_Christian Theology by Milton Valentine, D.D., LL.D Copyright 1906, Lutheran Publication Society Printed Philadelphia, PA. by The United Lutheran Publication House_ Volume II Pages 55-87 ------------------------------------------------------------- CHAPTER II. THE DIVINE-HUMAN CONSTITUTION OF CHRIST. The fact and mode of the incarnation, as thus pre- sented in the Scriptures, bring us right into the whole mystery of the Person of the Redeemer as constituted in that incarnation. We make a distinction between the act and the _state_ of the hypostatic union. We must endeavor here to fix in our minds more clearly and fully the realities or truths that are incorporated in this mys- tery, and the evidences that assure these truths and jus- tify them to our faith. The truths must be ascertained through the records and divinely-given teachings of the Christian Scriptures. We are, nevertheless, justified in approaching the great subject by recalling the advancing formulation of the doctrine by the early Church out of these Scriptures, in connection with doctrinal traditions in the earliest congregations. We will thus be prepared to understand the significance of these formulations and to appreciate the Scripture basis upon which they were rested, as well as the aberrations against which they were placed. It will open the way to understand also the discussions of the subject in the Reformation period, and especially the various divergent speculative theories that have been developed and offered these late years by prominent theological writers, aiming at thoroughly re- constructed conceptions of the divine reality. And above all, this method is fairest alike to the content of the Christian consciousness of the church from its earliest --------------End of Page 55---------------------------- time, and to the authority of the sacred Scriptures with whose records and teachings our doctrinal formulations must accord. The doctrine of the person of Christ has been one of the great themes of thought and discussion from the apostles' days to ours. The controversies in the early Church led progressively to the unfolding and distinct for- mulation, in the ecumenical creeds, of what was believed to be the teaching of the Scriptures on the subject. The occasion was not simply the Church's felt need of an intellectual understanding of the import of its own faith, as a bond of fellowship, but also the fact that here and there, among speculative leaders, dissentient expla- nations appeared which were felt to be untrue, even destructive, to the fundamental verities of the Gospel. From the first the Christian consciousness may properly be regarded as holding two points concerning the Son or Logos, who became incarnate. First, His real divinity, and secondly, His personal distinction from the Father. The points involved the Trinity of the Godhead and the equality of the Father, Son, and Spirit. But they were not always consistently maintained. A tendency developed to regard the propositions of the unity of the Son with the Father and the personal distinction between them as contradictory, leading some writers to the idea of a "subordination" of the Son, and others to a denial of the personal distinction. The former appeared in the anti-trinitarianism of Paul of Samosata, who made Christ a mere man, and the latter in Sabellius, who rec- ognized His full and essential divinity, but denied His hypostatic distinction from the Father, holding that He was but a form or mode of the self-manifestation of unita- rian Deity. These and allied views were ranked as ------------------End of Page 56-------------------------- "heresies," as at variance with fundamental realities in the necessary faith of the Church. But the immed- diate occasion of the Church's formal setting forth its understanding of the truth, on these and associated points with regard to the person of Christ, came with the great and subversive error of Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria, in the early part of the fourth century. Contending, as he did, with popular force and per- sistence, from the word "begotten," that the Son can- not be conceived as eternal nor truly divine, but must be regarded as only an originated or created being-- though, indeed, the first and greatest of begotten or cre- ated beings--the Church became so violently and injuri- ously disturbed by the controversy, as to lead to the call- ing of the first Ecumentical Concil, at Nicaea, A. D. 325, in order to let the truth of Scripture teaching, as lodged through the Holy Spirit in Christian thought and con- sciousness, have expression, with whatever force or authority may belong to such expression. Against the Arian heresy, and all modifications of it, the Church there proclaimed, and has since maintained, its doctrine of _homoousia_, declaring Christ's consubstantial divinity, and proclaiming Him as very God of very God. Whatever subordination may seem to be involved in certain Script- ure passages is to be regarded as official and not essen- tial, as marking His redemptory work, not His divine nature. As other questions concerning the constituents of His person and their reality in the union became sub- jects of controversy, further Ecumentical Councils were convened, in which the Church, as a whole, through its representatives, gave expression to its understanding of the truth. Thus, beginning with the Nicene Creed, set forth by the Council of Nicaea, in A. D. 325, as --------------------End of Page 57----------------------- above, followed by the fuller statements of the Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 45I, and those of the Council of Constantinople, A. D. 680, one point after another was settled and embodied in the Church's Creed concerning the Person of Christ. The truths thus reached, over against heretical or infidel views are the following: I. THE TRUE AND ABSOLUTE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. According to His eternal nature, He was the second Person of the adorable Trinity--_God_, with no lowering whatever of the idea conveyed by the untransferable name. The progressive formulation of this is marked in the ecumenical creeds. The traditionally formed so-called _Apostles' Creed_ simply implied the doctrine in its statement of faith concerning the second Person of the Trinity: "I believe in Jesus Christ, His (the Father's) only begotten Son, our Lord," with an enumeration of the chief facts in His redemptive work. The _Nicene Creed_: "And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of the same substance (_homoousion_) with the Father, by whom all things were made in heaven and in earth."[1] This was reaffirmed at the second General Council at Constan- tinople, A. D. 38I.[2] The _Council of Chalcedon_: "We, then, following the holy fathers, all with one consent, 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 rational soul and body, of the ------------------------------------------------------ [1] Hefele, "History of the Christian Councils," Vol. I., p. 294. [2] Ib., Vol. II., p. 353. ------------------End of Page 58----------------------- same essence with the Father according to His Godhead, and of the same essence with us according to His man- hood, in all things like unto us without sin, begotten before all ages of the Father according to His Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the mother of God according to His manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, _inconfusedly_ (_asungchutos_) _without change_ (_atreptos_), _without division_ (_adiairetos_), and _inseparably_ (_achoristos_); 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 Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have de- clared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Him- self has taught us, and the creed of the holy fathers has handed down to us."