3. The Impersonality of Christ's Human Nature.
evvmootacid). A peculiarity of the human nature of Christ is that it does not form a person in its own right. Otherwise, every human nature also forms a separate person in its own right. But the human nature of Christ was from the very first moment of its existence received into the person of the Son of God and thus has not existed for a moment as a person in its own right. This results from the way in which the Son of God became man (modus incarnationis). Scripture teaches not only in general terms the fact of the Incarnation, 6 Adyos otp& éyéveto!® by accepting the flesh and blood of the children of men, petéoye tov avteav, scil. capKdcs kai Kai aipatoc,!? but also reports the special circumstance that the Son of God, through conception and birth of
statu naturali constitutis communes, non autem personales e causis particularibus provenientes, multo minus moraliter vitiosos defectus adscivit. Infirmitates hominum naturales communes sunt, quae omnibus hominibus post lapsum insunt, v. gr. esurire, sitire, defatigari, algere, aestuare, dolere, indignari, turbari, lacrymari: quas cum sint inculpabiles, Christus, teste sacra Scriptura, assumpsit non coacte, sed libere, non propter se, sed propter nos, rion in perpetuum, sed ad tempus, scilicet in statu exinanitionis, non autem retinuit easdem in statu exaltationis. Infirmitates personales sunt, quae a causis particularibus proficiscuntur, et vel a vitio dvvauems mAaotiKHs, sive virtutis efformativae in generante, ut phthisis, arthritis etc., vel a culpa particulari, nimirum ab ingurgitatione nimia, venere, aut aliis excessibus, ut febris, podagra, hydrops etc. vel a peculiari nemesi aut judicio divino, ut morbi familiae Toabi, 2 Sam. 3:29 etc., ortum trahunt, a sanctissima Christi humanitate longissime absunt, quippe quas assumi nec generi humano expediebat et dignitati naturae derogasset. [Google] (Exam., P. IIT, s. 1, c. 3, qu. 11.)
80] a woman, yevopevoc sk ywvatkdc,!* that is, when a little child in its mother's womb became a human being. Not only the man?" and the boy '* and the child in the manger,'*) but already the child in his mother's womb is 6 Kuptoc God the Lord,'* because already received into the Person of the Son of God.!*°) In this situation, the human nature of Christ is different from all other human natures, negatively expressed, the anhypostasis (Gvvaootacia), positively expressed, the enhanypostasis (evvtootaoia). Dorner observes that the doctrine of the impersonality of Christ's human nature has been quite generally abandoned in recent dogmatics,'*© in the interest of Christ's humanity. One finds it difficult to imagine how God and man can form one person without neglecting human nature and its development. In this way, Christ's human nature is allowed to form one person in its own right, thus saving his humanity and making room for "authentic human development". One can only call this way of eliminating the present difficulty naive. It must be admitted, however, that one gains a "truly human" Christ by allowing the human nature of Christ to form one person of its own. But that is when everything ends, that is, when the incarnation of the Son of God is abandoned. Surely there can be no talk of an incarnation of the Son of God as long as the man Christ still forms his own person, that is, as long as he is still personally separated from the Son of God. No amount of A con change this state of affairs, not even the assurance that God became active in the man Christ in a completely unique way, that the man Christ, because the obstacle of sin was not present in him, brought the will No expenditure of rhetoric can change this situation, not even the assurance that God has become active in the man Christ in a quite unique way, that the man Christ, because the obstacle of sin was not present in him, could not make the will of the Son of God more effective.
edt; 7 LNTHP Tov Kupiov Kupiov pov mpdc ps;
humanam naturam in utero beatae Mariae virginis F. C., epit., 546, 15 [FC 8, 15; Trigl. 821, 15]: Homo ille in Deum assumtus fuit, quam primum in utero matris a Spiritu Sancto est conceptus ejusque humanitas jam tum cum Filio Dei altissimi personaliter fuit unita.
