2. The True Humanity of Christ.
A detailed dogmatic exposition of the true and perfect humanity of Christ is prompted by the fact that within external Christianity the humanity of Christ was partly denied completely by attributing to Christ only a false body,»
Luther in holy wrath suppresses all Papist work teachings with the reference to the Son of God's work of redemption.
the delusion that matter is evil. Particularly pronounced and partly mutilated by ascribing to Christ a body without a soul *© or a body and a soul without a spirit * or body and soul without a human will *® or in general a higher spiritual flesh > which is not equal to ours. Scripture teaches clearly the true and perfect humanity of Christ (veritatem et integritatem humnae Christi naturae). Not only does it name Christ év8panoc™ and 6 vidc vId¢ Tov Tov avOparov,°, but it also expresses in many ways that it does not describe an illusory person, but an essential person. Just as Christ is according to his divine nature phovoyevis Tapa TAatpdc Tatpdc,~ so he is according to his human nature ex tov matépov Israel,°) whose human nature has come upon him. He is therefore specifically called Abraham's is Docetism in Marcion. According to Tertullian's account, Christ's humanity is to him a mere phantasma, every real body caro stercoribus infersa [flesh filled with feces] and every birth a foeditas [loathsome]. (Tert. adv, Marcionem Il, 8. 10. 21.)
of course the Arian one, has taken over. Tendency: fv tov m490vc vonow vonow Kol Kat THv 66 adov Gvaotaow TH YedtnT TpoGayeEt (to be enclosed) and thus to make dOyoc a creature. (Athanasius c. Apollo. II, 3.)
Platonic trichotomy o@pa (body), yoy (animal principle of life), voug (the rational soul or spirit that distinguishes man from the animal) In place of the vovc is with Christ the Adyoc. Apollinarism was rejected by two Roman synods under Damasus 374 and 376 (Mansi III, 481. 502) and at Constantinople 381, can. 1.
Constantinople in the 7th century. Rejected by the Synod of Constantinople in 680. The material in Mansi XI, 190 ff.
with a heavenly, spiritual body worthy of her, like water through a canal, without taking from Mary any human nature equal to ours. Similarly enthusiasts of the 16th and 17th centuries (Anabaptists, Weigelians etc.). Cf. Dorner, Glaubenslehre I, 309 f. Very detailed material in Baumgarten, Theol. Streitigkeiten II, 24-69 (Controversy "of the heavenly humanity of Christ"). See also Giinther, Symbolik 2, p. 149 [Giinther, Symbolik 3, p. 174]. Against the heavenly humanity of the Anabaptists F. C., Art. XII, p. 728 [Trigl. p. 1099]. — From the point of view of the mixing of natures, Eutyches also expressed himself: "E@c ofEepov ov eizov 76 G@LA TOV Kuptov Kat Seo HU®V dLoovoLov Hiv. (Mansi V, 742.)
Seed, David's offspring,® Mary's son © etc. Scripture even gives us a double human genealogical register of Christ. © The fact that Christ did not bring his human nature from heaven, but took it from his Israelite ancestors, especially from the Virgin Mary, is expressed in Scripture in a special way by the fact that his name is kapmdc Tic KotAiac [fruit of the womb] of Mary.
Christ's human nature: the body, o®pa, o&pka Kat dotea, the soul, woxn,’? the spirit, 76 mvebua,’ the human will, 16 96Anua. Summing it all up, Scripture says Hebr. 2:14: Exsi obv ta naidia KeKowdvykev aipatos Kai CAPKOs Kai ADTOS TAPATANSINS LETEDYEV TOV ADTOV, Nainiio capKds Kat aipatoc. Whoever therefore denies the true humanity of Christ does so on other grounds than Scripture. Here too rationalism and Pelagianism are at the root of it. Rationalism, by declaring the connection between God and a material human body to be unseemly and impossible at all,’>) or by thinking that the union into a personal unity could not come about if the human nature of Christ was also given a rational human soul (voiic) and
son of David. The register of inheritance also indirectly proves the human nature of Christ, inasmuch as only one person can be connected with other people in terms of inheritance law.