[1] The Scripture warrant which justified and necessitated the Church in an early fixing, with such dogmatic posi- tiveness and emphasis, this side of the Person of Christ has been already condensed before the reader's view in connection with the doctrine of the Trinity.[2] 2. HIS TRUE AND FULL HUMANITY. There was little disposition to deny this. Yet it was denied, in whole or in part. The _Docetae_ (from _dokein_, to seem) of the first and second centuries, claimed that His body was a phan- tom, or, if real, was of celestial origin, so that He suf- fered in appearance only and not in fact. The Euty- chians, or monophysites, asserted it to be of composite --------------------------------------------------------- [1] Schaff's "Creeds of Christendom," Vol. II., pp. 62-63. [2] See pp. 32I-327. -------------------End of Page 59-------------------------- nature, resulting from a union of humanity with the divine nature, a _tertium quid_, different from our nature. Appolinarius, with his followers, made the Divine or the Logos Himself take the place of the rational soul in the God-man. St John seems to have discerned the rise of this failure to recognize the real and true humanity of the Christ, and placed the admission of it as so funda- mental that he asserts: "Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God" (I John iv. 3). There was occasion, therefore, for the- ology to define its understanding of this truth. The _Apostles' Creed_ involved it in affirming: "He was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried." The _Nicene Creed_ in asserting: "Who, for us men and for our salvation, descended from heaven and was incarnated by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried." The _Council of Chalcedon_ became explicit, paralleling the completeness of His humanity with the complete- ness of His divinity: "Perfect in Godhead, and also perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body, of the same essence (_homoousion_) with the Father according to His Godhead, and of the same essence (_homoousion_) with us according to His man- hood, in all things like unto us, without sin, begotten before all ages of the Father according to His Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the mother of God according to His manhood, one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, _incon- ------------------End Of Page 60------------------------- fusedly, without change, without division_, and _insepar- ably_, 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 Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ." We repeat this quotation in order to call attention to the completeness with which all the elements of perfect humanity are included. When later, the sixth Ecumen- ical Council, that of Constantinople, A. D. 680, con- demned monophysitism and monotheletism, it simply maintained the faith declared at Chalcedon more than two centuries before. The true humanity of Christ, therefore, means that the divine Son took on Him not a mere appearance of human nature, but the reality in all its essential parts as included in a true human body and rational soul. As to His true human _body_, the truth is Scripturally reflected and evidenced in such Biblical records as speak of His conception and birth of a woman (Gen. iii. I5; Matt. i. 25; Luke i. 35; Gal. iv. 4); His circumcision (Luke ii. 2I); His growth, like other children's, from childhood to manhood (Luke ii. 40-52); His necessities and ex- periences, both physical and psychical, marking and identifying human llife, as shown in hunger and thirst (Luke iv. 2-4; John xix. 28); weariness (John iv. 6); need of sleep and rest (Matt. viii. 24); suffering, wounds and pain, crucifixion, death and burial (John xix. I-3, 34, 36-42; Luke xxiii. 33, 50-56). Even "flesh and bones" are specified to identify His human personality (Luke xxiv. 39-40). His possession of a _true rational human soul_ is proved by His growth -----------------End of Page 61--------------------- in wisdom, or true knowledge, the intellectual cor- respondent to His growth in physical stature (Luke ii. 40-52); by the antithesis presented between "body" and "spirit" (I Pet. iii. I8); by His human affections and sympathies (John xi. 5, 35; Luke xix. 4I); by His habit of prayer (Mark i. 35; Luke iii. 2I; ix. I8; xi. I); by limitation in knowledge (Mark xiii. 32); a "soul" (_psuche_) belonged to Him (John xii. 27; Matt. xxvi. 38; Mark xiv. 34); and also a "spirit" (_pneuma_) (John xi. 33-38; John xiii. 2I; Mark viii. I2; Luke x. 2I), etc.[1] Whether, therefore, we adopt the theory of human dichot- omy or trichotomy, He possessed the human rational prin- ciple or constituent. Throughout His whole recorded history, even in closest conjunction with the manifesta- tions of His supernatural character, the elements and witnesses of His true humanity come into view. Indeed, the denial or doubt of this side of His personality has disappeared from the thought of our times, in a false tendency to emphasize it into the totality of His being. But the whole truth is that through the incarnation Jesus Christ, the perfect Son of God, became the perfect Son of man. With one consent Christendom has come to recognize in Him an actualization and presentation of perfect or ideal humanity, the full and faultless example of true manhood, elsewhere unequalled and impossible to be surpassed. 3. THE ONENESS OF CHRIST'S PERSON.--This point settled itself according to the definitions of the two constituent natures, and the historic portraiture of His individual personality. The two complete natures, the truly divine of the Logos, and the truly human by birth from Mary, form, not two persons, a divine and ------------------------------------------------------- [1] See Liddon's Bampton Lectures, pp. 2I-22. ----------------End of Page 62--------------------------- human conjoined, but one Person. The unity was not by a "_fusion_" or conversion of the two natures into a resultant that is neither identically divine nor human but a _third_ something (_tertium quid_), in which the integrity and purity of both are merged and are lost. Nor was it a union that was imcomplete, a close association merely --the natures conjoined but not made a personal unit. The Chalcedon and Constantinopolitan determinations provide against both these conceptions. The union was not a simple conjunction, but one that effected a true hypostatic unity. Nor did this unity take place by any impairment or alteration of either nature. The Chalce- don Confession multiplies words to make these two points precise and emphatic: "without change," "with- out confusion," leaving "no separation," and becoming "inseparable"--guarding against the error of Nestorius on the one hand and of Eutyches on the other. The Council of Constantinople, 680, reaffirmed these explana- tions by condemning both monphysitism and mono- theletism. The incarnation thus made no changes, brought no impairment or confusion in the essential properties of the two natures, but gave