Gerhard defines the third genus of the communication of attributes as “that by which in official acts each nature performs what is peculiar to itself, with the participation, however, of the other.” 1 Cor. 15, 3; Gal. 1, 4; Eph. 5, 2. The supreme importance of this genus becomes apparent when we consider that Christ could accomplish His work of redemption only because in Him the divine and the human nature were joined together.
Chemnitz writes very aptly on this matter: “This union of the kingship and priesthood of the Messiah was made in the interest of the work of redemption for our sake and for the sake of our salvation. But as redemption had to be made by means of suffering and death, there was need of a human nature. So it pleased God that for our comfort, in the offices of the kingship, priesthood, and lordship of Christ, our assumed nature should also be employed and thus the official acts (άποτελέοματα) of Christ’s offices should be accomplished in, with, and through both.” (Doctr . Theol., p. 337.)
The special treatment of this genus has been rendered necessary by the antithesis of the Reformed, who teach that both natures in the work of redemption acted their parts alone, each without participation of the other. Similarly they claim that the human nature of Christ contributed to the miracles only as a mere or passive instrument (instrumentum άεργον); that it contributed no more to them than did the hem of the garment which the woman touched, Matt. 9, 20; or than did the human nature of the apostles. Acts 3, 6, or the rod of Aaron, Ex. 8,16. Calvin called the merit of Christ directly the merit of a man and thus excluded the divine nature from the active acquisition of salvation for men. This is in full accord with the Reformed view according to which the communication of the official acts of Christ (άποτελέοματα) cannot be referred to the communicatio idiomatum. Practically this means that the human nature of Christ must be excluded from all works of our Savior which involve divine omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. Again, they aver that the omnipresence of Christ in His Church, Eph. 1, 20—23; 4,10, pertains not to His human nature, but to the divine nature exclusively, so that Christ’s human nature is no more present with the Church than is that of Abraham or Paul in glory. For this reason it has become necessary to treat the third genus of the communication of attributes with special emphasis.
By the term official acts ((άποτελέοματα) we understand all functions which Christ as the Savior of all men performed in the state of humiliation and still performs in His state of exaltation, such as dying for the sins of the world, destroying the works of the devil, being present with, and ruling and protecting, His Church, etc. The Scripture-passages which predicate these official works may be grouped as follows: a) such as describe Christ’s official functions by a concrete term (nomen officii concretum), as Savior, Mediator, Prophet, King, High Priest, etc.; b) such as describe particular official acts of Christ, as, for example, to bear the sins of the world, John 1, 29; to die for the sins of the world, 1 Cor. 15, 3; to give Himself for our sins, Gal. 1, 4; to give Himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God, Eph. 5, 2; to destroy the works of the devil, 1 John 3, 8; to bruise the Serpent’s head, Gen. 3,15.
If the question is asked according to which nature Christ performed His official functions for the salvation of the world, we reply on the basis of Scripture: No matter whether, in the particular passages of Holy Writ which predicate the άποτελέοματα, the Savior is described according to both natures (1 Tim. 1, 15. Christ Jesus) or according to one nature only, either the divine (Acts 20, 28: God) or the human (Matt. 18, 11: Son of Man), the works of His office are always performed by the entire person according to both natures, inasmuch as each nature contributes that which is proper to it and thus acts in communion with, or with the participation of, the other. (Αποτελέοματα sunt operationes deavdQixai.)
This is the true Scripture doctrine, which also the ancient Church believed and confessed. Athanasius writes: “God the Word, having been united with man, performs miracles, not apart from the human nature; on the contrary, it has pleased Him to work His divine power through it and in it and with it.” (Catalog of Testimonies. Triglot, p. 1141.) And Leo the Great: “Each nature does what is peculiar to it in communion with the other, namely, the Word working what belongs to the Word the Son of God and the flesh executing what belongs to the flesh.” (Ibid., p. 1109.)
It is true, Christ indeed suffered and died according to His human nature, yet by virtue of the personal union the divine nature participated in the suffering and death of the human nature; for the human nature was always united with the divine nature, and from this union the holy, vicarious Passion of our Savior received its redemptive value. So Gerhard declares: “The sufferings and bloody death of Christ would have been without a saving result if the divine nature had not added a price of infinite value to the sufferings and death which He endured for us.” (Doctr. Theol., p. 336.) And Chemnitz: “If the redemption, atonement, etc., could have been accomplished by the divine nature alone or by the human nature alone, the λόγος would have descended in vain from heaven for us men and for our salvation and become incarnate.” (Ibid.)
Gerhard is indeed right when, commenting on 1 John 3, 8, he remarks: “The Son of God assumed human nature for the very purpose that in, with, and through it He might accomplish the work of redemption and the several functions of His mediatorial office.”
It is for the reason just stated that the third genus must be maintained in its Scriptural purity; for upon it rests the entire comfort which the Gospel of reconciliation proclaims to lost and fallen man. Those who deny this genus rob the Christian believer of the sweetest comfort which he has, namely, of the Gospel truth that “the blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanseth us from all sin,” 1 John 1, 7.
Fortunately the opponents of the genus apotelesmaticum do not draw the conclusions which their false premises really suggest, but by a strange, yet fortunate, inconsistency retract in practise what they maintain in theory. Hodge, e. g., says at one place: “A soul which is omniscient ... is not a human soul. The Christ of the Bible and of the human heart is lost if this doctrine be true . . . ; omniscience is not an attribute of which a creature can be made the organ”; but at another place: “Such expressions as Dei mors, Dei passio, Dei sanguis, have the sanction of Scriptural as well as Church usage. It follows from this that the satisfaction of Christ has ail the value which belongs to the obedience and sufferings of the eternal Son of God, and His righteousness, as well active as passive, is infinitely meritorious.” (Syst. Theol., II, 416. 168.) It is this very truth which the Lutherans mean to emphasize by their doctrine of the genus apotelesmaticum.