The Incarnation
Catholic Encyclopedia: Incarnation, The
The Incarnation
I. The Fact of the Incarnation
(1) The Divine Person of Jesus Christ A. Old Testament Proofs B. New Testament Proofs C. Witness of Tradition
(2) The Human Nature of Jesus Christ
(3) The Hypostatic Union A. The Witness of the Scriptures B. Witness of Tradition
II. The Nature of the Incarnation
(1) Nestorianism
(2) Monophysitism
(3) Monothelitism
(4) Catholicism
III. Effects of the Incarnation
(1) On Christ Himself A. On the Body of Christ B. On the Human Soul of Christ C. On the God-Man
(2) The Adoration of the Humanity of Christ
(3) Other Effects of the Incarnation
The Incarnation is the mystery and the dogma of the Word made Flesh. ln this
technical sense the word
I. THE FACT OF THE INCARNATION
The Incarnation implies three facts: (1) The Divine Person of Jesus Christ; (2) The Human Nature of Jesus Christ; (3) The Hypostatic Union of the Human with the Divine Nature in the Divine Person of Jesus Christ.
(1) THE DIVINE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST
We presuppose the historicity, of Jesus Christ,--i. e. that He was a real person of history (cf. JESUS CHRIST); the Messiahship of Jesus; the historical worth and authenticity of the Gospels and Acts; the Divine ambassadorship of Jesus Christ established thereby; the establishment of an infallible and never failing teaching body to have and to keep the deposit of revealed truth entrusted to it by the Divine ambassador, Jesus Christ; the handing down of all this deposit by tradition and of part thereof by Holy Writ; the canon and inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures--all these questions will be found treated in their proper places. Moreover, we assume that the Divine nature and Divine personality are one and inseparable (see TRINITY). The aim of this article is to prove that the historical person, Jesus Christ, is really and truly God, --i. e. has the nature of God, and is a Divine person. The Divinity of Jesus Christ is established by the Old Testament, by the New Testament and by tradition.
A. Old Testament Proofs
The Old Testament proofs of the Divinity of Jesus presuppose its testimony to Him as the Christ, the Messias (see MESSIAS). Assuming then, that Jesus is the Christ, the Messias promised in the Old Testament, from the terms of the promise it is certain that the One promised is God, is a Divine Person in the strictest sense of the word, the second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of the Father, One in nature with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Our argument is cumulative. The texts from the Old Testament have weight by themselves; taken together with their fulfilment in the New Testament, and with the testimony of Jesus and His apostles and His Church, they make up a cumulative argument in favour of the Divinity of Jesus Christ that is overwhelming in its force. The Old Testament proofs we draw from the Psalms, the Sapiential Books and the Prophets.
(a) TESTIMONY OF THE PSALMS
Psalm 2:7. "The Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee."
Here Jahweh, i. e., God of Israel, speaks to the promised Messias. So St. Paul interprets
the text (Heb., i, 5) while proving the Divinity of Jesus from the Psalms. The objection
is raised that St. Paul is here not interpreting but only accommodating Scripture. He
applies the very same words of Ps. ii, 7 to the priesthood (Heb., v, 5) and to the
resurrection (Acts, xiii, 33) of Jesus; but only in a figurative sense did the Father beget
the Messias in the priesthood and resurrection of Jesus; hence only in a figurative sense
did He beget Jesus as His Son. We answer that St. Paul speaks figuratively and
accommodates Scripture in the matter of the priesthood and resurrection but not in the
matter of the eternal generation of Jesus. The entire context of this chapter shows there
is a question of real sonship and real Divinity of Jesus. In the same verse, St. Paul
applies to Christ the words of Jahweh to David, the type of Christ: "I will be to him a
father, and he shall be to me a son". (II Kings, vii, 14.) In the following verse, Christ is
spoken of as the first-born of the Father, and as the object of the adoration of the angels;
but only God is adored: "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever. . . Thy God, O God,
hath anointed thee " (Ps. xliv, 7, 8). St. Paul refers these words to Christ as to the Son of
God (Heb., i, 9). We follow the Massoretic reading, "Thy God, O God". The Septuagint
and New Testament reading,
(b) TESTIMONY OF THE SAPIENTIAL BOOKS
So clearly do these Sapiential Books describe uncreated Wisdom as a Divine Person
distinct from the First Person, that rationalists have resort to a subterfuge and claim
that the doctrine of uncreated Wisdom was taken over by the authors of these books
from the Neo-Platonic philosophy of the Alexandrian school. It is to be noted that in
the pre-sapiential books of the Old Testament, the uncreated Logos, or
Now for the Sapiential proofs: In Ecclus., xxiv, 7, Wisdom is described as uncreated, the
"first born of the Most High before all creatures", "from the beginning and before the
World was I made" (ibid., 14). So universal was the identification of Wisdom with the
Christ, that even the Arians concurred with the Fathers therein; and strove to prove by
the word
(c) TESTIMONY OF THE PROPHETIC BOOKS
The prophets clearly state that the Messias is God. Isaias says: "God Himself will come
and will save you" (xxxv, 4); "Make ready the way of Jahweh" (xl, 3); "Lo Adonai
Jahweh will come with strength" (xl, 10). That Jahweh here is Jesus Christ is clear from