as the resultant _one_ Person, who is neither simply a divine Person, nor simply a human person, but a theanthropic, Divine- human Person. As a Person, Christ was and is the God- man, with a divine-human consciousness, the divine and the human concurring or acting in unison. The Church thus guarded the oneness of His Person against the Nestorians, who denied a true and real union, and against the Eutycheans, who destroyed the natures in the union. The onesness or unity of _consciousness_ must be specifi- cally noted. It means that Christ had not two personal consciousnesses, as consciousness of two persons con- ---------------End of Page 63------------------------- joined, but _one personal consciousness_, continuous from pre-existent state, and covering the realities of both the divine and human natures. He knew Himself as a Per- son, _one_ Person, not two, and knew Himself as both human and divine in essence or nature. His personal consciousness included the realities of His experience from both sides of His constitution. "This personal consciousness as much distinguishes the condition of the two natures as unites them in love"[1] The proofs of this oneness are found in the clear and necessary impli- cations of the Scriptures. For example, Christ always used the singular personal pronoun as covering the action of the two natures in His selfhood: "Before Abraham was, _I am_" (John viii. 58); "Glorfy Thou _Me_ with Thine own self, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was" (John xvii. 5); "_I_ and My Father are One" (John x. 30), etc. Everywhere the duality of natures in Him becomes apparent; everywhere also the oneness of His personality. Moreover, the records never even suggest the idea that in Him the divine and the human had relations to each other as persons, as of converse with each other, as in the case of the persons of the Trinity (Gen. i. 26; iii. 22). The designation "hypo- static union" is framed from the _resultant_ of the incar- nation, that the two natures are united in one _hypostasis_, one Person. This personality, as already stated, was formed from the divine side of the union--by the Logos. The eter- nal Word, Son of God, assumed, not a human person already actually existent, but human _nature_, whose elements were non-existent until creatively originated in the act of incarnation itself; therefore constitut- ------------------------------------------------------- [1] Sartorius, "Doctrine of Divine Love," p. I39. --------------End of Page 64----------------------------- ing the theanthropic personality in the very act of taking on Himself all the parts of our complete nature, the faculty of will included. The constitutive act for Christ's Person was the asssumption of the human nature --the nature of the Son being eternally personal and His human nature being created _potentially_ personal in the process of its origination. The Son of God, eternally personal, thus creatively assumed into union with His own divine nature, the entirety of _human nature_, so becoming a theanthropic Person, a divine-human Person. Dr. Liddon justly says: "The perfect Manhood of Christ, not his Body merely, but His soul, and therefore His human will, is part of the One Christ. Unless in His condescending love, our eternal Lord had thus taken upon Him our fallen nature in its integrity, that is to say, a human soul as well as a human body, a human will as an integral element of the human soul, mankind would not have been really represented on the cross or before the throne."[1] Sartorius explains: "The Divine nature, then, in this union, is the taking, the personify- ing; the human, the taken, the nature into which the self-consciousness of the Divine Son thought and fash- ioned itself, so that His _ego_ is the central point of both the Divine nature, which was proper to Him, and of the human nature which He took unto Him, the latter being indeed not personal of itself, but being so in and with the Divine nature. Thus is He conscious of the divine and human nature, and of their different proper- ties in individual personal unity, and for this very reason Christ, the God-man, and as such the one and only Medi- ator between God and man."[2] ---------------------------------------------------------- [1] Bampton Lectures, I856, p. 262. [2] "Doctrine of Divine Love," p. I36. ----------------End of Page 65----------------------------- The doctrine of the impersonality of the _humanity_ of Christ thus set forth in the early Church with the pur- pose of guarding against the idea that His Person was formed by a union of two persons, instead of its being by the Divine Son's assumption of generic human nature creatively produced in the act of assumption, was, in the progress of current tendencies, afterward so extended, under influence of John of Damascus, as to be held appli- cable to the _permanent_ condition of His human nature. The tendency to lay the chief stress on His Divinity led to a compromise of the importance of His humanity, and, as more easily conceivable, to the notion that it never became personal. Hence the theory of the permanent impersonality (_anhypostasia_) of His human nature. But the modern inclination to emphasize His true and full humanity has largely broken with this conception of its impersonality in the accomplished and abiding union. Dr. Dorner tells us: "The doctrine frequently advocated in the older divinity, though expressed in no church sym- bol, of the non-personality of the human nature of Christ, has been pretty generally given up."[1] Its abandonment seems to be required both by the records of the Scritpures and the logical necessities of His mediatorial relation. We may look at it thus: It is conceded that the Person of Christ as a personal unit, one Person. The Logos, the Divine Nature was personal _before_ the union and _in_ it, being causative and active in the creative assumption of the human nature--the human, therfore, not being per- sonal before its assumption. But the act of incarnation, assuming the nature in all its parts, in their wholeness and integrity, necessarily aggregated all the elements of genuine, full personality in that human nature. Now, if -------------------------------------------------------- [1] "History of Protestant Theology," II., p. 457. ---------------------End of Page 66------------------------ Christ is One Person, a single personality, and the two natures are both in that One Person, He must be personal on both sides; else He is not _One_ Divine-human Person. His personality would be _only_ Divine, if the human nature were not an element of it. How could He then _represent and act for us as "persons,_" the only character in which we have any interest in the redemptive work? Several truths are properly recalled here. The first is that the profound _mystery_, acknowledgedly in the incarnation and Person of Christ, belongs not to the ele- ments or facts which the Christian faith holds as neces- sarily embodied in it, but to the impenetrable transcend- ency of these facts to exact and final definition and ex- planation in our measures and terms of thought. The incompetency of speculative thought to picture the _how_ of the reality should suggest modesty in our dogmatic settings of the truth, without affecting the very truth itself of the facts and our faith in them. The framing of the Creed statements was not in speculative aim, to explicate the _method_ of the incarnation, but to assert its full reality. It is an apt remark of Canon Gore that "there is no more signal evidence of a divine provi- dence watching over the fortunes of the Church, than the Church's persistent loyalty, _in its authoritative decisions_, to the true humanity of Christ, in spite of strong individual prepossessions."