preserving and fully humanizing the Son of God" (Moll). — Baier sums up the scriptural doctrine of the true humanity of Christ in this way: Christus est verus homo, nobis consubstantialis. Sic enim Scriptura eum expresse nominat hominem, 1 Tim. 2:5; Joh. 8, 40th Filium hominis octogies bis in Scriptura appellari constat. Eo etiam pertinent appellationes de semine mulieris, Gen. 3:15, semine Abrahae, Gen. 22:18,- Gal. 3:16, germine Davidis, Jer. 23:5. tribuuntur etiam Christo partes essentiales liominis: anima quidem, Matt. 26:38; Luc. 23:46, corpus humanum, Joh. 2:21, caro, sanguis et ossa, Ebr. 2:14; Luc. 24:39. Denique genealogia ejus recensetur, quoad lineam ascendentem quidem Luc. 3:23 sqq., quoad descendentem Matt. 1:1 sqq. [Google] (Comp. III, 20 sqq.)
a human will. 7° Pelagianism underlies the denial and mutilation of Christ's human nature by not recognizing the need for a vicarious satisfaction of Christ. Gnosticism lacks all the conditions for the biblical doctrine of a satisfactio vicaria. In his dualism, he does not know any guilt of sin weighing on man, but only a substance (hyle) of sin that has penetrated into man. The redemption through Christ therefore does not consist in the redemption of a sinful debt, but in the elimination of the substance of sin, which is stimulated by Christ. 7 But also in the shortening and mutilation of Christ's human nature, as it is the case with the Apollinarists, Eutychians, Monotheletians, Weigelians etc., the necessity of satisfactio vicaria has receded into the background. One forgets that the Redeemer did not only have to appear in the flesh, but that he had to work in the assumed flesh (py [HEBREW]). 7°) The Redeemer had to take the place of men both under the duty and under the punishment of the law given to men and binding men together. ’ But he could do this only by assuming a perfect human nature and thus becoming equal to men in all things, only without sin. Therefore, in describing the work of redemption, Scripture emphasizes how the true Godhead is the same as the true, perfect humanity of Christ, calling the Redeemer and mediator not only man, Son of Man, David's Son, Mary's Son etc. but also presents him to us in all the peculiarities and activities of human
Leta Tov OEdv Fv, rot, vov Svtoc Kat avOpamtvoc vous Tv EV XPloTH, ODK dpa ETITEAETTAL EV OVT TO TG CupKaDEwS Epyov. — Ei &vOpare TEeAsio cvvn@On OEdc¢ TEAELOG, OVO AV NOAY, E1C LEV MVGEL VLOG DEdv, Etc SE OETOc. (Antirrheticus adv. Apollinarem, c. 38.39. Bei Schmid-Hauck, Dogmengesch., p. 81.) The monotheletes argued like this: Adbvatov Evi KO TP TE AVTO S0O GLA KO KATA TAVTOV VYEOTAVOL OeAjpata. (See Sergii ep. ad Honorium, Mansi Xi, 529 ff.)
asceticism.
W. 56, 246 f.: "The expression wyw51 *»y [HEBREW] refers to the passion and death of Christ. 2» [HEBREW] unites the concepts of work and effort. Christ's suffering was a laborious work. And his soul has worked. Christ worked with all his strength, body and soul" etc.