the use of the passage by St. Mark (i 3). The great prophet of Israel gives the Christ a
special and a new Divine name "His name will be called Emmanuel" (Is., vii, 14). This
new Divine name St. Matthew refers to as fulfilled in Jesus, and interprets to mean the
Divinity of Jesus. "They shall call his name Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is
God with us." (Matt., i, 23.) Also in ix, 6, Isaias calls the Messias God: "A child is born
to us . . . his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Strong One, the
Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace." Catholics explain that the very same
child is called God the Strong One (ix, 6) and Emmanuel (vii, 14); the conception of the
child is prophesied in the latter verse, the birth of the very same child is prophesied in
the former verse. The name Emmanuel (God with us) explains the name that we
translate "God the Strong One." It is uncritical and prejudiced on the part of the
rationalists to go outside of lsaias and to seek in Ezechiel (xxxii, 21) the meaning
"mightiest among heroes" for a word that everywhere else in Isaias is the name of "God
the Strong One" (see Is., x, 21). Theodotion translates literally
The other prophets are as clear as Isaias, though not so detailed, in their foretelling of the Godship of the Messias. To Jeremias, He is "Jahweh our Just One" (xxiii, 6; also xxxiii, 16). Micheas speaks of the twofold coming of the Child, His birth in time at Bethlehem and His procession in eternity from the Father (v, 2). The Messianic value of this text is proved by its interpretation in Matthew (ii, 6). Zacharias makes Jahweh to speak of the Messias as "my Companion"; but a companion is on an equal footing with Jahweh (xiii, 7). Malachias says: "Behold I send my angel, and he shall prepare the way before my face, and presently the Lord, whom you seek, and the angel of the testament, whom you desire, shall come to his temple" (iii, 1). The messenger spoken of here is certainly St. John the Baptist. The words of Malachias are interpreted of the Precursor by Our Lord Himself (Matt., xi, 10). But the Baptist prepared the way before the face of Jesus Christ. Hence the Christ was the spokesman of the words of Malachias. But the words of Malachias are uttered by Jahweh the great God of Israel. Hence the Christ or Messias and Jahweh are one and the same Divine Person. The argument is rendered even more forcible by the fact that not only is the speaker, Jahweh the God of hosts, here one and the same with the Messias before Whose face the Baptist went: but the prophecy of the Lord's coming to the Temple applies to the Messias a name that is ever reserved for Jahweh alone. That name occurs seven times (Ex., xxiii, 17; xxxiv, 23; Is., i, 24; iii, 1; x, 16 and 33; xix, 4) outside of Malachias, and is clear in its reference to the God of Israel. The last of the prophets of Israel gives clear testimony that the Messias is the very God of Israel Himself. This argument from the prophets in favour of the Divinity of the Messias is most convincing if received in the light of Christian revelation, in which light we present it. The cumulative force of the argument is well worked out in "Christ in Type and Prophecy", by Maas.
B. New Testament Proofs
We shall give the witness of the Four Evangelists and of St. Paul. The argument from the New Testament has a cumulative weight that is overwhelming in its effectiveness, once the inspiration of the New Testament and the Divine ambassadorship of Jesus are proved (see INSPIRATION; CHRISTIANITY). The process of the Catholic apologetic and dogmatic upbuilding is logical and never-failing. The Catholic theologian first establishes the teaching body to which Christ gave His deposit of revealed truth, to have and to keep and to hand down that deposit without error or failure. This teaching body gives us the Bible; and gives us the dogma of the Divinity of Christ in the unwritten and the written Word of God, i. e. in tradition and Scripture. When contrasted with the Protestant position upon "the Bible, the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible"--no, not even anything to tell us what is the Bible and what is not the Bible--the Catholic position upon the Christ-established, never-failing, never-erring teaching body is impregnable. The weakness of the Protestant position is evidenced in the matter of this very question of the Divinity of Jesus Christ. The Bible is the one and only rule of faith of Unitarians, who deny the Divinity of Jesus; of Modernistic Protestants, who make out His Divinity to be an evolution of His inner consciousness; of all other Protestants, be their thoughts of Christ whatsoever they may. The strength of the Catholic position will be clear to any one who has followed the trend of Modernism outside the Church and the suppression thereof within the pale.
WITNESS OF THE EVANGELISTS
We here assume the Gospels to be authentic, historical documents given to us by the Church as the inspired Word of God. We waive the question of the dependence of Matthew upon the Logia, the origin of Mark from "Q", the literary or other dependence of Luke upon Mark; all these questions are treated in their proper places and do not belong here in the process of Catholic apologetic and dogmatic theology. We here argue from the Four Gospels as from the inspired Word of God. The witness of the Gospels to the Divinity of Christ is varied in kind.
Jesus is the Divine Messias
The Evangelists, as we have seen, refer to the prophecies of the Divinity of the Messias as fulfilled in Jesus (see Matt., i, 23; ii, 6: Mark, i, 2: Luke, vii, 27).