[1] The decisions of the ancient Councils must be viewed in this light, not as an analytic removal of the mytery of Christ's Person, but as assertions of the fact in its integrity, in order to save the essentials in the truth of the incarnation for the faith of the Church against various speculative theories which sought to reduce or eliminate the mystery. The ------------------------------------------------------- [1] "Dissertations," p. I38. ------------------End Of Page 67-------------------------- mysterious is, and must forever be, an object of faith. Because of human finiteness and limitations of knowl- edge, the realities of the universe, within us and about us, clasping us closely as the air and reaching us from far-away worlds, compel us to believe and trust far beyond our ability to penetrate the ultimate constitution, essence, and reasons of the system of nature and life which holds us every hour. We must, in part, "walk by faith." Faith is not made absurd by mystery, but required and justified. The grand ethical need of re- demption warrants this faith. To eliminate all mystery would reduce from reality, whether in the realm of the natural or supernatural. In either realm faith is pre- cluded, not by the mysterious or transcendent, but only by absolute self-contradiction. And some faint illustrations have been well employed to suggest the conceivability of the incarnation and its resultant in Christ's person, or at least to open a line of approach toward the mystery. (_a_) Man's own consti- tution is a mental nature and a physical nature united in one personality, the one personal consciousness, the individual ego, embracing the experiences from both sides.[1] (_b_) We see in the single soul of St. Paul two pinciples of volition, one animated by remaining car- nality and the other by reason quickened by grace--a spiritual dualism which he describes as if in a conjunc- tion of two wills (Rom. vii. I4-I5).[2] Though not an exact analogy, this is suggestive. (_c_) How humanity may be assumed without being destroyed or the personal- izing Divinity made human, is suggested by Martensen's ------------------------------------------------------- [1] Shedd's "History of Doctrine," I., p. 402; Liddon, Bampton Lectures, p. 60. [2] Liddon, p. 262. ----------------End of Page 68---------------------------- statement: "He did not possess His Deity outside of His humanity, but His true humanity was grounded in His true divinity" [_i.e._, made in the "image of God," and, therefore, receptive of the divine presence and thought]. "It is the idea of human nature not to be independent, but to be an organ, a temple, for the divine nature. To the extent to which human nature is filled by the divine, to that extent does it attain its true idea; and we may say with perfect truth of every human individual, that he is a true man only in propor- tion as a divine word becomes incarnate in him. The capacity of an individual to realize and manifest true humanity must, therefore, be measured by his capacity for receiving the divine, by his capacity for becoming an organ of God. And that individual alone will be the perfect revelation of humanity, or the Adam, who is able to embrace in himself the entire fullness of Deity. . . . Not that the human nature of Christ had the capability of rising by its own power to this union with the divine. The divine nature must be conceived as taking the initiative in the union; and the entire conception of Christ first acquires steadiness and fixity, when we recognize with the Scriptures that it is God Himself, the eternal Logos, who has here made Himself man."[1] A second truth belonging here is the _sinlessness and impeccability_ of the theanthropic Person. The Scriptures declare Him to have been without sin, connecting absence of human depravity with His miraculous birth, and asserting His actual life to have been without fault (Luke i. 35; John x. 36; viii. 46; 2 Cor. v. 2I; Heb. iv. I5; I John iii. 5). The records of His life never suggest natural depravity in His sentiments or -------------------------------------------------------- [1] "Christian Dogmatics," pp. 270-27I. ------------------End of Page 69------------------------- tendencies, or the idea of Theodore of Mopsuestia that He took on Him our humanity with its sinful affections in order to overcome them and thus elevate it into victory over them. The simple narrative of His con- duct, in deeds and words, revealing His inmost self and outward bearing, forms a portraiture of purity, right- eousness, holiness, and love which has justly impressed the conscience of the Christian mind as that of a sinless man. Though He everywhere showed the most sensi- tive appreciation of moral distinctions, He nowhere con- fessed sin or any fault. He never prayed for forgive- ness, though He taught others so to pray. He was not only without sin, but He _could_ not sin. As to Christ, it is not enough to say, "_Posse non peccare_" and "_non peccasse_," but we must add, "_Non posse peccare_;" because, exempt from original sin, His human nature was holy, and the union of the divine with the human lifted Him above the possibility of sin. To some minds the last feature presents an apparent difficulty, as seem- ingly incongruous with the admitted fact that He suffered "temptation," trial, testing (Matt. iv. I-II; Mark i. I2; Luke iv. I-13; Heb. iv. I5). But closely viewed, there is no inconsistency involved. Between being tempted and sinning, _per se_, there is a distinct and radical differ- ence. To be tempted is no sin. Sin begins only in yielding to the temptation. He was tempted "without sin." When the tempter came to Him, there was no depravity in Him ready to respond. So that with re- spect to His humanity He was "able not to sin." But we must, nevertheless, remember that that same humanity opened Him to temptation. The parallel of His position with that of the first Adam is illuminating. Adam's sinless humanity opened him to the possibility of being ------------------End of Page 70-------------------------- tempted, and sin came only in yielding. Apply the realities in his case to the experience of Christ in that occurence which is pre-eminently recorded as His temptation, the trial in the wilderness. There may be unsolved elements of mystery as to the divine purpose in including those strange trials in Jesus' life, though it seems at least partially disclosed as designed to present to the confidence of faith a merciful and sympathetic Saviour and Helper who knows what temptation and trial are, and who brings the power of victory over them. But, clearly, through the distress of "hunger," which is no sin, but a divinely-given feature of unfallen humanity, there was brought into Christ's experience the temptation of the natural impulse toward relief. But to secure it by the method proposed--the use of His miracle-powers for personal and private end, to escape the sufferings incident to His assumed condition of man- hood, and thus break the principle of _example_ that belonged to His redemptive and saving mission on earth---would have violated the divine law of