nature and makes him put all the powers of body and soul at the service of redemption. His soul (w53) [HEBREW) has worked: ®° he kneels down and prays; ®) he mourns and trembles; ® his soul is sorrowful unto death; *» his sweat is like drops of blood; ® his human will (t6 $éAnuéd Lov) he submits to the will of the Father; *» he thirsts; ®© in his body (ev tp c@pati avtob) he sacrificed our sins on the cross. * This redemption business is definitely not suitable for a so-called "heavenly" flesh and human nature without a rational soul and without a human will. The old teachers therefore do not go beyond Scripture when they expressed in various ways that with the denial of the true and perfect humanity of Christ, Christ's work of redemption also falls away. °°) The well-known phrase of Gregory of Nazareth is also directed against the reduction of Christ's human nature: T6 &apoaAnmtov a8epaevtov [what was not assumed was not redeemed (healed)]. The Lutheran teachers take up this sentence and prove that it is Scriptural perversion when one wants to show from scriptural passages such as Rom 8:3 (ev OLOIMLATL GapKds apLaptiac), Phil 2:7 (oynjwatt sipEsets wc av8poroc), Jn 6:41 (6 dptos 6 KataBic é«k EK TOV Ovpavod) etc. that Christ's human nature is not equally important to ours. ® The truth of Christ's human
Christi caro, sequitur ut et omnia, quae per carnem Christi gesta sunt, mendacio gesta sint.— Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. 4): Ei pavtacia nv f evav8pamnotc, oavtacia Kat 1] cwtnpia.
Church Fathers correctly understood the cited passages. He himself says to Rom. 8:3: Non dicit apostolus simpliciter, quod miserit Deus Filium in_similitudine camis, sed quod miserit eum in similitudine carnis peccati, id est, peccato obnoxiae. Sensus igitur est, quod caro Christi similis quidem fuerit carni peccatrici, non tamen peccatrix fuerit; vox enim ojoi@patoc non ad carnem, sed ad determinationem adjectam ts apaptiac pertinet, nec excludit naturae humanae veritatem, sed peccati foeditatem, unde in fine versiculi pro ev ouoimpatt oapKoc ponitur ev capKi. — Philippi to Rom. 8:3: "Christ did not appear ev capki apaptiac, which is the Ebionite, nor €v OLoO1lMpLaTL OapKOdc, which is the doctrinal, but ev OLo1lmpLaTtt capKds apLaptiac, which is the biblical Pauline view. Lapé is here obviously the whole human nature, like Joh. 1:14 etc. according to body and soul... Christ now could well ev oapki, but not €v capKi nature also includes the fact that he is a creature. When Schwenkfeld denied this, he was countered with the declaration at the convent in Schmalkalden in 1537: Improbamus Svencfeldii delirium et dicimus, humanam naturam in Christo et manere et esse creaturam, ut Johannes inquit: "Verbum caro factum est." [We reject the delusion of Schwenkfeld and say that the human nature in Christ both remains and is a creature, as John says: The Word became flesh.] In short, apaptiac, because he had to be ywpic Guaptiac, Hebr. 4:15 etc., in order to be qualified to katakpivetv Thy apaptiav ev tT capKi". — Gerhard to Phil. 2:7: Mlud oxnua. non opponitur veritati sive substantiae carnis, sed subsecutae glorificationi.... Apostolo enim non fuit propositum docere, qualis fuerit humana natura Christi ratione essentiae, sed qualem se Christus in externa conversatione durante exinanitionis statu gesserit. [Google] Joh. 6:41 refers according to the context from Christ not to the human but to the divine nature. Gerhard: Descriptiones divinae naturae non sunt opponendae veritati humanae naturae. Ergo ex eo, quod Christus dicitur descendisse de coelo, Ioh. 3:13, Filius hominis de coelo, Ioh. 6:62, non probatur, quod corpus sidereum ac coeleste in uterum virginis intulerit, sed quod 6 Aoyog carnem assumserit. [Google] (1. c., § 90.) — Trefflich puts negative and positive Ag. Hunnius explains, both negatively and positively, how the coming of Christ from heaven is to be understood according to Scripture: Primo, non ita descendit Filius Dei de coelo, ut naturam suam humanam sive carnem de coelo detulerit, sicut Valentiniani somniarunt. Your new sic intelligence is descensus, as it were Adyos, juxta suam divinitatem, instante jam tempore illo