The reason why a detailed proof of Christ’s true humanity has become necessary is that errorists have denied Christ’s true human nature either a) altogether (Docetae: Christ’s body was a phantom) or b) in part, by denying His human soul (Arians: The λόγος took the place of His human soul), or His human spirit (Apollinaris: The λόγος took the place of the γοῦς), or His human will (Monothelitism), or His true human birth (Gnostics, Valentinus: The body of Christ was of celestial origin). Christ without a human nature could be the Savior of the world as little as a Christ without a divine nature. 1 John 1, 7: “The blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanseth us from all sin.”
Accordingly Scripture is as emphatic in predicating of Christ true humanity as it is in ascribing to Him true deity. It ascribes to Him a) human names, 1 Tim. 2, 5; John 8, 40; b) human flesh and blood consubstantial with man’s, Heb. 2,14; c) human descent, Rom. 9, 5; Matt. 1, Iff.; Luke 3, 23 ff.; Gen. 22, 18, cp. with Gal. 3,16; d) a really human, though miraculous, conception in the womb of Mary, Luke 1, 42; e) the constituent parts of a human being, John 2,21; Luke 24,39; Matt. 26, 38; Luke 23,46; 22,42; f) human emotions, Mark 3, 5; 14,34; g) human physical wants. Matt. 4, 2; John 19,28; Luke 8,23; h) human suffering and death, Matt. 27, 46; John 19, 30.
The λόγος therefore did not bring down His body from heaven, but assumed human nature in the body of Mary, so that He was true man, Luke 1, 35. All who deny the true humanity of Christ do so not because the evidence of Scripture is inadequate, but because they allow themselves to be misled by rationalistic (“The finite is not capable of the infinite”) or Pelagianistic considerations (“It was not necessary for the Son of God to become the Substitute and Redeemer of man”).
Against Pelagianism in every form we hold on the basis of Scripture that the divine Redeemer had to be true man in order that He might perform the stupendous work of redemption, Is. 53, 7—11, fulfil the divine Law in man’s place, Gal. 4, 4. 5, and atone for his sin, Is. 53, 1—6. Hence the denial of Christ’s true humanity is tantamount to the denial of His vicarious atonement, Heb. 2, 14; John 1, 14.
Christ according to His divine nature is ὁμοούσιος, consubsiantialis, with the Father; according to His human nature He is ὁμοούσιος, consubstantialis, with man, yet not secundum numerum, but secundum speciem.
The expression Son of Man which our Savior usually employed when He spoke of Himself, does not describe Christ as the “Ideal Man,” but as the unique Descendant of man, Gen. 3, 15; 26, 4; 28, 14; 2 Sam. 7, 12, in whom the Son of God became incarnate. Is. 7, 14; 9, 6. That is Christ’s own explanation of the name which He adopted as His usual designation, as this appears from Matt. 16, 13—17 (cp. v. 16: “the Christ, the Son of the living God”). Hence the “Son of Man” is the Ood~man, foretold in the Old Testament, Dan. 7, 13.14, who came to destroy the works of the devil, 1 John 3, 8, and who therefore had to be true God, Matt. 9, 2. 4. 6; 12, 8; 26, 63. 64; 25, 31 ff., and at the same time true man. Matt. 8, 20; 11, 19; 17, 12.22.23; 20, 18.19.
Though Christ is true man, consubstantial with all other men, yet His human nature is marked by certain peculiarities (proprietates individuates) that are not found in other human beings. Among these peculiarities we note: —
Christ’s supernatural conception (extraordinaria conceptio). Christ was not the son of Joseph and Mary (against the Ebionites, Modernists), but was conceived by the Holy Ghost in the womb of Mary, the virgin. Matt. 1, 18; Luke 1, 35 (conceptio miraculosa). The causa efficiens of the Son of Man was the Holy Ghost; the materia ex qua. His virgin mother, Matt. 1,20. Cp. the Apostolic Creed: Conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria virgine. If the objection is raised that an inconceivable miracle such as this would violate the “immutable laws of nature,” Scripture itself supplies an adequate answer — Luke 1, 34—37. Christ’s supernatural conception was a miracle of God’s omnipotence and grace, which we should gratefully acknowledge, Luke 1, 38.