His earthly life. So the temptation and tempter were rebuked away. The temptation failed to bring forth sin. We may say, indeed, that this victory over the trial was possible on the simple basis of His untainted human nature, as Adam _might_ have preserved his integrity in virtue of the pure freedom given him. But we are entitled and obliged to say more. He was not only able, viewing His personality on its human side, to triumph, and thus reverse Adam's failure, but, viewing it on its Divine side, in which the theanthropic person arose and which is forever the central and ruling fact of His being, Christ _could_ not have sinned and fallen. He was as truly God as He was man. God cannot sin. The -------------End of Page 71------------------------------- Divine safeguarded the human nature and made Him absolutely impeccable. So we need to think of Him. 4. There is a further problem in the unity of the Person of Christ--_the relation of the attributes of the two natures in this One Person_. It is the question of the _communication of attributes_ (_communicatio-idiomatum_). The relations sought are conceived as arising out of the communion of the natures in the personal union. All orthodox Christendom has been wont to accept part of the teaching here involved. But Lutheran dogmatics in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries developed some special features, one of which at least has not been accepted by general theology. Three kinds of commu- nication have been defined. (_a_) The first kind is that termed _idiomatic_ (_genus idiomaticum_), whereby the attributes of both natures are communicated and belong to the One Person. All the essential divine attributes and all the essential human attributes belong to Christ. His person is Divine- human, the God-man. This has been the common doctrine of the Church, in accordance with the statement of the Creed of Chalcedon: "The diversity of the two natures not being at all destroyed by their union in the Person, but the peculiar properties (_idiotai_) of each being preserved and concurring in One Person." This kind of communication seems involved in the very neces- sities of the personal union. Not to attribute both classes of attributes to Christ would destroy His individual personality, leaving the two natures, as two persons, only standing in juxtaposition, as in the error of Nes- torius and his followers. And it is sustained by the Scriptures. In these, sometimes the human properties give designation to the Person; sometimes the Divine. -----------------End Of Page 72-------------------------- For example, in Rom. ix. 5, we hav ethe human designa- tion, with divine predicate: "As concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all." Similarly in John vi. 62: "ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before." In Rom. viii. 32, the divine gives the designation with human predicate: "He that spared not _His Own_ Son, be delivered Him up for us all." So also in I Cor. ii. 8: "For had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory"; and in I Cor. xv. 47: "The second man is the Lord from heaven." Sometimes the whole Person is made the subject of divine predi- cates, as John viii. 58: "Beofre Abraham was I am"; and sometimes of human predicates: "I thirst." Some- times the whole Person is made the subject of predicates from both nature,s as brought into single view, as in John i. I-I4; Rom. i. 3-4. (_b_) The second kind of communication is what is termed the _genus apostelesmaticum_ (_koinopoietikon_), whereby the redemptory functions or actions which belong to the whole Person are predicable, not of one nature alone, but of both natures, or of each with communication of the other. This, too, is in harmony with the Creed of Chalcedon, whcih says: "Each nature does or performs whatever belongs to it with communication of the other, and is the common doctrine of the Church." The For of Concord puts it: "As to the execution of the office of Christ, the Person does not act or work in, with, through, or according to only one nature, but in, with, according to, and through both natures."[1] It means that Christ executed His office in the unity of His Person; so that, for instance, when He suffered He suffered both as man and as God, in the oneness of His ------------------------------------------------------ [1] Sol. Dec., ch. viii., 46. --------------End Of Page 73----------------------------- theanthropic Person. For the Person suffering was the God-man, and in the unity of consciousness the whole Person suffered (I Pet. iii. I8; I John i. 7; Acts xx. 28). This second aspect of communication really only explicates, in analytic way, what is already included in the first kind. "The whole work of Christ is to be attributed to His Person and not to the one or other nature exclusively. The Person is the acting sub- ject; the nature, the organ or medium. It is the Divine-human Person that wrought miracles by virtue of His divine nature, that suffered through the sen- sorium of His human nature. The superhuman effect and infinite merit of the Redeemer's work must be ascribed to His Person because of His divinity, while it is His humanity alone that made Him capable of and liable to temptation, suffering and death, and renders Him an example for our imitation."[1] (_c_) The third kind is called the _genus majestaticum_ or _auchematicum_ (from _auchema_, glory), in which the attri- butes of the Diivine nature are said to be communicated to the human nature. In this, which is peculiar to Luth- eran dogmaticians, is developed a view which goes beyond the Ecumenical Creeds and was not accepted by other divisions of the Church. A prompting occasion for its development was the support it seemed to give to Luther's affirmation of the omnipresence of Christ's body, and thus to the doctrine of its real presence in the Lord's Supper. It is stated by different writers in somewhat different terms--some representing it in extremer and others in more moderate form. To rightly estimate it, it must be looked at under these differing representations. _First_, in the extremer statements; that of Hollaz is --------------------------------------------------------- [1] Dr. Schaff, in "Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia," p. 457. ------------------End of Page 74--------------------------- a fair example: "The Son of God truly and really _com- municates the idiomata of His divine nature to the as- sumed human nature_." Prof. Heinrich Schmid explains: "The impartation of the divine attributes to the human nature occurs at the very moment in which the Logos unites itself with the human nature."[1] This communi- cation of attributes is asserted as only from the divine side to the hunman, and is constantly accompanied by denial of a so-called _genus kenoticum_, or communication of properties of the human nature to the Divine, in accordance with the maxim that while the finite is capa- ble of the Infinite, the Infinite cannot be increased or diminished. "For there cannot be an emptying or lessening of the divine nature," says Quenstedt. _Secondly_, in a more cautious and moderate form; by the Form of Concord: "The human nature in Christ, inasmuch as it has been personally united with the divine nature in Christ, has received, over and above its natural essential, permanent properties, also _special, high, great, supernatural, inscrutable, ineffable, heavenly preroga- tives and excellences in majesty, glory, power, and might_ above everything that can be named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come."