Jesus is the Son of God
According to the testimony of the Evangelists, Jesus Himself bore witness to His Divine
Sonship. As Divine Ambassador He can not have borne false witness. Firstly, He
asked the disciples, at Caesarea Philippi, "Whom do men say that the Son of man is?"
(Matt., xvi, 13). This name Son of man was commonly used by the Saviour in regard to
Himself; it bore testimony to His human nature and oneness with us. The disciples
made answer that others said He was one of the prophets. Christ pressed them. "But
whom do you say that I am? "(ibid., 15). Peter, as spokesman, replied: "Thou art
Christ, the Son of the living God" (ibid., 16). Jesus was satisfied with this answer; it set
Him above all the prophets who were the
Secondly, we find that He allowed others to give Him this title and to show by the act
of real adoration that they meant real Sonship. The possessed fell down and
Thirdly, the witness of Jesus to His Divine Sonship is clear enough in the Synoptics, as we see from the foregoing argument and shall see by the exegesis of other texts; but is perhaps even more evident in John. Jesus indirectly but clearly assumes the title when He says: "Do you say of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world: Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? . . . the Father is in me and I in the Father." (John, x, 36, 38.) An even clearer witness is given in the narrative of the cure of the blind man in Jerusalem. Jesus said: "Dost thou believe in the Son of God?" He answered, and said: "Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him? And Jesus said to him: Thou hast both seen him; and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said: I believe, Lord. And falling down, he adored him." (John, ix, 35-38.) Here as elsewhere, the act of adoration is allowed, and the implicit assent is in this wise given to the assertion of the Divine Sonship of Jesus.
Fourthly, likewise to His enemies, Jesus made undoubted profession of His Divine
Sonship in the real and not the figurative sense of the word; and the Jews understood
Him to say that He was really God. His way of speaking had been somewhat esoteric.
He spoke often in parables. He willed then, as He wills now, that faith be "the
evidence of things that appear not" (Heb., xi, 1). The Jews tried to catch Him, to make
Him speak openly. They met Him in the portico of Solomon and said: "How long dost
thou hold our souls in suspense? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly" (John, x, 24).
The answer of Jesus is typical. He puts them off for a while; and in the end tells them
the tremendous truth: "I and the Father are one" (John, x, 30). They take up stones to
kill Him. He asks why. He makes them admit that they have understood Him aright.
They answer: "For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that
thou, being a man makest thyself God" (ibid., 33). These same enemies had clear
statement of the claim of Jesus on the last night that He spent on earth. Twice He
appeared before the Sanhedrim, the highest authority of the enslaved Jewish nation.
The first times the high priest, Caiphas, stood up and demanded: "I adjure thee by the
living God, that thou tell us if thou be the Christ the Son of God " (Matt., xxvi, 63). Jesus
had before held His peace. Now His mission calls for a reply. "Thou hast said
Fifthly, we may only give a summary of the other uses of thee title Son of God in
regard to Jesus. The angel Gabriel proclaims to Mary that her son will "be called the
Son of the most High" (Luke, i, 32); "the Son of God" (Luke, i, 35); St. John speaks of
Him as "the only begotten of the Father" (John, i, 14); at the Baptism of Jesus and at His
Transfiguration, a voice from heaven cries: "This is my beloved son" (Matt., iii, 17;
Mark, i, 11; Luke, iii, 22; Matt., xvii., 3); St. John gives it as his very set purpose, in his
Gospel, "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" (John, xx, 31).
Sixthly, in the testimony of John, Jesus identifies Himself absolutely with the Divine
Father. According to John, Jesus says: "he that seeth me seeth the Father" (ibid., xiv, 9).
St. Athanasius links this clear testimony to the other witness of John "I and the Father
are one" (ibid., x, 30); and thereby establishes the consubstantiality of the Father and the
Son. St. John Chrysostom interprets the text in the same sense. A last proof from John
is in the words that bring his first Epistle to a close: "We know that the Son of God is
come: and He hath given us understanding that we may know the true God, and may
be in his true Son. This is the true God and life eternal" (I John, v, 20). No one denies
that "the Son of God" who is come is Jesus Christ. This Son of God is the "true Son" of
"the true God"; in fact, this true son of the True God, i. e. Jesus, is the true God and is
life eternal. Such is the exegesis of this text given by all the Fathers that have
interpreted it (see Corluy, "Spicilegium Dogmatico-Biblicum", ed. Gandavi, 1884, II,
48). All the Fathers that have either interpreted or cited this text, refer
Jesus is God
St. John affirms in plain words that Jesus is God. The set purpose of the aged disciple
was to teach the Divinity of Jesus in the Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse that he has
left us; he was aroused to action against the first heretics that bruised the Church.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they
would no doubt have remained with us" (I John, ii, 19). They did not confess Jesus
Christ with that confession which they had obligation to make (I John, iv, 3). John's
Gospel gives us the clearest confession of the Divinity of Jesus. We may translate from
the original text: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was in relation to God
and the Word was God" (John i, 1). The words
(b) WITNESS OF ST. PAUL
It is not the set purpose of St. Paul, outside of the Epistle to the Hebrews, to prove the
Divinity of Jesus Christ. The great Apostle takes this fundamental principle of
Christianity for granted. Yet so clear is the witness of Paul to this fact of Christ's
Divinity, that the Rationalists and rationalistic Lutherans of Germany have strived to
get away from the forcefulness of the witness of the Apostle by rejecting his form of
Christianity as not conformable to the Christianity of Jesus. Hence they cry: "Los von
Paulus, zuruck zu Christus"; that is, "Away from Paul, back to Christ" (see Julicher,
Paulus und Christus", ed. Mohr, 1909). We assume the historicity of the Epistles of
Paul; to a Catholic, the Christianity of St. Paul is one and the same with the Christianity
of Christ. (See PAUL, SAINT). To the Romans, Paul writes: "God sending his own Son,
in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin" (viii, 3). His Own Son (
This identification of the Christ with Jahweh is clearer in the First Epistle to the
Corinthians. Christ is said to have been Jahweh of the Exodus. "And all drank the
same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the
rock was Christ)" (x, 4). It was Christ Whom some of the Israelites "tempted, and (they)
perished by the serpents" (x, 10); it was Christ against Whom "some of them
murmured, and were destroyed by the destroyer" (x, 11). St. Paul takes over the
Septuagint translation of Jahweh
C. Witness of Tradition
The two main sources wherefrom we draw our information as to tradition, or the unwritten Word of God, are the Fathers of the Church and the general councils.