Christ's perfect sinlessness (ἀναμαρτησία). While all other men are conceived and born in sin, Ps. 51, 5; John 3, 6; 5,12—20, the Son of Man was without sin, Is. 53, 9; John 8,46; Luke 1,35; 2 Cor. 5, 21; 1 Pet. 1,19; 2, 22, and had to be without sin to be our Savior, Heb. 7, 26. 27; 1 Pet. 1, 19. Though Scripture ascribes sin to Christ, it expressly explains that this wts imputed sin, or our sin charged to Christ, peccatum imputatum, Is. 53, 6; 2 Cor. 5, 21.
However, Scripture not only establishes the fact and necessity of Christ’s sinlessness, but also explains how it was that He was conceived and born sinless. The cause was not a) that a holy seed (massa sancta) was preserved and propagated in Israel until the Savior was born (scholastic theologians), or b) that by way of evolution Mary developed into a holy person (modern rationalistic theologians, Olshausen), or c) the immaculate conception of Mary (immaculata conceptio, proclaimed by Pope Pius IX, December 8, 1854), but the astounding fact that Mary became the mother of Christ according to His human nature through the Holy Ghost, Matt. 1,18: ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου.
In consequence of His supernatural conception Christ was free from both original sin (peccatum originate) and actual sin (pecca- tum actuate). This truth we derive from all passages that describe Christ’s absolute sinlessness, Heb. 7, 26. 27; 1 John 3, 5, as well as from those which affirm that He became man not after the order of nature (Luther: non ex came contaminata et horribiliter potluta), but through the Holy Ghost, Matt. 1,18; Luke 1, 35. Since Christ did not descend from sinful seed, He was free from hereditary corruption (corruptio hereditaria) and from hereditary guilt (culpa hereditaria; reatus peccati Adamitici), which is imputed to all men begotten of sinful flesh, John 3, 6; Rom. 5, 16. 19.
Nevertheless, though Christ’s human nature was free from sin, it was a true human nature, because sin does not belong to the essence of man (sin being an accidens). Hence Christ was indeed a true man, but one who, so far as His person was concerned, was not under the Law, but above the Law, Matt. 12, 8.
Since Christ’s human nature was received into the λόγος, we must deny that there was in Him even the possibility of sinning, John 8, 46; 1 Pet. 1, 19; the holy Savior could not sin (Christus sacerdos impeccabilis). In spite of this fact we must not regard the temptation of Christ as mere sham, but as a real temptation and suffering, which He endured for our salvation, Matt. 4, 1 ff.; Heb. 2, 18; 4, 15.
a) His immortality (ἀϑανασία); for according to Scripture, death is the wages of sin, Gen. 2, 17; 3, 17—19; Rom. 5, 12; 6, 23. Christ died of His own will and power as the Savior of men (non aliqua necessitate, sed libera voluntate), John 10, 18; 1 Cor. 15, 3. The death of the Sinless One, who Himself was immortal, was the ransom (Matt. 20, 28; 1 Tim. 2, 6) by which He purchased life for sinful mankind (λύτρον, ἀντίλυτρον). Christus mortuus est propter peccatum imputatum.
b) Greater natural gifts (singularis excellentia), such as wisdom, Luke 2, 52, because there were no disturbing and perverting effects of sin in His body. (Cp. Adam’s natural gifts before the Fall, Gen. 2, 19. 20. 23.)
Much has been said concerning Christ’s external appearance; but from Ps. 46 ,2 we must not infer extraordinary physical beauty nor from Is. 53 ,2 extraordinary deformity, since the one passage describes Christ in His beauty as Savior (Erloeserschoenheit) and the other in His deep humiliation (Leidensgestalt). The evangelists indeed picture the grace of Christ’s words, Luke 4, 22, but never any beauty of person. However, let us bear in mind that Christ in His whole state of humiliation suffered the consequences of our sins, so that He always appeared in the form of a servant (μορφὴ δούλου) and in the likeness of men (ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνϑρώπω), Phil. 2, 7; Rom. 8, 3. His bodily appearance therefore was not like that of man before the Fall, but rather like that of fallen and sinful man (ἐν ὅμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας). Similitudo . . . propter assumptas infirmitates peccatrix visa est.
