THE SECOND GENUS.

For further explanation of the genus maiestaticum we add the following: — notea. We must distinguish between the possession (κτῆσις) and the use (χοῆσις) of the divine attributes communicated to the human nature. So far as the possession is concerned, the divine properties were communicated to the human nature at one and the same time, namely, at the very moment or act of unition (conception), so that even the infant Jesus was in possession of the entire divine majesty and glory, John 1, 14; Luke 1, 35. Yet Christ refrained from the full use of His imparted majesty during the state of humiliation, though rays of divine omnipotence, omniscience, etc., frequently manifested themselves, John 12, 28; Matt. 3,17; John 14,11; 11,43f.; Matt. 17, 2ff. The full and constant exercise of the communicated majesty did not begin until His exaltation to the right hand of God, Eph. 1, 23; 4, 10; Phil. 2, 9 ff.b. Reciprocation, which indeed has a place in the first genus, does not occur in the genus maiestaticum; for there cannot be a humiliation, emptying, or lessening of the divine nature (ταπείνωσις, κένωσις, ἐλάττωσις), as there is an advancement, or exaltation (βελτίωσις, ὑπερύψωσις), of the human nature. The divine nature is unchangeable and therefore cannot be perfected or diminished, exalted or humiliated. The promotion therefore belongs to the nature that is assumed, not to that which assumes. (Quenstedt.)Our Lutheran Confessions therefore reject the so-called fourth genus (genus ταπεινωτικόν), by which Christ according to His divine nature had laid aside and abandoned in His state of humiliation “all power in heaven and earth.” (Cf. Formula of Concord, Epit., VIII, 39.) Our Confessions rightly point out that by this “blasphemous perversion” “the way is prepared for the accursed Arian heresy, so that finally the eternal deity of Christ is denied and thus Christ and with Him our salvation are entirely lost.” (Cf. the error of kenoticism.)c. The human nature of Christ, in addition to its essential properties, possessed also more excellent finite gifts than sinful mortals have; these must be ascribed to it because of its perfection and sinlessness, Luke 2, 47. 52. However, in addition to these gifts “truly divine, uncreated, infinite, and immeasurable gifts,” or “all the divine attributes” of the divine nature were imparted to Christ according to His human nature through the personal union, Col. 2, 3. 9, for full and external exercise in and after His exaltation, Phil. 2, 9 ff.d. Since the divine nature communicated to the human nature its own attributes, we ascribe the divine idiomata to Christ according to both His divine and His human nature. But to the divine nature we ascribe them essentially, or as inherently belonging to this nature, while to the human nature we ascribe them by way of communication (per communicationem). So Scripture speaks: “The fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Christ,” Col. 2, 9, and so we avoid the error that the communication occurred through “an essential or natural infusion of the properties of the divine nature into the human.” This error our Confessions condemn, declaring: “In no way is conversion, confusion, or equalization of the natures in Christ or of their essential attributes to be maintained or admitted.” (Formula of Concord, Art.VIII, 62 ff.)

Details about the individual divine properties

On account of the controversies on this matter it is necessary to consider in detail the individual divine properties which according to Scripture were communicated to the human nature.

a. Omniscience

a. Omniscience. According to John 3, 34, the Spirit was given to the human nature of Christ without measure (οὐκ ἐκ μέτρου). Since the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of wisdom and knowledge, Is. 11,2; 1 Cor. 2,10. 11, Christ according to His human nature therefore received infinite divine wisdom and knowledge. Hence we distinguish in Christ a twofold knowledge, namely, the infinite divine knowledge which the divine nature communicated to the human nature through the personal union (actus personalis) and the knowledge which the human nature possessed as natural and essential (actus naturalis). The first is infinite knowledge, or omniscience (divina omniscientia); the second, finite knowledge, capable of growth (scientia naturalis, habitualis, experimentalis). It is the latter knowledge of which the evangelist speaks; Luke 2, 52: “Jesus increased in wisdom.” The infinite, divine knowledge which was communicated to Christ’s human nature is attested in Col. 2, 3.The passage Mark 13, 32 does not deny the communication of infinite, divine knowledge to the human nature, but rather describes the incarnate Christ in His state of humiliation when He abstained from the full use of His communicated attributes. Christ according to His human nature employed His communicated divine gifts only as these were necessary for His redemptive work. The redemption of sinful man, however, did not require the promulgation of the time and hour when the day of Judgment should take place. If the Reformed object that it is impossible to conceive of the communicated, divine knowledge as partly quiescent (actus primus) and partly operative (actus secundus), we remind them of the fact that the human mind is incapable of understanding the “mystery of godliness,” 1 Tim. 3,16, either in whole or in part. Nevertheless the relation between Christ’s operative and inoperative knowledge may be somewhat illustrated by the human soul, which during sleep knows and yet does not know. Both the Reformed and the papists, who deny the communication of divine knowledge to Christ’s human nature, must be regarded as errorists on this point (Agnoetae), since they affirm that the Son of Man, even in His state of exaltation, is ignorant of many things.