(a) THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH
The Fathers are practically unanimous in explicitly teaching the Divinity of Jesus Christ. The testimony of many has been given in our exegesis of the dogmatic texts that prove the Christ to be God. It would take over-much space to cite the Fathers adequately. We shall confine ourselves to those of the Apostolic and apologetic ages. By joining these testimonies to those of the Evangelists and St. Paul, we can see clearly that the Holy Office was right in condemning these propositions of Modernism: "The Divinity of Christ is not proven by the Gospels but is a dogma that the Christian conscience has evolved from the notion of a Messiah. It may be taken for granted that the Christ Whom history shows us is much inferior to the Christ Who is the object of Faith" (see prop. xxvii and xxix of Decree "Lamentabili").
St. Clement of Rome (A. D. 93-95, according to Harnack), in his first epistle to the Corinthians, xvi, 2, speaks of "The Lord Jesus Christ, the Sceptre of the Might of God" (Funk, " Patres Apostolici", Tubingen ed., 1901, p. 118), and describes, by quoting Is., 1ii, 1-12, the humiliation that was foretold and came to pass in the self-immolation of Jesus. As the writings of the Apostolic Fathers are very scant, and not at all apologetic but rather devotional and exhortive, we should not look in them for that clear and plain defence of the Divinity of Christ which is evidenced in the writings of the apologists and later Fathers.
The witness of St. Ignatius of Antioch (A. D. 110-117, according to Harnack) is almost
that of the apologetic age, in whose spirit he seems to have written to the Ephesians. It
may well be that at Ephesus the very same heresies were now doing havoc which about
ten years before or, according to Harnack's chronology, at the very same time, St. John
had written his Gospel to undo. If this be so, we understand the bold confession of the
Divinity of Jesus Christ which this grand confessor of the Faith brings into his
greetings, at the beginning of his letter to the Ephesians. "Ignatius . . . . to the Church . .
. which is at Ephesus . . . . in the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ
The witness of the Letter of Barnabas: "Lo, again, Jesus is not the Son of man but the Son of God, made manifest in form in the Flesh. And since men were going to say that the Christ was the Son of David, David himself, fearing and understanding the malice of the wicked, made prophecy: The Lord said to my Lord . . . . . Lo, how David calls Him the Lord and not son" (c. xiii; Funk, I, 77).
In the apologetic age, Saint Justin Martyr (Harnack. A. D. 150) wrote: "Since the Word is the first-born of God, He is also God" (Apol. I, n. 63; P. G., VI, 423). It is evident from the context that Justin means Jesus Christ by the Word; he had just said that Jesus was the Word before He became Man, and used to appear in the form of fire or of some other incorporeal image. St. Irenaeus proves that Jesus Christ is rightly called the one and only God and Lord, in that all things are said to have been made by Him (see "Adv. Haer.", III, viii, n. 3; P. G., VII, 868; bk. IV, 10, 14, 36). Deutero-Clement (Harnack, A. D. 166; Sanday, A. D. 150) insists: "Brethren, we should think of Jesus Christ as of God Himself, as of the Judge of the living and the dead" (see Funk, I, 184). St. Clement of Alexandria (Sanday, A. D. 190) speaks of Christ as "true God without any controversy, the equal of the Lord of the whole universe, since He is the Son and the Word is in God" (Cohortatio ad Gentes, c. x; P. G., VIII, 227).