[2] By Ger- hard: "That which is communicated, the holy matter of communication, is divine _majesty, glory_, and _power_, and on this account _gifts, truly infinite and divine_." "_Gifts_ truly infinite and immeasurable have been im- parted to Christ the man through the personal union, and His exaltation to the right hand of the Father."[3] -------------------------------------------------------- [1] "Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church," Part III., ch. ii., sec. 32. [2] Sol. Dec., viii., 5I. [3] "Loci," III., 499. ------------------------End of Page 75--------------------- By Quenstedt: "We do not say that there is any trans- fusion of divine properties into the human nature of Christ (whereby the reproach of Eutychianism is re- pelled) or that there is any change of the human nature into the divine, or that there is any equalization or abolition of natures, but that there is a personal communi- cation."[1] The Scriptures cited for this communication are mainly Matt. xi. 27; xxviii. I8; John iii. I3; iii. 34; v. 27; vi. 5I, 54; Rom. ix. 5; Phil. ii. I0; Eph. i. 20. This third kind was not distinctly formulated by either Luther or Melanchthon, though its substance was maintained by Luther. The Augsburg Confession, the Apology, the Smalcald Articles, are silent on the subject. Only by the Form of Concord (I580) was a measure of con- fessional position given to it, in the modified type. The dogmaticians formulated and pressed it with special view to the stronger foundation which it was thought to give to the Lutheran doctrine of the Eucharist, through its involved omnipresence of the body of Christ. As to this _genus majestaticum_, as stated in the ex- tremer form, as a communication of the attributes of the Divine nature to the human nature, it is to be re- marked:-- (I) The Scripture passages quoted for it scarcely reach the grade of proof. They clearly prove the first and second kinds, viz.: that the attributes of both the Divine and human natures truly belong to the _One Person_, the God-man; and that in the redemptory work this One Person acts through each of the two natures, or through one with communication of the other. But they fail to assert the point of a real communication of the properties of the one nature to the other "nature" as such. --------------------------------------------------------- [1] III., I58. ------------------End of Page 76------------------------ (2) The assertion of a communication of the attributes of one nature to the other _nature_ comes dangerously near the Eutychian error which in the union confused and destroyed both natures. It is impossible to con- ceive how the divine properties could be given to the human nature, as real attributes, without making it something else or other than human nature. For the reality of anything, the substance or the "essential" of it, is determined and marked by the sum of its attri- butes; and when the sum of its attributes is changed, the substance or nature of it is changed. Human nature is not full human nature, the truly self-identical nature of mankind, if any of its attributes are wanting; for instance, "rational soul" or "will." It is more than human nature if any are added. It is the essence of human nature to be finite; to add to it omnipresence is, to the necessities of scientific thought, to constitute it _per se_ infinitely beyond the self-identity of human nature. It becomes deification of human nature. (3) The Form of Concord, despite its eucharistic pre- possessions, sees the trouble and utters repeated warnings against this danger of Eutychianism, confounding the two natures or obliterating the true human nature. For example: "_The two natures of Christ are so united that they are not mingled one with another or changed one into the other, and each retains its natural, essential property, so that the properties of one nature never become the properties of the other nature._"[1] "Therefore in Christ there is and remains only _one_ divine omnipotence, power, majesty, glory, which is _peculiar alone to the divine nature_; but it _shines, manifests_, and exercises _itself fully yet voluntarily, in with, and through_ the ------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Sol. Dec., viii., 60. -----------------End of Page 77-------------------------- assumed exalted human nature."[1] The very terms thus used concede that the attributes of the divine nature are truly and _really_ attributes "peculiar alone to the divine nature," and only "manifest" themselves "in," "with," and "through" the human nature. They have not become real attributes "of" the human _nature_, in any other sense than that the Divine nature uses and exalts the human in the _functions_ of the theanthropic Person and office. This, indeed, avoids Eutychianism; but at the same time asserts nothing to justify the use of the extreme forms of statement here under crit- icism. (4) Proof that the Form of Concord never meant any such doctrine as the extreme terms express, is seen in the fact that the "Catalogue of Testimonies" (prepared by Andrea and Chemnitz) explains what was sought to be affirmed, and declares: "The essential attributes of the one nature, which are truly and rightly ascribed to the whole Person, _never become the attributes of the other nature_."[1] (5) The most discriminating Lutheran dogmaticians explain it so as to disclaim the idea of a real impartation of the attributes of one nature to the other nature. They make it a communication and communion of "gifts," a sharing in "prerogatives," "excellences," "powers," "glory," etc., a participation in the exaltation and activities of the God-man, _e.g._, Gerhard and Quenstedt, as already quoted. If we remember this fact, that no transfusion of divine properties into the human anture of Christ is meant, but only a participation by the human in the _action_ of the --------------------------------------------------------- [1] Sol. Dec., viii., 66. [1] "Book of Concord" (Newmarket ed.), p. 735. ------------------End of Page 78------------------------- divine through the unity of the theanthropic Person, the difficulty of this species of communication disappears. There is a clear difference between a communication or communion in the _activities, exercises, glories_, and _pre- rogatives_ of the divine idiomata, in and through the One Personality, and the supposed impartation of the attri- butes themselves to the human nature as such. Inter- preted in this, its true light or sense, it is really only a necessary explication and issue of the functional action taught in the second kind of communication, arising from the real personal union, or true oneness of the God- man--this Person acting with no reduction from His true humanity, but with the fullness of His essential Godhead, a union in which the humanity is made to share in His personal activities and powers, and is thereby exalted and glorified. This is substantially the putting of the doctrine by Sartorius: "But God in Christ not only made the poor properties of human nature His own, and endured them in His state of humiliation, but also lets that human nature share the abundant glory of His divine properties. Though itself only a creature, it was, nevertheless, after the work of reconciling even the most extreme contrasts had been performed in humilia- tion, raised, in consequence of its abiding personal union with the Godhead of the Son, above all creatures in heaen and on eath, to a participation of divine majesty and honor (Phil. ii. 8-II). . . . It is not with His exclu- sively and directly divine presence, which, because it is this, is neither mediatorial nor reconciliatory, but with His divine and human personal nearness, that the Mediator and Reconciler is, according to His own good pleasure, with us always, even to the end of the world, so that He is not withdrawn from us by the ascension, but ---------------End of Page 79--------------------------- on the contrary, is efficaciously near (Matt. xxviii. 