b. Omnipotence

b. Omnipotence. That Christ according to His human nature received divine omnipotence is a truth clearly taught in Scripture, Dan. 7, 13. 14; Matt. 28, 18; Heb. 2, 8. Even in His state of humiliation He was endowed with almighty power, Matt. 11, 27; John 13, 3; 3, 35; Is. 9, 6 ff., so that He could heal the sick, Matt. 4, 23; Mark 1, 34; Luke 4,40, cast out devils, Luke 4, 41; 11, 14, raise the dead, John 5, 21; 12, 1, and, in short, perform all miracles which according to prophecy the divine Messiah was to accomplish, Is. 35, 4—6; 61, 1. 2; Luke 4, 17—21; Matt. 11, 4—6.That Christ possessed divine omnipotence also according to His human nature is proved especially by those passages which expressly declare that this divine property was given to Him as the Son of Man, John 5, 26. 27; Matt. 16, 27; Luke 22, 69; Dan. 7, 13. 14; Col. 2, 9. Hence the Son of Man performed His miracles not as a mere agent, acting in the name of His Father (instrumentum ἄεργον), but by His own power (instrumentum σύνεργον), as Scripture expressly points out, John 2,11; 6, 51—58.With respect to the passages which state that divine properties were given to Christ in time, John 5, 26. 27; 13, 3; Matt. 11, 27; 28,18, the canon of the ancient Christian Church obtains: “Whatever Christ received in time He received according to His human nature, not according to the divine.” In other words, they refer not to His eternal generation, but to His incarnation. “Whatever Scripture says that the Word received in time ... it says on account of His humanity and not on account of His divinity ." (Athanasius. Triglot, p. 1117.)Besides the infinite, divine power which Christ received according to His human nature, He, in His state of humiliation, possessed also finite, or limited, power, since to make His redemptive work possible. He did not always and fully exercise the divine prerogatives communicated to His human nature, 2 Cor. 8, 9; John 10,17.18; Phil. 2, 6—8. Only in this way could He “increase in wisdom,” Luke 2, 52, and suffer and die, Phil. 2,8; though even in the state of humiliation He did not always conceal His divine power, John 11, 40—44. The emphatic opposition which the Reformed theologians offer to the Scriptural doctrine of Christ’s communicated omnipotence is evident from the statement of Hodge: “The human nature of Christ is no more omniscient or almighty than the worker of a miracle is omnipotent.” (Syst . Theol., II, 417.)