of God to expression in a completely perfect way, etc. According to Scripture, the incarnation of God does not consist in the fact that God has worked uniquely in a human person existing in himself, has fully expressed his divine will etc., but in the fact that the person of the Son of God—the Son of God in the difference between the Father and the Holy Spirit has excluded a human nature into his person, Hebr. 2:14: é2é't ovv Té ma1dia KEKOLVOVIKE OUPKOG KA1 AiLAtOs, Ka AVTOs (the Son of God) mapamAnoias HETEGYE TOV AVLTOV, scil. BaPKOs Ka aipatoc. The anhypostasis, or rather the enhancements of the human nature of Christ, is thus part of the nature of the incarnation of the Son of God.!% As long as one allows the man Christ to form his own person, one teaches eo ipso that the Son of God did not become man, but is still woapkoc, that the Son of God did not come into the flesh, but remained outside the flesh, that the Son of God was not born of woman, but that Mary gave birth to a mere man (nudum et merum hominem). Thus, with reference to the Son of God, one denies all the relevant scriptural statements: 0 Adyoc o&pé éyéveto Joh. 1:14; ev oapk'i nAgev, Joh. 4:2-3; YEVOLLEVOG EK yovatkdc, Gal. 4:4; LETéoys GapKds Kat aipatos [took part of flesh and blood), Hebr. 2:14. With the assumption that the human nature of Christ had formed a person of its own, especially also with the reason that this was necessary for the protection of the humanity of Christ, one has completely entered into the realm of unity. Unitarians have always maintained that the formation of one's own personality is part of the essence of human nature. They present us with the choice of either attributing a personality of our own to the human nature of Christ or denying the true humanity of Christ. They will be quite eloquent here. They ask whether there has ever been a human nature since the beginning of the world that did not also form a personality of its own. '*8) To which
carnis vioataoic. [The formal union consists in the fact that vadotaotc tov Adyov is made flesh vadataotc.] (J. c., § 115.) The human nature of Christ is therefore to be stated: Neque est avivadotatos kat Idtoobotatoc, propriam habens subsistentiam, neque avvnootatoc, prorsus nullam habens subsistentiam; utique ergo est AVUTOOTATOS, EV avt@ To Adyw subsistens. [Google] (/. c., § 121.)
humana, nec ratio nec sacrae literae permittunt... waa id hominis dicendum, quod persona humana non sit. In omni- 82] we answer: Surely, from the beginning of the world, all human natures have formed their own persons. Quot naturae humanae, tot personae humanae. [As many as there were human natures, so many human persons] But we must not forget that in none of the millions of human natures that have existed from the beginning has the Son of God become man. This has happened only in the one human nature of Christ. Thus, if the incarnation of the Son of God in this nature is accepted as a fact in response to the witness of Scripture, it is quite natural that the human nature of Christ does not exist in itself, but reached its personality in that of the Son of God. According to Scripture, the human nature of Christ is the body of the Son of God, Col. 2:9: EV QUT KATOLKEL TAV TO TANPOLG TIS OEsdtNTOs oOMPATIKHs. But the body does not form a person in its own right. That is why the Athanasian Creed says, looking at the image used in Col. 2:9: For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ. The concern that through the enhancement of the humanity of Christ [enhypostasia], the humanity of Christ is neglected, becomes incomplete, descends to an apparent existence, does not leave room for a truly human development, etc. is quite unnecessary. The highest authority that exists relieves us of this concern. We have in the Scriptures God's Word for the fact that the human nature of Christ has not been at all diminished in its human nature by the incorporation into the person of the Son of God, because Scripture describes Christ as a true God, as well as consistently as a true, perfect human being, as has been stated in the section on "The True Humanity of Christ". In particular, as regards the "truly human development" of Christ, Scripture tells us that it is mediated by the fact that Christ, in the state of humiliation, did not make use of the divine glory given to his human nature by the personal union of his human nature, as is to be explained in more detail in the doctrine of the state of humiliation. '*°) We therefore remain with the old sentence: In Christ bus hominum individuis ab ipso orbis initio hoc verum esse apparuit, in solo Christi individuo veritas illa fefellerit? Ergo Christus saltem non erit homo, ut alii homines fuerunt, sunt et futuri erunt? Cur igitur toties homo, filius hominis et vir appellatur? (Neither reason nor the Holy Scriptures permit us to call him a man who does not constitute a human person. That must be called a monster of a man which is not a human person. Since it is clear that this is true of all human individuals from the very beginning of the world, would this truth fail in this sole individual, Christ? Would thus Christ alone not be a man as other men have been, are, and will be? Why, then, is He so often called a human being, the Son of Man, a man?’] (Examinatio 157 errorum, p. 5. 38. Gerh., 1. c., § 92.)