20).[1] Looked at in this light, this kind of communication surely belongs to a full Christological view. The thean- thropic Person cannot be divided, and in the unity and wholeness of Christ's Persons since His exaltation, _He_ is almight, omnipresent, omniscient, and infinite in all divine perfections. This gives all that is necessary to a correct view of the Lutheran doctrine of the Supper.[1] At a later date, but connected with this controversy concerning the _communicatio idiomatum_, another differ- ence was developed. Both parties agreed to the first kind (_genus_), that by the incarnation the attributes of both the Divine and human natures were united in the Person of Christ. _He_ was at once true God and true man--divine-human by the full possession of the divine and human properties. But the Scripture representations of the growth and development of Jesus called for pos- sible explanation. How, with absolute possession of the attributes of Godhead, "God manifest in the flesh," can the phenomena of normal infancy and advance to manhood both physically and mentally be made con- ceivable or intelligible to faith? The problem opened in two solutions: one, through a distinction made be- tween "possession," "use" or "exercise" of the divine properties and powers, found the possibility and fact of such human growth and progress in the theory of an early _non-use_ of these attributes and powers.[3] Though fully possessed, they were not fully exercised. So the -------------------------------------------------------- [1] "Doctrine of Divine Love," pp. I43-I45. [2] Melanchthon did not accept the idea of a real communication of the divine attributes. [3] _Abstinentia ab usu_ (_kenosis chreseos_). ----------------End of Page 80------------------------------- Giessen school of theologians held. The other party, the Tuebingen school, advocated the doctrine of a hidden, secret use of all the divine attributes.[1] They were fully possessed and fully exercised. According to this, Christ, even according to His human ature in virtue of its union with the divine, was actually, though invisibly omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, during the whole state of humiliation from infancy to the grave; actively, with the Father, participant in rulership of the world, in all divine powers, through all His progress from the manger to His ascension and session at the right hand of God. The difference between the two theories is the dif- ference between a temporary renunciation of the use of His divine attributes, except as they were called for by the redemptory functions themselves, and an invisible, concealed exercise of them all, in an unseen side of His divine-human life. The manifest fact that this kryptic view, when analyzed to its ultimate reality, is found to involve essentially a Nestorian denial of the real union of the two natures into a single personality, and also a living of two separate lives in different spheres at the same time, with docetic human aspect, leaves the _first_ view--that of non use of His divine powers in the state of humiliation--far preferable for interpretation of the genuine reality of that state as exhibited in the records of His life and death, and in the apostolic assurances of some divine _self-emptying_ of what belonged to His "form of God" (Phil. ii. 6-8; John i. I, 2, I4; Heb. ii. 9, I8). For the New Testament portraiture of His life exhibits the possibilities of His supernatural action or use of His divine powers, as being at His own option, in the service of His holy freedom, reason, and will. He -------------------------------------------------------- [1] Called the kryptic theory (_krupsis chreseos_). -----------------End of Page 81------------------------- held its employment as subservient to His divine mis- sion, and at His choice. This accords with His true divinity, for it belongs to our highest conception of God tho think of Him as the infinite, absolute Personal Being, and as using all His attributes and powers, with sovereignty of freedom, for the service of His own holy reeason, love, and will. He is not Fate. His attri- butes are all centered in His intelligent, rational, per- sonal selfhood, in which He determines His holy pur- poses after the counsel of His own will. He is not an automaton, acting _ex necessitate_ and eternally exhibiting all the divine possibilities in every conceivable direction. He owns Himself for infinite potentialities of goodness and power. We dare not think of Him as always doing all He can do, as creating all the worlds or crea- tures He can, or as evermore exhausting the potencies of His attributes. His self-possession means self-control and self-direction for the aims of His free love and choice. Not all the divine thought passes into effect. It is part of His immutablle, eternal nature to act in freedom--to hold the exercise of His divine attributes in an order of reserve, according to His purposes and plans. And so nature exhibits Him as making history by progressive working out of His free counsels of love. In short, it is normal to our conception of God to think of Him as exercising His eternal powers under a princi- ple of self-reservation, using them or not using them in self-determining freedom, for the realization of the aims of His wisdom and choice--or as abstaining from action that would be apart from or in conflict with His purposes. And this principle seems to be eminently applicable for the explanation of this phenomenon of the humiliation of Christ. In the solution of the ----------------End of Page 82--------------------------- problem of the growth and progressive development of the Person who was the incarnate Son of God, a divine-human Person, true God-man from infancy to His full Godmanhood, we are justly and fully entitled to think of the eternal Son in becoming the Redeemer and accomplishing the earthly stage of the work, as renouncing, in measure, the _exercise_, the _use_, of the divine prerogatives and powers in His possession. For this self-reserve, this _non-use_ of the divine attributes and powers belonging to Him, is seen to be but a reflection and illustration of a divine possibility and reality of free- dom that belongs forever to the very conception of God. It presents a section of the divine method which is nor- mal to our idea of God's eternal employment of His free powers. The modern "kenoticism," originated by Thomasius, and adopted with modifying changes by various theo- logians, replaces this dotrine of the "non-use" of the divine prerogatives and powers possessed by Christ, with the theory that the incarnation involved a renuncia- tion by the Son of the "_possession_" of the Divine attri- butes. It was a "self-emptying" of the