Pagan Writers
To the witness of these Fathers of the Apostolic and apologetic age, we add a few
witnesses from the contemporary pagan writers. Pliny (A. D. 107) wrote to Trajan that
the Christians were wont before the light of day to meet and to sing praises "to Christ
as to God" (Epist., x, 97). The Emperor Hadrian (A. D. 117) wrote to Servianus that
many Egyptians had become Christians, and that converts to Christianity were "forced
to adore Christ", since He was their God (see Saturninus, c. vii). Lucian scoffs at the
Christians because they had been persuaded by Christ "to throw over the gods of the
Greeks and to adore Him fastened to a cross" (De Morte Peregrini, 13). Here also may
be mentioned the well-known
(b) WITNESS OF THE COUNCILS
The first general council of the Church was called to define the Divinity of Jesus Christ
and to condemn Arius and his error (see ARIUS). Previous to this time, heretics had
denied this great and fundamental dogma of the Faith; but the Fathers had been equal
to the task of refuting the error and of stemming the tide of heresy. Now the tide of
heresy was so strong as to have need of the authority of the universal Church to
withstand it. In his "Thalia", Arius taught that the Word was not eternal (
(2) THE HUMAN NATURE OF JESUS CHRIST
The Gnostics taught that matter was of its very nature evil, somewhat as the present-
day Christian scientists teach that it is an "error of mortal mind"; hence Christ as God
could not have had a material body, and His body was only apparent. These heretics,
called
(3) THE HYPOSTATIC UNION OF THE DIVINE NATURE AND THE HUMAN NATURE OF JESUS IN THE DIVINE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST
Here we consider this union as a fact; the nature of the union will be later taken up. Now it is our purpose to prove that the Divine nature was really and truly united with the human nature of Jesus, i. e., that one and the same Person, Jesus Christ, was God and man. We speak here of no moral union, no union in a figurative sense of the word; but a union that is physical, a union of two substances or natures so as to make One Person, a union which means that God is Man and Man is God in the Person of Jesus Christ.
A. The Witness of Holy Writ
St. John says: "The Word was made flesh" (i, 14), that is, He Who was God in the
Beginning (i, 2), and by Whom all things were created (i. 3), became Man. According to
the testimony of St. Paul, the very same Person, Jesus Christ, "being in the form of God
[
B. Witness of Tradition
The early forms of the creed all make profession of faith, not in one Jesus Who is the
Son of God and in another Jesus Who is Man and was crucified, but "in one Lord Jesus
Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, Who became Man for us and was crucified". The
forms vary, but the substance of each creed invariably attributes to one and the same
Jesus Christ the predicates of the Godhead and of man (see Denzinger, "Enchiridion").
Franzelin (thesis xvii) calls special attention to the fact that, long before the heresy of
Nestorius, according to Epiphanius (Ancorat., II, 123, in P. G., XLII, 234), it was the
custom of the Oriental Church to propose to catechumens a creed that was very much
more detailed than that proposed to the faithful; and in this creed the catechumens
said: "We believe . . . in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of God the
Father . . . that is, of the substance of the Father . . . in Him Who for us men and for our
salvation came down and was made Flesh, that is, was perfectly begotten of Mary ever
Virgin by the Holy Spirit; Who became Man, that is, took perfect human nature, soul
and body and mind and all whatsoever is human save only sin, without the seed of
man; not in another man, but unto himself did He form Flesh into one holy unity [
The witness of tradition to the fact of the union of the two natures in the one Person of Jesus is clear not only from the symbols or creeds in use before the condemnation of Nestorius, but also from the words of the ante-Nicaean Fathers. We have already given the classic quotations from St. Ignatius the Martyr, St. Clement of Rome, St. Justin the Martyr, in all of which are attributed to the one Person, Jesus Christ, the actions or attributes of God and of Man. Melito, Bishop of Sardis (about 176), says: "Since the same (Christ) was at the same time God and perfect Man, He made His two natures evident to us; His Divine nature by the miracles which He wrought during the three years after His baptism; His human nature by those thirtv years that He first lived, during which the lowliness of the Flesh covered over and hid away all signs of the Divinity, though He was at one and the same time true and everlasting God" (Frag. vii in P. G., V, 1221). St. Irenaeus, toward the close of the second century, argues: "If one person suffered and another Person remained incapable of suffering; if one person was born and another Person came down upon him that was born and thereafter left him, not one person but two are proven . . . whereas the Apostle knew one only Who was born and Who suffered" ("Adv. Haer.", III, xvi, n, 9, in P. G., VII, 928). Tertullian bears firm witness: "Was not God really crucified? Did He not realiy die as He really was crucified?" ("De Carne Christi", c. v, in P. L., II, 760).
II. THE NATURE OF THE INCARNATION
We have treated the fact of the Incarnation, that is, the fact of the Divine nature of Jesus, the fact of the human nature of Jesus, the fact of the union of these two natures in Jesus. We now take up the crucial question of the nature of this fact, the manner of this tremendous miracle, the way of uniting the Divine with the human nature in one and the same Person. Arius had denied the fact of this union. No other heresy rent and tore the body of the Church to any very great extent in the matter of this fact after the condemnation of Arius in the Council of Nicaea (325). Soon a new heresy arose in the explanation of the fact of the union of the two natures in Christ. Nicaea had, indeed, defined the fact of the union; it had not explicitly defined the nature of that fact; it had not said whether that union was moral or physical. The council had implicitly defined the union of the two natures in one hypostasis, a union called physical in opposition to the mere juxtaposition or joining of the two natures called a moral union. Nicaea had professed a belief in "One Lord Jesus Christ . . . true God of true God . . . Who took Flesh, became Man and suffered". This belief was in one Person Who was at the same time God and Man, that is, had at the same time Divine and human nature. Such teaching was an implicit definition of all that was later on denied by Nestorius. We shall find the great Athanasius, for fifty years the determined foe of the heresiarch, interpreting Nicaea's decree in just this sense; and Athanasius must have known the sense meant by Nicaea, in which he was the antagonist of the heretic Arius.