c. Omnipresence

c. Omnipresence. As Holy Scripture ascribes to Christ’s human nature omniscience and omnipotence, so it ascribes to it also omnipresence, Matt. 28, 18—20; Eph. 1, 20—23; 4, 10. The omnipresence of Christ’s human nature, however, is taught also John 1, 14 and Col. 2, 9; for these passages declare that wherever, after the incarnation, the Xoyog is present, He is present as the λόγος ἔνσαρκος (Filius Dei incarnatus). (Neque λόγος extra carnem, neque caro extra λόγον.)Our dogmaticians, on the basis of Scripture, very emphatically reject the so-called extra illud Calvinisticum, according to which the λόγος so united Himself with human nature that He indeed altogether inhabits it, yet at the same time, because He is immense and infinite, exists and works also altogether outside the human nature. The extra Calvinisticum is not only unscriptural, but also self-contradictory.While the Reformed regard the whole doctrine of the communication of attributes as preposterous, they condemn in particular the Scriptural truth of Christ’s communicated omnipresence as a monstrous figment (monstrosum figmentum) or a monster of impiety (impium monstrum). (Cp. Pieper, Christliche Dogmatik, II, 183 ff.) Denying the personal presence of Christ’s human nature, they affirm a presence only of its efficacy, and they charge their Lutheran opponents with teaching the nonsensical view of ubiquity, or of the local extension of the human nature, though the Lutheran theologians have always rejected this as a puerile fancy; for they explain the omnipresence of Christ’s human nature not by way of local extension, but by way of His illocal, supernatural mode of presence.All the arguments of the Reformed against Christ’s omnipresence which are based upon Christ’s ascension into heaven, His sitting at the right hand, His second advent, etc., as if these acts presupposed a mere local presence, rest upon a childish conception of God and heavenly matters. Equally groundless is the argument that every real body must always be contained in space, so that Christ’s human nature must be viewed as always occupying space. The universe certainly is a created material body; yet it is not in space, but in God, Acts 17, 28.As the human nature received divine omniscience and omnipotence in the first moment of the personal union, so also divine omnipresence. This does not mean that the human nature through the personal union lost its natural properties in such a manner that the body of Christ ceased to be at any particular place; for the omnipresence of the human nature was not “physical, diffusive, expansive, gross, local, corporeal, and divisible,” but divine and supernatural. Our dogmaticians Tightly distinguish between Christ’s simple omnipresence (nuda adessentia, praesentia partialis, άδιαατααία) and His triumphant omnipresence (omnipraesentia totalis, omnipraesentia modificata), which is always connected with divine dominion. The first mode Christ possessed in the state of humiliation, John 1, 14; Col. 2, 9; John 3, 13, since after the incarnation the λόγος is never outside the flesh. The latter mode Christ possesses since His exaltation, Eph. 1, 20—23; 4, 10.Besides the divine omnipresence, which was communicated to it through the personal union (actus personalis, praesentia illocalis, supernaturalis, repletiva), the human nature of Christ, in His state of humiliation, possessed also a local mode of presence (actus naturalis, praesentia localis), Luke 2, 12.On the basis of Holy Scripture our dogmaticians thus ascribe to the human nature of Christ three modes of presence, namely, a) praesentia localis, praesentia circumscriptiva, b) praesentia illocalis, praesentia definitiva, John 20, 19, and c) praesentia repletiva, divina, supernaturalis, Eph. 1, 23; 4, 10. (Cf. Ohristl. Dogmatik, II, 195 ff.) To these modes of presence may be added the praesentia sacramentalis, according to which Christ’s body is truly present in the Lord’s Supper, Matt. 26, 26.The “sitting at the right hand of God” must not be referred to a “circumscribed or physical locality,” since, as Gerhard rightly comments, “the right hand of God is not a bodily, circumscribed, limited, definite place, but the infinite power of God and His most efficacious majesty in heaven and earth, or the most efficacious dominion by which God preserves and governs all things,” Ps. 18, 35; 44, 3; 108, 6; 63, 8, etc. So also Hollaz writes: “To sit at God’s right hand means, by virtue of the personal union and the exaltation following this, to govern all the works of God’s hands most powerfully, most efficaciously, and most gloriously, 1 Cor. 15, 25-27; Ps. 110, 1. 2; Heb. 2, 7. 8.” (Cp. Doctr. Theol., p. 403 ff.)

