(3) becoming flesh, without contraction of deity or humanity ( <540316>1 Timothy 3:16 ? ?who was manifested in the flesh?; <620402>1 John 4:2 ? ?Jesus Christ is come in the flesh?; <430641>John 6:41, 51 ? ?I am the bread which came down out of heaven...I am the living bread?; 2 John 7 ? ?Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh?; <430114>John 1:14 ? ?the Word became flesh?. This last text cannot mean that the Logos ceased to be what he was and began to be only man. Nor can it be a mere theophany, in human form. The reality of the humanity is intimated, as well as the reality of the Logos.?
The Lutherans hold to a communion of the natures, as well as to an impartation of their properties. Genus idiomaticum = impartation of attributes of both natures to the one person, genus apotelesmaticum (from ajpote>lesma , ?that which is finished or completed,? i. e., Jesus? work) = attributes of the one person imparted to each of the constituent natures. Hence Mary may be called ?the mother of God,? as the Chalcedon symbol declares, ?as to his humanity,? and what each nature did has the value of both. Genus majestaticum = attributes of one nature imparted to the other, yet so that the divine nature imparts to the human, not the human to the divine. The Lutherans do not believe in a genus tapeinoticon, i. e., that the human elements communicated themselves to the divine. The only communication of the human was to the person, not to the divine nature, of the God-man. Examples of this third genus majestaticum are found in
<430313> John 3:13 ? ?no one hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man who is in heaven? [here, however, Westcott and Hort, with a , and B omit oJ w}n ejn tw~| oujranw~| ]; 5:27 ? ?he gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a son of man.? Of the explanation that this is the figure of speech called
?allusis,? Luther says: ? Allusis est larva qedam diaboli, secundum cujus rationes ego certe nolim esse Christianus.?
The genus majestaticum is denied by the Reformed Church on the ground that it does not permit a clear distinction of the natures. And this is one great difference between that and the Lutheran Church. So Hooker, in commenting upon the Son of man?s ?ascending up where he was before,? says: ?By the ?Son of man? must be meant the whole person of Christ, who, being man upon earth, filled heaven with his glorious presence but not according to that nature for which the title of man is given him.? For the Lutheran view of this union and its results in the communion of natures, see Hase, Hutterus Redivivus, 11th ed., 195-197; Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, 2:24, 25. For the Reformed view, see Turretin, loc. 13, quest. 8; Hodge, Systematic Theology, 2:387-397, 407-418.
2. Modern misrepresentations of this Union.
Was this article helpful?