(1) NESTORIANISM
In spite of the efforts of Athanasius, Nestorius, who had been elected Patriarch of
Constantinople (428), found a loophole to avoid the definition of Nicaea. Nestorius (q.
v.) called the union of the two natures a mysterious and an inseparable joining
(
Nestorius in this distortion of the sense of Nicaea clearly went against the tradition of
the Church. Before he had denied the hypostatic union of the two natures in Jesus, that
union had been taught by the greatest Fathers of their time. St. Hippolytus (about 230)
taught: "the Flesh [
The Council of Ephesus (431) condemned the heresy of Nestorius, and defined that
Mary was mother in the flesh of God's Word made Flesh (can. i). It anathematized all
who deny that the Word of God the Father was united with the Flesh in one hypostasis
(
(2) MONOPHYSITISM
The condemnation of the heresy of Nestorius saved for the Church the dogma of the Incarnation, "the great mystery of godliness" (I Tim., iii, 16), but lost to her a portion of her children, who, though dwindled down to insignificant numbers, still remain apart from her care. The union of the two natures in one Person was saved. The battle for the dogma was not yet won. Nestorius had postulated two persons in Jesus Christ. A new heresy soon began. It postulated only one Person in Jesus, and that the Divine Person. It went farther. It went too far. The new heresy defended only one nature, as well as one Person in Jesus. The leader of this heresy was Eutyches. His followers were called Monophysites. They varied in their ways of explanation. Some thought the two natures were intermingled into one. Others are said to have worked out some sort of a conversion of the human into the Divine. All were condemned by the Council of Chalcedon (451). This Fourth General Council of the Church defined that Jesus Christ remained, after the Incarnation, "perfect in Divinity and perfect in humanity . . . consubstantial with the Father according to His Divinity, consubstantial with us according to His humanity . . . one and the same Christ, the Son, the Lord, the Only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures not intermingled, not changed, not divisible, not separable" (see Denzinger, n. 148). By this condemnation of error and definition of truth, the dogma of the Incarnation was once again saved to the Church. Once again a large portion of the faithful of the Oriental Church were lost to their mother. Monophysitism resulted in the national Churches of Syria, Egypt, and Armenia. These national Churches are still heretic, although there have in later times been formed Catholic rites called the Catholic Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian rites. The Catholic rites, as the Catholic Chaldaic rite, are less numerous than the heretic rites.
(3) MONOTHELITISM
One would suppose that there was no more room for heresy in the explanation of the
mystery of the nature of the Incarnation. There is always room for heresy in the matter
of explanation of a mystery, if one does not hear the infallible teaching body to whom
and to whom alone Christ entrusted His mysteries to have and to keep and to teach
them till ihe end of time. Three patriarchs of the Oriental Church gave rise, so far as we
know, to the new heresy. These three heresiarchs were Sergius, the Patriarch of
Constantinople, Cyrus, the Patriarch of Alexandria, and Athanasius, the Patriarch of
Antioch. St. Sophronius, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, remained true and delated his
fellow patriarchs to Pope Honorius. His successor in the see of Peter, St. Martin,
bravely condemned the error of the three Oriental patriarchs, who admitted the decrees
of Nicaea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon; defended the union of two natures in one Divine
Person; but denied that this Divine Person had two wills. Their principle was
expressed by the words,
The error of Monothelism is clear from the Scripture as well as from tradition. Christ did acts of adoration (John, iv, 22), humility (Matt., xi, 29), reverence (Heb., v, 7). These acts are those of a human will. The Monothelites denied that there was a human will in Christ. Jesus prayed: "Father, if Thou wilt, remove this chalice from me: but yet not my will, but thine be done," (Luke, xxii, 42). Here there is question of two wills, the Father's and Christ's. The will of Christ was subject to the will of the Father. "As the Father hath given me commandment, so do I" (John, xiv, 31). He became obedient even unto death (Phil., ii, 8). The Divine will in Jesus could not have been subject to the will of the Father, with which will it was really identified.
(4) THE CATHOLIC FAITH
Thus far we have that which is of Faith in this matter of the nature of the Incarnation.
