By the impersonality of Christ?s human nature, we mean only that it had no personality before Christ took it, no personality before its union with the divine. It was a human nature whose consciousness and will were developed only in union with the personality of the Logos. The Fathers therefore rejected the word ajnupostasi>a , and substituted the word ejnupostasi>a , they favored not ?unpersonality? but ?inpersonality?. In still plainer terms, the Logos did not take into union with himself an already developed human person such as James, Peter or John but human nature before it had become personal or was capable of receiving a name. It reached its personality only in union with his divine nature. Therefore we see in Christ not two persons (a human person and a divine person) but one person and that person possessed of a human nature as well as of a divine. For proof of this, see pages 683-700, also Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2:289-308.
Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 136 ? ?We count it no defect in our bodies that they have no personal subsistence apart from ourselves and that, if separated from ourselves, they are nothing. They share in a true personal life because we whose bodies they are, are persons. What happens to them happens to us.? In a similar manner the personality of the Logos furnished the organizing principle of Jesus? twofold nature. As he looked backward he could see himself dwelling in eternity with God, so far as his divine nature was concerned. But as respects his humanity he could remember that it was not eternal ? it had had its beginnings in time. Yet this humanity had never had a separate personal existence; its personality had been developed only in connection with the divine nature. Goschel, quoted in Dorner?s Person of Christ, 5:170 ? ?Christ is humanity, we have it, he is it entirely, we participate therein. His personality precedes and lies at the basis of the personality of the race and its individuals. As idea, he is implanted in the whole of humanity, he lies at the basis of every human consciousness without however, attaining realization in an individual for this is only possible in the entire race at the end of the times.?
Emma Marie Caillard, on Man in the Light of Evolution, in Contemp. Rev., Dec. 1893:873-881 ? ?Christ is not only the goal of the race which is to be conformed to him but he is also the vital principle, which moulds each individual of that race into its own similitude. The perfect type exists potentially through all the intermediate stages by which it is more and more nearly approached and, if it did not exist, neither could they. There could be no development of an absent life. The goal of man?s evolution, the perfect type of manhood, is Christ. He exists and always has existed potentially in the race and in the individual, equally before as after his visible incarnation, equally in the millions of those who do not, as in the
<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->
Was this article helpful?