With respect to the human infirmities which Jesus suffered. Scripture shows that He indeed endured the common, or general, infirmities of men (infirmitates communes), such as hunger, thirst, weariness, sorrow, etc., but not the personal infirmities (infirmitates personales), such as personal illness, blindness, or any other personal defect; for of these not one instance is recorded.
c) The impersonality of Christ's human nature (ἀνυπσοστασία, ἐνυποστασία). Among the peculiarities of Christ’s human nature we note also its want of personality, that is to say, Christ’s human nature did not form a distinct person (carentia propriae subsistence). Christ did not consist of two persons, one divine and the other human, but in Him the divine and the human nature were united into one undivided and indivisible person, 1 Tim. 2, 5. Humana Christi natura non habet propriam subsistentiam, per- sonalitatem, ὑπόστασιν.
This fact follows from the peculiar mode of the incarnation (modus incamationis). For when the Son of God became incarnate, He did not assume a human person, but only human nature; in other words, the human nature was received into the person of the loyoe. Gal. 4,4. 6; John 1,14; Heb. 2, 14. Accordingly we predicate of Christ’s human nature negatively ἀνυποστασία, or the Scriptural truth that it possesses no personality of its own; positively we predicate of Christ’s human nature ἐνυπσοσστασία, or the Scriptural truth that the human nature of Christ subsists in the λόγος (subsistentia humanae naturae in divina natura τοῦ λόγου).
If the objection is raised against this doctrine that the term Son of Man is just as much a designation of a person as is the term Son of God and that therefore the human nature of Christ must be regarded as a distinct person, we reply that this conclusion does not hold, since these terms do not designate two different persons, but only one and the same person, who at the same time is both God and man, Matt. 16, 13—17. In the person of Christ there are ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο, but not ἄλλος καὶ ἄλλος. Of all other men the axiom holds: Quot humanae naturae, tot personae humanae; but this axiom is not applicable to Christ, because the Logos assumed human nature into His divine person, Col. 2, 9.
Modern rationalistic theology, which has surrendered the Scriptural doctrine of the impersonality of Christ’s human nature, must consequently surrender also the doctrine of the incarnation, since this consisted essentially in the act that the Son of God received into His divine person human nature, so that from the very moment when His human nature was created (productio) it was also united (unitio) with the λόγος, Luke 1, 43. Ἅμα σάρξ, ἅμα λόγου σάρξ.
As modem rationalistic theology denies the incarnation, so it affirms that the two natures in Christ gradually grew into each other, or coalesced, and that in this way the union (unitio) of the two natures was effected. However, Scripture does not teach a uni- tion of the two natures in Christ by coalescence, but a unition by incarnation, John 1,14. If modern theology objects to this doctrine on the ground that the unition of the Son of God with an embryo cannot be regarded as worthy of God, we answer that this “unworthy conception of God” is clearly stated in Scripture, Luke 1, 35. Again, if it objects that an intimate union such as the incarnation presupposes is unthinkable, we reply that Scripture itself describes the incarnation as a “mystery of godliness,” which is “without controversy great,” 1 Tim. 3, 16.
In order to emphasize the truth that the Son of God indeed assumed human nature, but not a human person, our dogmaticians say:Deus assumpsit naturam humanam, or humanitatem; but not: Deus assumpsit hominem. In view of the fact that modern rationalistic theology has changed the doctrine of the two natures . (Zweinaturenlehre) into a doctrine of two persons, this distinction is very important. — The more extreme type of modern theology regards Christ as a mere man, in whom God revealed Himself in a higher degree than in an ordinary man (Ritschl; Modernism); in other words, the difference between Christ and all other men is only one of degree, not of kind.