The human and Divine natures are united in one Divine Person so as to remain that
exactly which they are, namely, Divine and human natures with distinct and perfect
activities of their own. Theologians go farther in their attempts to give some account of
the mystery of the Incarnation, so as, at least, to show that there is therein no
contradiction, nothing that right reason may not safely adhere to. This union of the two
natures in one Person has been for centuries called a hypostatic union, that is, a union
in the Divine Hypostasis. What is an hypostasis? The definition of Boethius is classic:
III. EFFECTS OF THE INCARNATION
(1) ON CHRIST HIMSELF
A. On the Body of Christ
Did union with the Divine nature do away, with all bodily inperfections? The Monophysites were split up into two parties by this question. Catholics hold that, before the Resurrection, the Body of Christ was subject to all the bodily weaknesses to which human nature unassumed is universally subject; such are hunger, thirst, pain, death. Christ hungered (Matt., iv, 2), thirsted (John, xix, 28), was fatigued (John, iv, 6), suffered pain and death. "We have not a high priest, who cannot have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin" (Heb., iv, 15). "For in that, wherein he himself hath suffered and been tempted, he is able to succour them also that are tempted" (Heb., ii, 18). All these bodily weaknesses were not miraculously brought about by Jesus; they were the natural results of the human nature He assumed. To be sure, they might have been impeded and were freely willed by Christ. They were part of the free oblation that began with the moment of the Incarnation. "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith: Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not; but a body thou hast fitted to me" (Heb., x, 5). The Fathers deny that Christ assumed sickness. There is no mention in Scripture of any sickness of Jesus. Sickness is not a weakness that is a necessary belonging of human nature. It is true that pretty much all mankind suffers sickness. It is not true that any specific sickness is suffered by all mankind. Not all men must needs have measles. No one definite sickness universally belongs to human nature; hence no one definite sickness was assumed by Christ. St. Athanasius gives the reason that it were unbecoming that He should heal others who was Himself not healed (P. G., XX, 133). Weaknesses due to old age are common to mankind. Had Christ lived to an old age, He would have suffered such weaknesses just as He suffered the weaknesses that are common to infancy. Death from old age would have come to Jesus, had He not been violently put to death (see St. Augustine, " De Peccat.", II, 29; P. L., XLIV, 180). The reasonableness of these bodily imperfections in Christ is clear from the fact that He assumed human nature so as to satisfy for that nature's sin. Now,to satisfy forthe sin of another is to accept the penalty of that sin. Hence it was fitting that Christ should take upon himself all those penalties of the sin of Adam that are common to man and becoming. or at least not unbecoming to the Hypostatic Union. (See St. Thomas, III, Q. xiv, for other reasons.) As Christ did not take sickness upon Himself, so other imperfections, such as deformities, which are not common to mankind, were not His. St. Clement of Alexandria (III Paedagogus, c. 1), Tertullian (De Carne Christi, c. ix), and a few others taught that Christ was deformed. They misinterpreted the words of Isaias: "There is no beauty in him, nor comeliness; and we have seen him, and there was no sightlinesss" etc. (liii, 2). The words refer only to the suffering Christ. Theologians now are unanimous in the view that Christ was noble in bearing and beautiful in form, such as a perfect man should be; for Christ was, by virtue of His incarnation, a perfect man (see Stentrup, "Christologia", theses lx, lxi).
B. On the Human Soul of Christ
(a) IN THE WILL
Sinlessness
The effect of the Incarnation on the human will of Christ was to leave it free in all things save only sin. It was absolutely impossible that any stain of sin should soil the soul of Christ. Neither sinful act of the will nor sinful habit of the soul were in keeping with the Hypostatic Union. The fact that Christ never sinned is an article of faith (see Council, Ephes., can. x, in Denzinger, 122, wherein the sinlessness of Christ is implicit in the definition that he did not offer Himself for Himself, but for us). This fact of Christ's sinlessness is evident from the Scripture. "There is no sin in Him" (I John, iii, 5). Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin for us" i. e. a victim for sin (II Cor., v, 21). The impossibility of a sinful act by Christ is taught by all theologians, but variously explained. Gunther defended an impossibility consequent solely upon the Divine provision that He would not sin (Vorschule, II, 441). This is no impossibility at all. Christ is God. It is absolutely impossible, antecedent to the Divine prevision, that God should allow His flesh to sin. If God allowed His flesh to sin, He might sin, that is, He might turn away from Himself; and it is absolutely impossible that God should turn from Himself, be untrue to His Divine attributes. The Scotists teach that this impossibility to sin, antecedent to God's revision, is not due to the Hypostatic Union, but is like to the impossibility of the beatified to sin, and is due to a special Divine Providence (see Scotus, in III, d. xiii, Q. i). St. Thomas (III, Q. xv, a. 1) and all Thomists, Suarez (d. xxxiii, 2), Vasquez (d. xi, c. iii), de Lugo (d. xxvi, 1, n. 4), and all theologians of the Society of Jesus teach the now almost universally admitted explanation that the absolute impossibility of a sinful act on the part of Christ was due to the hypostatic union of His human nature with the Divine.
Liberty
The will of Christ remained free after the Incarnation. This is an article of faith. The Scripture is most clear on this point. "When he had tasted, he would not drink" (Matt., xxvii, 34). "I will; be thou made clean" (Matt., viii, 3). The liberty of Christ was such that He merited. "He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. For which cause God also hath exalted him" (Phil., ii, 8). "Who having joy set before him, endured the cross" (Heb., xii, 2). That Christ was free in the matter of death, is the teaching of all Catholics; else He did not merit nor satisfy for us by His death. Just how to reconcile this liberty of Christ with the impossibility of His committing sin has ever been a crux for theologians. Some seventeen explanations are given (see St. Thomas, III, Q. xlvii, a. 3, ad 3; Molina, "Concordia", d. liii, membr. 4).