had according to the personal union (ratione unionis personalis), and yet He abstained from it in the state of His humiliation and on this account (qua de causa) truly increased in all wisdom and favor with God and man there is GAA0 Kat GAA, but not GAdos Kat &Aoc. 4° With this, the early church has not just put up a "hypothesis", as it has recently been expressed, but with this it wanted to and has held fast to the Incarnation of the Son of God. 4? And as far as the Church of the Reformation is concerned, the anhypostasy of Christ's human nature is not only taught by dogmatists, as has preposterously been claimed to the contrary,!‘) but is also put forward as decisively as possible in the Lutheran Confessions.!** The fact that the Lutheran confession is even believed to let Christ form a person of his own shows an almost incomprehensible
natura divina, aliud essentia sive natura humana; non autem dA)o¢ kai GAdos, quia non alius Deus, alius homo, sed unus est Seav3poinos, Deus et homo, ac proinde persona una. [Google] (J. c., § 34.)
incarnationem, quoque Domini nostri lesu Christi fideliter credat (rope. qui vult salvus esse). Est ergo fides recta, ut credamus et confiteamur, quod Dominus noster Tesus Christus Dei Eilius, Deus et homo est... Qui licet Deus sit et homo, non duo tantum, sed unus est Christus. Unus autem, non conversione divinitatis in carnem, sed assumtione humanitatis in Deum. Unus omnino, non confusione substantiae, sed unitate personae. [Google]
Entwickelung. etc., 3rd ed., p. 563.
of God, although from eternity He has been a particular, distinct, entire divine person, and thus, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, true, essential, perfect God, nevertheless, in the fulness of time assumed also human nature into the unity of His person, not in such a way that there now are two persons or two Christs, but that Christ Jesus is now in one person at the same time true, eternal God, born of the Father from eternity, and a true man, born of the most blessed Virgin Mary, as it is written Rom. 9:5: Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever. — Also F. C.. 676, 11 [Trigi. 1019, 11]: "We believe, teach, and confess also that now, since the incarnation, each nature in Christ does not so subsist of itself that each is or constitutes a separate person, but that they are so united that they constitute one single person, in which the divine and the assumed human nature are and subsist at the same time, so that now, since the incarnation, there belongs to the entire person of Christ personally, not only His divine, but also His assumed human nature; and that, as without His divinity, so also without His humanity, the person of Christ or Filii Dei incarnati (of the incarnate Son of God), that is, of the Son of God who has assumed flesh and become man, is not entire. Hence Christ is not two distinct persons, but one single Person, notwithstanding that two distinct natures are found in Him, unconfused in their natural essence and properties. lack of understanding for Lutheran and, in general, Christian doctrine. — It must also be firmly rejected that the divine and human natures of Christ have only gradually grown together into one person. '*#) Rather, the union was immediately complete, that is, human nature was drawn to the person of the Son of God from the very first moment of its existence. The creation (productio) of human nature and its union (unitio) with the Son of God are only conceptually divorced, but they coincide in time and in substance. Ana adpé, p10 AOyov Adyov acpé,!*>) Hence the expression; Deus assumpsit naturam humanam ober humanitatem is more accurate than saying: Deus assumpsit hominem, inasmuch as the latter way of speaking can lead to the erroneous thought that the human nature of Christ had already existed in its own right before its union with the Son of God. '*° Rightly do the ancient teachers declare the assumption that the human nature of Christ existed for a longer or shorter time by itself to be a Nestorian
Kromayer: Sensus huius aphorismi est, massam illam vel sanguinis guttam, ex quibus 0 Aoyos templum sibi construxit, ne ad momentum quidem per se substitisse, vel suam hypostasin peculiarem habuisse..., quod esset ipsissimus Nestorianism, humanam naturam vel ad tempus avOvadotatov faciens. Sed potius uno_actu, cum Spiritus Sanctus separaret istam massam in utero Mariae virginis, a peccati labe et tabe purgaret, defectum seminis virilis suppleret, uno, inquam, actu fuisse a Dei Filio assumtum. [Google] (Theol. did.-pol. II, 70.) The one act of productio and unitio is also described by the expressions: Incarnation, Jn 1:14; acceptance of human nature, Heb 2:14; mission to the world, Gal 4:4; coming from heaven, Jn 6:38; coming into the world, Jn 16:28; coming in the flesh, 1 Jn 4:2; appearance in the flesh, 1 Jn 3:8; 1 Tim 3:16 etc.
