 1:7). The argument depends, however, not upon individual passages, but upon the entire tenor of Scripture. The entire end of the incarnation was the accomplishment of that which is attained through the work wrought and the sacrifice offered by the one person in and through the con- currrence of the two natures. 54. _How in general is the doctrine of the Communi- catio Idiomatum to be estimated_? "Whoever has the patience to think out what the --------------------End of Page 139-------------------- Apostle's words: 'The Word was made flesh' mean, cannot regard the doctrine of the _Communicatio Idio- matum_ an extravagant fancy of orthodox scholasticism. It follows necessarily from the Personal Union. Every Christian who prays to Him who is exalted to the Right Hand of God, looks with the eyes of his faith upon a glorified man, in whom what is human is thoroughly per- vaded by what is divine. Even Calvin cannot think of the glorified body otherwise than as filled with the powers of the divine nature. But it is just this participation of Christ's human nature in the attributes of the divine, that constitutes the _Communicatio Idiomatum_" (Kahnis). "Mutual communication of properties is the essence of every alliance, of all loving communion. Only selfishness which would keep all to itself that is its own, resists it; for it desires to _part_ everything and to _impart_ nothing" (Sartorius, Divine Love, Eng. Tr., 146). 55. _Is this doctrine of the Communicatio Idiomatum offered as a sufficient explanation of the mode in which the divine is related to the human in Christ_? By no means. "Why do we not give God glory, by be- lieving, with the simple obedience of faith what Scripture teaches, even thou we cannot understand or grasp the mode, as to how this could occur without equalizing or confusing the natures? For who can sufficiently explain or understand the mode of the union, from which this communication arises and upon which it depends? The angel answered both Sarah and Mary who asked concern- ing the mode: 'Is anything too hard for Jehovah?' 'No word of God shall be void of power' (Gen. 18; Luke 1).... The ancients say correctly that if we cannot say what God is, we should beware of thinking or saying of Him as He is not. So in this article" (Chemnitz, De Duabus Naturis, 111 sq.). --------------------End of Chapter Page 140-------------------- This text was converted to ascii format for Project Wittenberg by William Alan Larson and is in the public domain. You may freely distribute, copy or print this text. Please direct any comments or suggestions to: Rev. Robert E. Smith of the Walther Library at Concordia Theological Seminary. E-mail: smithre@mail.ctsfw.edu Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St., Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA Phone: (260) 452-2123 Fax: (260) 452-2126