(b) IN THE INTELLECT
The effects of the Hypostatic Union upon the knowledge of Christ will be treated in a special article (See KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST).
(c) SANCTITY OF CHRIST
The Humanity of Christ was holy by a twofold sanctity: the grace of union and sanctifying grace. The grace of union, i. e. the Substantial and Hypostatic Union of the two natures in the Divine Word, is called the substantial sanctity of Christ. St. Augustine says: "Tunc ergo sanctificavit se in se, hoc est hominem se in Verbo se, quia unus est Christus, Verbum et homo, sanctificans hominem in Verbo" (When the Word was made Flesh then, indeed, He sanctified Himself in Himself, that is, Himself as Man in Himself as Word; for that Christ is One Person, both Word and Man, and renders His human nature holy in the holiness of the Divine nature) (In Johan. tract. 108, n. 5, in P. L., XXXV, l916). Besides this substantial sanctity of the grace of Hypostatic Union, there was in the soul of Christ, the accidental sanctity called sanctifying grace. This is the teaching of St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and of the Fathers generally. The Word was "full of grace" (John, i, 14), and "of his fullness we all have received, and grace for grace" (John, i, 16). The Word were not full of grace, if any grace were wanting in Him which would be a perfection fitting to His human nature. All theologians teach that sanctifying grace is a perfection fitting the humanity of Christ. The mystical body of Christ is the Church, whereof Christ is the Head (Rom., xii, 4; I Cor., xii, 11; Eph., i, 20; iv, 4; Col. i, 18: ii, 10). It is especially in this sense that we say the grace of the Head flows through the channels of the sacraments of the Church--through the veins of the body of Christ. Theologians commonly teach that from the very beginning of His existence, He received the fullness of sanctifying grace and other supernatural gifts (except faith, hope, and the moral virtue of penance); nor did He ever increase in these gifts or this sanctifying grace. For so to increase would be to become more pleasing to the Divine Majesty; and this were impossible in Christ. Hence St. Luke meant (ii, 52) that Christ showed more and more day after day the effects of grace in His outward bearing.
(d) LIKES AND DISLIKES
The Hypostatic Union did not deprive the Human Soul of Christ of its human likes and
dislikes. The affections of a man, the emotions of a man were His in so far as they were
becoming to the grace of union, in so far as they were not out of order. St. Augustine
well argues: "Human affections were not out of place in Him in Whom there was really
and truly a human body and a human soul" (De Civ. Dei, XIV, ix, 3). We find that he
was subject to anger against the blindness of heart of sinners (Mark, iii, 5); to fear
(Mark, xiv, 33); to sadness (Matt., xxvi, 37): to the sensible affections of hope, of desire,
and of joy. These likes and dislikes were under the complete will-control of Christ.
The
C. On the God-Man (Deus-Homo,
One of the most important effects of the union of the Divine nature and human nature
in One Person is a mutual interchange of attributes, Divine and human, between God
and man, the
(2) THE ADORATION OF THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST
The human nature of Christ, united hypostatically with the Divine nature, is adored
with the same worship as the Divine nature (see ADORATION). We adore the Word
when we adore Christ the Man; but the Word is God. The human nature of Christ is
not at all the reason of our adoration of Him; that reason is only the Divine nature. The
entire term of our adoration is the Incarnate Word; the motive of the adoration is the
Divinity of the Incarnate Word. The partial term of our adoration may be the human
nature of Christ: the motive of the adoration is the same as the motive of the adoration
that reaches the entire term. Hence, the act of adoration of the Word Incarnate is the
same absolute act of adoration that reaches the human nature. The Person of Christ is
Iadored with the cult called
(3) OTHER EFFECTS OF THE INCARNATION
The effects of the incarnation on the Blessed Mother and us, will be found treated under the respective special subjects. (See GRACE; JUSTIFICATION; SATISFACTION; IMMACULATE CONCEPTION; MARY, THE BLESSED VIRGIN.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Fathers of the Church: ST. IRENAEUS,
Scholastics: ST. THOMAS,
WALTER DRUM
Transcribed by Mary Ann Grelinger
Taken from the New Advent Web Page (www.knight.org/advent).
This article is part of the Catholic Encyclopedia Project, an effort aimed at placing the entire Catholic Encyclopedia on the World Wide Web. The coordinator is Kevin Knight, editor of the New Advent Catholic Website. If you would like to contribute to this worthwhile project, you can contact him by e-mail at (knight@knight.org). For more information please download the file cathen.txt/.zip.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network PO Box 3610 Manassas, VA 22110 Voice: 703-791-2576 Fax: 703-791-4250 Data: 703-791-4336 Web: http://www.ewtn.com Ftp: ftp.ewtn.com Telnet: ewtn.com Email address: sysop@ewtn.com
EWTN provides a Catholic online information and service system.