attributes them- selves. The "depotentiation" was not merely of the "exercise" of powers, but actual dispossession of them. Whatever claims may be made for this theory in any of the forms in which it has found following, or has been made plausible by acute tracing of the conscious- ness of Christ in the New Testament records of His thought and conduct, it lacks assuring Scripture testi- mony, and breaks too strongly across the law or necessi- ties of human thought in its fundamental conceptions of the Divine nature and attributes. The eternal _freedom_ of God in the "use," both positive and negative, of His --------------End of Page 83-------------------------------- attributes and powers, is normal to our necessary con- ception of Him as the absolute, immutable, eternal, free Personality, the purposive Creator and Ruler of the uni- verse; but we cannot conceive of His laying aside the _very attributes_ by virtue or possession of which He _is_ God. His free "exercise" or direction of these attri- butes or prerogatives in the service of His holy will or plans, or even His "non-use" of them in relations in which their exercise would not coincide with His purpose, is one thing--a thing easily and consistently conceivable. But to lay aside their _possession_ is quite another thing-- is, in so far, to annul the _reality_ of the Deity, to ex- tinguish the _existence_ of the Godhead. God is not capable of increase or diminution of the essential Being that He absolutely and eternally is. This new or modern _kenoticism_ postulates conceptions at variance with Christian Theism, and involves inconsistent and contradictory thinking. It thus shows itself incom- petent as a guide to Christological truth. Compared with the old and widely prevalent dogmatic teaching of a temporary _abstinence from use_ (_abstinentia ab usus_) of the divine attributes and powers by the incarnate Logos or Son, in His humiliation,[1] this new theory has no merit that should entitle it to supersede the old. In all the advantages of both Scripture implication and rational consistency and coherence, the old must be held as the far better interpretation. Dr. Dorner's theory of a gradual incarnation, in avoiding the difficulties of this -------------------------------------------------------- [1] We take no account here of the peculiarity by which Lutheran theologians generally connected this _abstinentia ab usus_, or "humili- ation," only with Christ's _human nature_, as through the _communi- catio idiomatum_ endowed with the divine attributes; because this peculiarity is not a necessary or vital feature of the doctrine of the non-use of the divine powers. See pp. 89-90. ---------------End of Page 84--------------------------------- offered kenotic theory, also fails to deserve the place of the older view. It is proper to summarize here the relations of this constitution of the Person of Christ to the work of re- demption to which it looked. We have already noted that the incarnation had its reason in the woeful fact of human _sin_, and that so far as the Scriptures have given distinct affirmation, it was conditioned on the need of re- covery and salvation, and is not to be looked upon as pri- marily, and apart from that need, involved in creational or metaphysical necessities. To this great end of re- demption, therefore, we will find the divine-human constitution of His person to be in vital and assuring adaptations. We need simply define the points here, as they will be developed and illustrated in tracing the work of Christ. I. The incarnation places him in true adaptation to the office of _mediation_. This term expresses His aggre- gate office, His generic position. In all that He did, He acted as Mediator: "There is one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all" (I Tim. ii. 5). His divine-human Person put Him into actual union with both parties-- able both to act for God in providing and revealing mercy, and to make His work stand for man by doing His vicarious service as Man (Heb. ii. I4-I8). 2. Specifically, it adapted Him to the great work of _atonement_ or "_propitiation_," in that He could both obey and suffer in the nature that had sinned, and by His divinity give value to this obedience and suffering as a testimony against sin and vindication of the claims of righteousness. Rom. v. I9, "By the obedience of One many were made righteous." Rom. viii. 3, "God send- -------------------End of Page 85----------------------- ing His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." Also Rom. v. 8-I0; Heb. ii. I6-I7; ix. I5. 3. It gave a _Teacher_ who could speak the things of God authoritatively, knowing both the mind of God and what is in man. 4. It opens the way to, and furnishes, a close and living _fellowship_ with God. In the theanthropic Person, the divine and human natures have come together, and God and man can evermore meet in living communion. A point of union is created in Christ, and in our union with Christ through faith, we are united again with God in most vital way--as members with the Head, as branches with the vine. 5. In relation to the race, Christ thus becomes a _second Adam_, as the Head of a redeemed humanity (Rom. v. I2-2I; I Cor. xv. 45-47). This Headship of Christ stands over against the headship of Adam in nature-- Christ's headship giving spiritual life where Adam's gave sin and death. In a second Adam, a true man, the seed of the woman is bruising the serpent's head, de- stroying the work of the destroyer, recovering humanity, and becoming its true type of relation and destiny. 6. It furnishes the true _Model_ for human imitation and ethical conformity. He is the Perfect Man, with all human virtues, not in abstract standard, but in real per- sonal life. This is, indeed, a most impressive form of teaching, and Christ's pattrn has had wonderful uplift- ing and transforming power. In Him the ideal perfec- tion has been made the actual human character--the per- fection of humanity historically realized by and through the fullness of the divine life. It has won the admira- tion of the world. -------------End of Page 86----------------------------- 7. It adapts Him for the divine _Judgeship_ belonging to the moral government (Matt. xxv. 3I-46). "The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judg- ment unto the Son" (John v. 22; Acts xvii. 3I). The judgement that shall be the award to all men will be at once that of the eternal God of love and holiness and that of the moral nature or reason of perfect Man. There is a supreme adaptation of His Person to this office.[1] "Christ's perfect love for justice, which sacri- fices itself in order to glorify the divine justice, and which He attested by suffering and death, was His con- secration to the office of theanthropic Judge of the world."[2] The simple enumeration of these leading adaptations in the divine-human Person of Christ not only shows with what impressive directness they look to His re- demptive work, but suggests how the very mystery of the incarnation, in itself so perplexing to thought, never- theless becomes, in its great meaning and fitness, a grand evidence of the divine truth of Christianity. -------------------------------------------------------- [1] Munger, "The Freedom of Faith," p. 355. [2] Dorner, "System of Christian Doctrine," Vol. IV., p. I26. ----------End of Chapter on Page 87----------------------- 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