incarnationis, the summo aliquo coelo motu locali vel descenderit vel devolarit et in uterum virginis se immiserit, ut ibi carnem assumeret. Etenim doyos, ratione Suae essentiae infinitus et cum Patre et Spiritu Sancto essentialiter coelum et terram implens, de loco in locum moveri et transferri nulla ratione potest. Quemadmodum etiam, ut homo fieret, tali descensu e supremo aliquo coeli loco in infimum non indiguit, cum et ante incarnationem essentialiter in Maria, sicut et in caeteris creaturis omnibus, fuerit et, ubicunque Adyos est, ibidem coelum suum regnumque coeleste secum habeat, sed hoc tantum ad illam évodpxwovw opus ei fuit, ut qui ante et extra incarnationem praesentissimus erat Mariae virgini, nunc in incarnatione humanam ex ea naturam assumeret sibique in personae unitatem inseparabiliter copularet. Tertio igitur, Filius eodem plane modo de coelo descendit, quo Joh. 16 a Patre exiisse scribitur, non certe, quod Adyos ratione divinitatis unquam vel Patrem deseruerit, residing in cujus sinu perpetuo, sicut inquit Philippo: "Non credis, quod Pater in me est et ego in Patre",; nec quod doyog divinitate sua coelum unquam deseruerit aut ab administratione coeli ad tempus recesserit, sed quemadmodum Deus ipse Gen. 11:5; Exod. 19 and aliis in locis Scripturae descendere dicitur de coelo non deserendo locum, a quo nunquam essentia sua recedit, sed visibili aliquo et conspicuo signo seu revelatione in terris sese manifestando: sic Dei Filius de coelo in terras descendit, eum in terris humanam naturam assumit et in ea se manifestat, 1 Tim. 3 (Libelli quatuor de pers. Christ, 1590, p. 24 sq.. Quoted in Baier, ed. W., II, 23.)
Symbolics, p. 322]. the Christian Church has recorded, on the basis of Scripture, from all beginnings and at all times, as the true Godhead, so also the true, perfect humanity of Christ. °!’ The sentence of the Chalcedonian that Christ, according to his divine nature, is the Father 6,000010¢ and, according to human nature, is us human beings 6poovoto., only gives the clear teaching of Scripture. It is in the nature of things that in this provision 6uoobot0g designates in relation to the Father the essential unit according to number (secundum numerum) and in relation to human beings the essential unit only according to kind (secundum speciem). The divine being exists only once, while the human being exists in as many copies as there are persons. ° In order to point to the_practical importance of the true Godhead and true humanity of Christ for the work of salvation, Church teachers often add here the particular question: "Why did Christ have to be both true God and true man? The answer is the same
Christ is both God and man was a component of the church's common conviction, namely that his true Godhead and his true humanity were considered equally necessary for the completion of the work of redemption. Both the true Godhead and true humanity are expressed in the second article of the Apostolic and Nicene Creeds through the predicates attached to Christ. The Chalcedonense, with particular reference to the previous disputes, confesses Christ as TéAgtov tov avtov év YeotNTL Kal yopic Tov avtov év &v8pwandtntt, Gedv GANDaS Kai dv8pamov TEAELOV'WS TOV AVTOV EK YOYNS AOyIKN S Ka G@pLATOc, OLoobotov TO TATpPI KATE THV GEdtNTA, Kat OLOOVOLOV TOV ALTOV Hiv KAT THY GVGpOTOTHTA, KATE TAVTA SpOLOV Hpiv Hutv yopic apaptiac. [perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, truly God and tndy man, of a reasonable soul and body, consubstantial with Iis Father as touching His Godhead and consubstantial with us as to His manhood, in all things like unto us. without sin.] The Athanasian Creed states: Est ergo fides recta, ut credamus et confiteamur, quod Dominus noster Iesus Christus Dei Filius, Deus et homo est: Deus ex substantia Patris ante saecula genitus, et homo ex substantia matris in saeculo natus; perfectus Deus, perfectus homo ex anima rationali et humana carne subsistens. [Google] Luther in the explanation to the second article: "I believe that Jesus Christ, true God, begotten of the Father from eternity, and also true Man, born of the Virgin Mary, is my Lord, who has redeemed me, a lost and condemned creature," etc.