d. Adoration

d. Adoration. As Holy Scripture ascribes to Christ according to His human nature divine majesty and glory, Col. 2, 9, so it ascribes to Him also divine adoration, John 5, 20—23; Phil. 2, 9—11; Rev. 5, 9. 10. The Reformed and papists, who deny adoration to Christ’s human nature on the basis of Is. 42, 8; Jer. 17, 5, show by this denial that in spite of their statements to the contrary they hold the Nestorian doctrine, separate the two natures in Christ, and deny the mystery of the Incarnation (personal union). All who rightly teach the personal union never regard the human nature as separate from, but always as united with, the divine nature in the one, indivisible person of Christ, so that he who adores the divine nature at the same time adores the human nature, or the incarnate Christ.The question has been debated whether, in connection with the second genus, such abstract expressions as “The human nature of Christ is quickening” or “The human nature is almighty,” etc., should not be replaced by the concrete expression “Christ is quickening” or “The Son of Man is almighty,” since the former may mislead the untrained to believe that the human nature apart from the personal union (in abstracto reali) is endowed with such power or that the human nature possesses divine omnipotence as a special gift apart from the omnipotence of the divine nature.Such misunderstandings must certainly be corrected; however, the use of these expressions should not be condemned, since Scripture itself employs them, John 6,51; 1 John 1,7. In addition, they most emphatically affirm the doctrine of the communication of attributes, or the Scriptural truth that in Christ the two natures, with all their attributes, are most intimately united, not only the so-called operative (attributa operativa, ένεργητιχά), as omnipotence, omniscience, but also the quiescent (attributa quiescentia, άνενέργητa), as eternity, infinity, immensity. Col. 2, 9; John 1,14, etc.Luther writes on this point: “According to the other, the temporal, human birth, also the eternal power of God has been given Him; however, in time and not from eternity. For the humanity of Christ has not been from eternity like the divinity; but as we reckon and write, Jesus, the Son of Mary, is 1543 years old this year. But from the instant when divinity and humanity were united in one person, the man, the Son of Mary, is, and is called, almighty, eternal God, who has eternal might and has created and sustains all things per communicationem idiomatum for the reason that He is one person with the divinity and is also true God.” (Formula of Concord, Thor. Decl., VIII, 85.)It must be noted, however, that Scripture, though it ascribes to the human nature the “fulness of the Godhead,” Col. 2,9, never predicates directly of Christ’s human nature the quiescent attributes (eternity, immensity, infinity), but only the operative attributes (omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, etc.). The reason for this our dogmaticians give as follows: In spite of the personal union the divine properties remain the essential attributes of the divine nature and never become the essential attributes of the human nature by transfusion. But they are predicated of the human nature in so far as they become active in the human nature as in the body of Christ (the human nature quickens, executes Judgment, etc.). Hence we ascribe divine omnipotence to the human nature not as an essential attribute, but in so far as the Son of God exerts His divine omnipotence in His human nature, which through the personal union is united with His divine nature. On the other hand, those divine properties which within the divine essence remain quiescent and do not exert themselves ad extra cannot be predicated directly of the human nature.

Objection of the Reformed

To the objection of the Reformed that, unless all divine attributes may be predicated of the human nature, none whatever can be ascribed to it, we reply: —a. Also in this matter we adhere strictly to Scripture, which indeed ascribes to the human nature of Christ divine omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, but not eternity, infinity, immensity, etc. For this reason the “either-or” of the Reformed must be rejected as anti-Scriptural.b. But this rationalistic “either-or” is also unreasonable; just as unreasonable indeed as if one would argue: “If the human body, through its union with the soul, is endowed with life, it must likewise become immaterial. But since it does not become immaterial, it does not become alive.” Now, as the soul imparts life to the body (an operative attribute), but not immateriality (an inoperative attribute), just so according to Scripture the divine nature of Christ directly exerts in the human nature its operative, but not its quiescent attributes.Yet Christ’s quiescent attributes are not entirely excluded from His theanthropic activity; for they are exerted ad extra through the operative attributes. As God made the world in time through His eternal and immense omnipotence, so also Christ raised Lazarus from the dead by the infinite power of His eternal Godhead.Moreover, Scripture expressly describes the omnipotence which was communicated to the Son of Man as infinite. Dan. 7, 14: “And there was given Him dominion and glory. . . . His dominion is an everlasting dominion.” In this passage the quiescent attribute of eternity is clearly predicated of Christ’s human nature; for the glory which the Son of Man received is everlasting. So also, according to John 17, 5, Christ was glorified with eternal glory; for His human nature, as He says Himself, received the same glory which He, as the preexistent λόγος, had before the world was. (Cp. Formula of Concord, VIII, 48 ff.)

Overview chap. 12 a