meant) canit: Tu ad liberandum suscepturus hominem, idem saepe facit Augustinus, cum regula, ut videtur, dicendum dictet: Tu ad liberandum suscepturus humanitatem seu humanam naturam, Luther remarks that even the orthodox have spoken and still speak in this way. Cf. Gerhard v. Bellarmin, who accused Brenz of Nestorianism because Brenz used the expression: Filius Dei assumpsit filium hominis. (1. c., § 96.) Chemnitz (De duabus nat., c. 14, f. 70): Quia persona Verbi non assumpsit personam hominis, sed naturam hominis, item, quia natura divina est assumens, humana vero natura non est assumens, sed assumpta, inde recte quidem dicitur: Deus factus est homo, non autem ita proprie dicitur: homo factus est Deus, Deus assumpsit hominem, licet veteres aliquando ita loquantur. [Google] Separation of natures. It has been objected that the personal union of the Son of God with an embryo is not possible and not appropriate. But even after naturally reasonable judgment, one must admit that this union is not in fact more objectionable than that with a child and human nature in general. And, what is more, the books are already closed on this question. As has already been mentioned earlier, Scripture tells us not only of the adult man, the twelve-year-old boy and the child already born, but also of the child in his mother's womb, that it is 6 KUptog God the Lord,'* and so teaches that the embryo was already received into the Person of the Son of God. In addition, Scripture places the fact that the Son of God also became an embryo and a small child, that is to say that he entered into all stages of development of human nature, in a causal relationship with our redemption. When the time was fulfilled, God sent his Son, not as a man grown up by himself, but YEVOLIEVOV EkyVvvalkdc (that is to say as an embryo and a small child), YEVOMEVOV VIO VOLOV, Iva TOL vx VOoLLOV_ECayopdowy.[Google] Christ per omnes aetatis nostrae gradus venit, ut immundam nostram conceptionem et nativitatem radicitus curaret.[Google] '*®) Finally, it must be pointed out that to combat the enhanypostasy of the human nature of Christ taught in Scripture on so-called scientific grounds is quite unscientific. The "scientific" reasons are ultimately reduced to the inconceivability of the fact that God and man form one I or one person without man being reduced to a sham existence. In this argument, it is tacitly presupposed as established truth that facts depend on their conceivability or comprehensibility. But the modern fighters against Enhypostasis do not seriously want to claim that this is a fixed truth. Admittedly, the facts in the field of nature and history, for example, are completely independent of their conceivability or comprehensibility. Why then should the fact, testified by God in his Word, that God's Son became man and thus God and man form one person, be dependent on their conceivability? Accordingly, all those who deny the enhypostasy of Christ's human nature with its inconceivability
85] are dealing with a completely unscientific inconsistency. '4*) This inconsistency occurs at another point. The deniers of the Enhypostasis want to teach that the human being Christ formed his own person, but that his human person was entirely carried and determined by the indwelling action of God. °° But how the human person of Christ was not neglected in this all-carrying and determining effect of God is also inconceivabile’, completely incomprehensible. So, also in this case one assumes as a fact what cannot be explained for human thinking. Generally speaking, the existence of a responsible human personality in the omnipotence of God (ev avtTd CopEev Kai kivobpEda Kai Eopev, Acts 17:28) is an incomprehensible mystery. >!) Nevertheless, we hold to the fact of human personality in the face of pagan pantheism
expresses the right principle (admittedly without consistently following it himself): "Reality does not depend on our thoughts and our possibility of thinking, but our thoughts must be determined according to that (reality). It is not our ideas that are decisive for things, as the old sophists taught, but these are decisive for those". (Christl. Glaubenslehre 1898, p. 350 f.) The "old sophists" unfortunately have many followers. All deviations from Christian doctrine are ultimately due to the fact that people make their own thoughts the measure of all things and then correct the fact of the Word of God. This is the "enthusiasm" that is instilled and poisoned by the old dragon in Adam's children, and which leads them continually from God's Word to "self-conceit. (Smalcald Art., 321, § 3 ff. [Zrigl., 495, 5]) After man has lost God as the center of his life and thought through the Fall, he ridiculously elevates himself and his thoughts to the center and measure of things. In our time this evil is particularly prevalent in the field of so-called scientific theology.
his organ — that is the last and deepest sense" (?!) "of the ancient historical tradition that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary — and he connected himself with the Man Jesus from the first moment of his existence, he worked through him and penetrated his feeling and will.... There was therefore no thought and no movement, no striving and no will in the soul of Jesus, which would not have been the affirmation and execution of the will of God which dwells in him and determines him... His life and work was the life and work of God" etc. (Grundwahrheiten 1902, p. 114 ff.) Kirn speaks of "God's absolute immanence in the man of Jesus". (Grundrif 1910, p. 106.)
Dei). [Christliche Dogmatik, vol. 1, p. 587 ff.] and determinism. There is therefore, we repeat, an unscientific inconsistency whenever one operates with the " inconceivability " against the enhypostasy of the human nature of Christ.