essentiae tantum secundum speciem, et hoc sensu Christus secundum humanam naturam nobis est ouoovotoc, - et oumoovoiay, quatenus notat unitatem essentiae secundum numerum, et hoc sensu secundum divinam naturam Patri est 6oobo10¢, nobis vero secundum humanam naturam non est ofoobotoc. [Google] (Syst. I, 178.) as Dietrich's, with insignificant differences in wording: "He had to be a man so that he could suffer and die; but because no mere man could bear the sin of the human race together with the wrath of God and curse of the law, nor do enough for the infinite divine justice, nor overcome death, devil and hell, he also had to be true God at the same time. 75) That this answer is not a "dogmatic construction", not a too "juridical" human conception etc., but only reflects the doctrine of Scripture, was already apparent to us from the fact that Scripture bases salvation both on the true Godhead and on the true humanity of Christ ° and explicitly denies the possibility of salvation by a mere human being. *°’ More details about this can be found in the teaching on the communication of the attributes and the work of Christ. Let us recall here in advance a word of Luther: "We Christians must know this: Where God is not in the balance and gives weight, we sink with our scale. This is what I mean: Where it should not be said that God died for us, but only a man, then we are lost. But if God's death and God died in the scale of the balance, then he (Christ) sinks, and we (we human beings) go up as a light, empty scale. But he can also go up again or jump out of his bowl. But he could not sit in the bowl, he would have to become a man like us." © Whoever denies the necessity of a satisfactio vicaria is basically indifferent to both the true divinity and the true humanity of Christ. The Son of Man. The term "Son of Man" (6 v16c tov GvSpanov) has generated a large amount of literature, and the "theological studies" on it have produced very different results. This should not have been the case, since it is precisely through this expression that we have an explicit statement by Christ himself,
ed. Dieckhoff, Berolini 1864, p. 289. Gerhard, L. de pers, § 41. Synodical Catechism (St. L. 1906, S. 81 f.): Why was it necessary that our Redeemer should be true man? That He might be capable of fulfilling the Law, of suffering and dying, as all men’s Substitute, Hebr. 2:14. Why was it necessary that He should be true God? That He might be sufficient to appease the wrath of God and to overcome sin, death, and the devil.
Matt. 16:13-17. At this point Christ, as already mentioned above, holds a catechesis with His disciples about the term 6 vidc tov Gv8pamov and, rejecting the wrong terms (John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the Prophets), states the right term to be vidg tov av$pamov is vidc tov Seov Tov Cavtoc [the Son of the living God’] (v. 16). The Son of Man is thus the wonderful offspring of the human race, in which the Son of God became man. The predicates which Scripture otherwise assigns to the Son of Man as a subject lead to the same concept. We find, in fact, that Scripture speaks of the Son of Man as a subject in the whole range of human predicates on the one hand, and in the whole range of divine predicates on the other. The Son of Man is poor, eats and drinks,® is reviled, suffers and dies.??) On the other hand, the Son of Man sees the thoughts of the heart,! forgives the sins,'° is the.Lord of the Sabbath, ' sits at the right hand of God as ruler of the universe,!°) comes again in divine glory to judge the living and the dead.
flower of mankind", nor a similar mere man, but the unique, wonderful man in whom the Son of God appeared in the flesh to destroy the works of the devil.!°) Expression and cause are already given in the Old Testament.!°° Peculiarities of Christ's Human Nature. In spite of the equality of nature with men, Christ's human nature has its peculiarities, to which Scripture very emphatically points.